Sirolimus-based immunosuppressive [correction of immunosuppresive] protocol for calcineurin sparing in liver transplantation

Sirolimus conversion regimen versus continued calcineurin inhibitors in liver allograft recipients: a randomized trial

A large prospective, open-label, randomized trial evaluated conversion from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)- to sirolimus (SRL)-based immunosuppression for preservation of renal function in liver transplantation patients. Eligible patients received liver allografts 6-144 months previously and maintenance immunosuppression with CNI (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) since early posttransplantation. In total, 607 patients were randomized (2:1) to abrupt conversion (<24 h) from CNI to SRL (n = 393) or CNI continuation for up to 6 years (n = 214). Between-group changes in baseline-adjusted mean Cockcroft-Gault GFR at month 12 (primary efficacy end point) were not significant. The primary safety end point, noninferiority of cumulative rate of graft loss or death at 12 months, was not met (6.6% vs. 5.6% in the SRL and CNI groups, respectively). Rates of death at 12 months were not significantly different, and no true graft losses (e.g. liver transplantation) were observed during the 12-month period. At 52 weeks, SRL conversion was associated with higher rates of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (p = 0.02) and discontinuations (p < 0.001), primarily for adverse events. Adverse events were consistent with known safety profiles. In conclusion, liver transplantation patients showed no demonstrable benefit 1 year after conversion from CNI- to SRL-based immunosuppression.

Switching to sirolimus-based immune suppression after liver transplantation is safe and effective: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Sirolimus is unlicensed for use in liver transplantation because of concerns over safety, particularly in regard to hepatic artery thrombosis and excess mortality. However, sirolimus offers potential advantages over calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression, relating to its renal sparing and antiproliferative properties.

METHODS

A review was undertaken of 148 liver transplant patients converted to sirolimus over 10 years at a single center.

RESULTS

The main indications for sirolimus were renal impairment and hepatitis C virus fibrosis. One hundred eleven (75%) patients remained on sirolimus after median follow-up of 1006 days. Mean (+/-standard deviation) glomerular filtration rate improved significantly from 59+/-29 mL/min preconversion to 72+/-39 mL/min at censor point (P<0.05). Improvement in glomerular filtration rate was most marked in patients converted for renal impairment. Liver function tests remained stable or improved, particularly in patients transplanted for hepatitis C virus. Side effects attributed to sirolimus occurred in 101 (68%) patients requiring withdrawal in 20 patients (14%). Moderate increases in serum lipids were observed and controlled effectively with statins. The incidence of proteinuria increased postconversion but had no deleterious impact on renal function. No episodes of hepatic artery thrombosis were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Sirolimus was safe and may improve outcome in selected patients after liver transplantation.

Improvement of renal function after the switch from a calcineurin inhibitor to everolimus in liver transplant recipients with chronic renal dysfunction

Chronic renal dysfunction is a frequent and severe complication in solid-organ transplant recipients. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are the main pathogenic factors of renal dysfunction. Switching from CNIs to nonnephrotoxic drugs, such as mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), can improve renal function in these patients, but available data about the efficacy and safety of everolimus in liver transplant recipients are scarce. Twenty-one liver transplant recipients (19 males, mean age = 60.6 +/- 7.8 years) with chronic renal dysfunction (creatinine >or= 1.5 mg/dL) were prospectively included. The basal creatinine values were 1.79 +/- 0.39 mg/dL (range = 1.50-2.90 mg/dL). The basal creatinine clearance, evaluated with the Cockroft-Gault formula, was 54.64 +/- 12.47 mL/minute. Everolimus was initiated at a dosage of 0.75 mg twice daily, with target levels of 3 to 8 ng/mL. The withdrawal of CNIs was initiated after the target levels of everolimus were reached. Periodic controls of the weight, arterial pressure, liver function tests, serum creatinine, everolimus levels, proteinuria, creatinine clearance, and glomerular filtration rate at days 30, 90, 180, and 360 were made. After a median follow-up of 19.8 months, the respective creatinine values at 30, 90, 180, and 360 days were 1.68 +/- 0.40 (P = 0.012 with respect to basal values), 1.67 +/- 0.34 (P = 0.107), 1.70 +/- 0.41 (P = 0.521), and 1.57 +/- 0.30 mg/dL (P = 0.047). The respective creatinine clearance values at 30, 90, 180, and 360 days were 58.64 +/- 16.50 (P = 0.013 with respect to basal values), 59.49 +/- 13.27 (P = 0.028), 59.82 +/- 16.83 (P = 0.124), and 64.46 +/- 16.79 mL/minute (P = 0.025). CNIs were withdrawn in 20 recipients (95.2%). Rejection was not detected in any case. In conclusion, the application in liver transplant recipients with chronic renal dysfunction of an immunosuppressive protocol with everolimus and the withdrawal of CNIs was associated with an initial improvement of renal function tests without an increase in the risk of rejection.

Conversion from a calcineurin inhibitor to everolimus therapy in maintenance liver transplant recipients: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) contribute to renal dysfunction following liver transplantation. This prospective, randomized, multicenter, 6-month study (with an additional 6 months of follow-up) evaluated whether everolimus with CNI reduction or discontinuation would improve renal function in maintenance liver transplant recipients experiencing CNI-related renal impairment. Patients started everolimus therapy with CNI reduction or discontinuation (n = 72) or continued receiving standard-exposure CNI (n = 73). At month 6, 80% of the patients who had converted to everolimus had discontinued the CNI. The mean change in creatinine clearance (CrCl) from baseline to month 6 was similar between groups (everolimus, 1.0 +/- 10.2 mL/minute; controls, 2.3 +/- 7.8 mL/minute; P = 0.46), so the primary study endpoint (8 mL/minute difference in the change in CrCl) was not achieved. Among patients who continued everolimus according to the protocol, the mean increase in CrCl was 2.1 (n = 53) and 3.8 mL/minute (n = 38) at months 6 and 12, respectively, versus 2.4 (n = 68) and 3.5 mL/minute in controls (n = 51). The high frequency of CNI dose reductions in controls (77% of the patients) and the relatively long mean time post-transplant (>3 years) likely contributed to the small difference in CrCl. Biopsy-proven acute rejection occurred in 1.4% of the patients in each group, with no graft losses. Study drug discontinuation was higher in everolimus-treated patients, and adverse events were more frequent. These data demonstrate that everolimus allows for discontinuation or a major reduction of CNI exposure in liver allograft recipients suffering CNI-related renal dysfunction without a loss of efficacy. Trials targeting earlier conversion post-transplantation are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of everolimus for improving renal function after liver transplantation.

Conversion to sirolimus-based immunosuppression in maintenance liver transplantation patients

Sirolimus (SRL) has been proposed to replace calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) in case of CNI-induced toxicity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of conversion from CNI to SRL in maintenance liver transplantation (LT) patients. Between 2002 and 2006, conversion was performed in 48 patients (17 female, 31 male; mean age 57 +/- 10 yr) after a median delay of 19.4 months (range 0.2-173 months) after LT. Indication for conversion was renal impairment (RI) (78%), CNI neurotoxicity (13%), or post-LT cancer (9%). Median follow-up was 22.6 +/- 11 months. Median SRL dosage and trough levels were 2.4 +/- 1.3 mg and 8.1 +/- 2.7 microg/L. Immunosuppression consisted of SRL alone (33%), or SRL + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (39%), SRL + prednisone (15%), SRL + CNI (4%), or SRL + MMF + prednisone (8%). Mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) improved from 33 to 48 mL/minute in patients with severe RI (P = 0.022) and from 56 to 74 mL/minute in patients with moderate RI (P = 0.0001). After conversion, main complications were albuminuria (36%), hyperlipidemia (49%), dermatitis (14%), edema (14%), oral ulcers (12%), joint pain (4%), infection (2%), and pneumonia (2%). Acute rejection (AR) occurred in 17% of the patients. SRL was withdrawn in 17% of the patients. In conclusion, conversion from CNI to SRL is safe and is associated with significant renal function improvement.

Sirolimus: the evidence for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring

This review seeks to apply a decision-making algorithm to establish whether clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring (CPM) of sirolimus (rapamycin) in solid organ transplantation is indicated in specific patient populations. The need for CPM of sirolimus, although a regulatory requirement in Europe, has not yet been firmly established in North America and other parts of the world. Sirolimus has demonstrated immunosuppressive efficacy in renal, pancreatic islet cell, liver and heart transplant recipients. The pharmacological response of immunosuppressive therapy with sirolimus cannot be readily evaluated; however, a relationship between trough blood sirolimus concentrations, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and the incidence of rejection has been proposed. Furthermore, sirolimus can be measured in whole blood by several assays--high-performance liquid chromatography with detection by tandem mass spectrometry, or with ultraviolet detection, radioreceptor assay or microparticle enzyme immunoassay. Both experimental animal and clinical data suggest that adverse events and their associated severity are correlated with blood concentrations. To prevent rejection and minimise toxicity, a therapeutic range of 4-12 microg/L (measured via chromatographic assays) is recommended when sirolimus is used in conjunction with ciclosporin. If ciclosporin therapy is discontinued, a target trough range of 12-20 microg/L is recommended. Sirolimus pharmacokinetics display large inter- and intrapatient variability, which may change in specific patient populations due to disease states or concurrent immunosuppressants or other interacting drugs. Due to the long half-life of sirolimus, dosage adjustments would ideally be based on trough levels obtained more than 5-7 days after initiation of therapy or dosage change. Once the initial dose titration is complete, monitoring sirolimus trough concentrations weekly for the first month and every 2 weeks for the second month appears to be appropriate. After the first 2 months of dose titration, routine CPM of sirolimus is not necessary in all patients, but may be warranted to achieve target concentrations in certain populations of patients, but the frequency of further monitoring remains to be determined and should be individualised.

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus related liver disease

Liver transplantation is a useful treatment for end stage liver disease of all aetiologies but recurrent disease presents an ongoing challenge, particularly for hepatitis C virus (HCV) where recurrence is almost universal. Immunosuppression is needed for all patients after transplantation and should be tailored to the individual patient, with particular problems being noted for those with HCV. The longer term effects of immunosuppression, particularly renal failure and the adverse effects of certain treatments on the liver graft, have become more important as survival improves and results are studied for longer periods after transplantation.

Immunosuppression: towards a logical approach in liver transplantation

Over the last two decades there has been a significant increase in the number and types of immunosuppressive agents that have been available to clinicians. The protocols for immunosuppression used in liver transplantation have been derived historically from those in renal transplantation. During the last decade there has been a shift in the use of immunosuppression, with the introduction of interleukin (IL)-2 receptor antagonists in place of anti-lymphocyte preparations, substitution of tacrolimus for cyclosporin and mycophenolate for azathioprine. The use of corticosteroids has been reduced. For a variety of reasons, these changes have not always been made on the basis of properly randomized studies. The place of newer agents, such as sirolimus and leflunomide derivatives and of the microbiological agents, is unclear. In this review, we outline briefly the mechanism of action of drugs and suggest possible approaches to the management of the liver allograft recipient, suggesting how treatment could be adjusted according to the indication for transplantation as well as the individual's comorbidities.

Evolution of immunosuppression in liver transplantation: contribution of cyclosporine

Liver transplantation has become the standard therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease or acute liver failure, with excellent outcomes in terms of quality of life and length of survival. The use of immunosuppressive agents, without any doubt, has played a crucial role in the establishment of this technique and improved short- and long-term survival rates. Eventually, mortality from acute or chronic rejection may be entirely eliminated. Minimizing the adverse effects of immunosuppressive agents is essential to improve long-term survival and quality of life. In this chapter, we review the history of immunosuppressive agents for liver transplantation with consideration of the pre- and the postcyclosporine eras. We also review the development and contributions of cyclosporine, the excellent outcomes from C2 monitoring, comparisons between the cyclosporine microemulsion and the oil-based formula, as well as between cyclosporine microemulsion versus tacrolimus. In addition, details are provided on the newer immunosuppressive agents: mycophenolate mofetil, sirolimus, and the IL-2 receptor antagonists, as well as agents in development: CAMPATH 1-H, thymoglobulin, everolimus, FT720, and FK778.

Renal function improves in liver transplant recipients when switched from a calcineurin inhibitor to sirolimus

Sirolimus (Rapamune; Wyeth-Ayerst, Philadelphia, PA) is a newer immunosuppressive drug with no known acute or chronic nephrotoxic effects; however, limited data are available in liver transplant recipients. We prospectively evaluated changes in renal function in liver transplant recipients after conversion from a calcineurin inhibitor to sirolimus monotherapy. We measured serial serum creatinine levels in liver transplant recipients with chronic nephrotoxicity caused by calcineurin inhibitors before and after conversion to sirolimus therapy. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula. Change in eGFR over time, incidence of acute hepatocellular rejection, and adverse events while being administered sirolimus monotherapy were recorded. Mean interval between liver transplantation and initiation of sirolimus therapy was 310 weeks (range, 9 to 780 weeks). Of 21 patients included in our study, 18 patients were converted to sirolimus monotherapy and 3 patients were switched to sirolimus and low-dose steroid therapy. Patients were followed up for a mean of 66.8 +/- 38.9 (SD) weeks after conversion. Renal function improved in 71% of patients (15 of 21 patients). Median eGFR improved significantly from 34 mL/min/1.73 m2 at the time of conversion to 43 mL/min/1.73 m2 at the last follow-up (27% increase in eGFR; P = 001). Median monthly change in eGFR was from -0.25 mL/min/1.73 m2 pre-sirolimus therapy to +1.28 mL/min/1.73 m2 post-sirolimus therapy (P =.09). Adverse events were mostly mild and self-limited. Only 1 patient developed biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection, which was treated with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Two patients discontinued sirolimus therapy because of toxicity (oral ulceration, 1 patient; interstitial pneumonitis, 1 patient). Renal function improved significantly in the majority of liver transplant recipients with renal insufficiency caused by calcineurin inhibitors when converted to sirolimus therapy. Sirolimus monotherapy provided adequate immunosuppression with a low incidence of acute cellular rejection and minimal adverse events.

Sirolimus in liver transplantation

Since its introduction in renal transplantation in 1999, sirolimus is being used by an increasing number of liver transplant centers. Compared to the calcineurin inhibitors, sirolimus acts through a separate signal transduction pathway and has a myriad of important biologic effects including: inhibition of lymphocyte proliferation, inhibition of fibrosis and fibroblast proliferation, and antineoplastic effects. The clinical side-effect profile of this drug is also different than calcineurin inhibitors. Most important, sirolimus does not cause glucose intolerance, hypertension, or renal insufficiency. As a result, this drug offers significant potential advantages over conventional immunosuppressive agents. However, sirolimus may cause hyperlipidemia and has also been associated with hepatic artery thrombosis in liver transplant recipients. This review will summarize the published data on sirolimus in liver transplantation, focusing on the potential advantages and disadvantage of the use of this drug in liver transplant recipients. Finally, the potential benefits of antifibrosis and antineoplastic effects of sirolimus in liver transplant recipients will be discussed.