Prospective randomized study comparing FK 506 (Prograft) and cyclosporine A (Neoral) as primary immunosuppression in cadaveric renal transplants at a single institution: interim report of the first 80 cases

Immunosuppressive drug combinations after kidney transplantation and post-transplant diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a frequent complication after kidney transplantation (KT). This systematic review investigated the effect of different immunosuppressive regimens on the risk of PTDM. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included KT recipients with any immunosuppression and reported PTDM outcomes up to 1 October 2023. The analysis included 125 RCTs. We found no differences in PTDM risk within induction therapies. In de novo KT, there was an increased risk of developing PTDM with tacrolimus versus cyclosporin (RR 1.71, 95%CI [1.38-2.11]). No differences were observed between tacrolimus+mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) and tacrolimus+MMF/MPA, but there was a tendency towards a higher risk of PTDM in the cyclosporin+mTORi group (RR 1.42, 95%CI [0.99-2.04]). Conversion from cyclosporin to an mTORi increased PTDM risk (RR 1.89, 95%CI [1.18-3.03]). De novo belatacept compared with a calcineurin inhibitor resulted in 50% lower risk of PTDM (RR 0.50, 95%CI [0.32-0.79]). Steroid avoidance resulted in 31% lower PTDM risk (RR 0.69, 95%CI [0.57-0.83]), whereas steroid withdrawal resulted in no differences. Immunosuppression should be decided on an individual basis, carefully weighing the risk of future PTDM and rejection.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.

OBJECTIVES

To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled.

FUTURE WORK

High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome.

CONCLUSION

Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Standard protocols in use typically involve three drug groups each directed to a site in the T-cell activation or proliferation cascade which are central to the rejection process: calcineurin inhibitors (e.g. cyclosporin, tacrolimus), anti-proliferative agents (e.g. azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil) and steroids (prednisolone). It remains unclear whether new regimens are more specific or simply more potent immunosuppressants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of tacrolimus with cyclosporin as primary therapy for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Renal Group's specialist register and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility, quality and extracted data independently.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs where tacrolimus was compared with cyclosporin for the initial treatment of kidney transplant recipients

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were synthesised (random effects model) and results expressed as relative risk (RR), values <1 favouring tacrolimus, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to examine potential effect modification by differences in trial design and immunosuppressive co-interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

123 reports from 30 trials (4102 patients) were included. At six months graft loss was significantly reduced in tacrolimus-treated recipients (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.86), and this effect was persistent up to three years. Meta-regression showed that this benefit diminished as higher trough levels of tacrolimus were targeted (P = 0.04), after allowing for differences in cyclosporin formulation (P = 0.97) and cyclosporin target trough level (P = 0.38). At one year, tacrolimus patients suffered less acute rejection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79), and less steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64), but more insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus (RR 1.86, 1.11 to 3.09), tremor, headache, diarrhoea, dyspepsia and vomiting. Cyclosporin-treated recipients experienced significantly more constipation and cosmetic side-effects. We demonstrated no differences in infection or malignancy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus is superior to cyclosporin in improving graft survival and preventing acute rejection after kidney transplantation, but increases post-transplant diabetes, neurological and gastrointestinal side effects. Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin would avoid 12 suffering acute rejection, two losing their graft but cause an extra five to become insulin-requiring diabetics.

Which calcineurin inhibitor is preferred in renal transplantation: tacrolimus or cyclosporine?

Cyclosporine and tacrolimus are potent inhibitors of the calcineurin-dependent cytokine synthesis in activated lymphocytes. In renal transplant patients tacrolimus is more powerful in preventing severe and refractory rejections, even when compared with the new cyclosporine microemulsion formulation. Both drugs are equally nephrotoxic, but tacrolimus induces less hypertension and less pronounced hyperlipidaemia. Especially in some categories of patients, a higher incidence of de-novo diabetes mellitus is seen with tacrolimus therapy.