Withdrawal of steroids from triple-drug therapy in kidney transplant patients

Effect of Early Steroid Withdrawal on Posttransplant Diabetes Among Kidney Transplant Recipients Differs by Recipient Age

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

Posttransplant diabetes (PTD), a major complication after kidney transplantation (KT), is often attributable to immunosuppression. The risk of PTD may increase with more potent steroid maintenance and older recipient age.

Methods.

Using United States Renal Data System data, we studied 12 488 adult first-time KT recipients (2010–2015) with no known pre-KT diabetes. We compared the risk of PTD among recipients who underwent early steroid withdrawal (ESW) versus continued steroid maintenance (CSM) using Cox regression with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding. We tested whether the risk of PTD resulting from ESW differed by recipient age (18–29, 30–54, and ≥55 y).

Results.

Of 12 488, 28.3% recipients received ESW. The incidence rate for PTD was 13 per 100 person-y and lower among recipients who received ESW (11 per 100 person-y in ESW; 14 per 100 person-y in CSM). Overall, ESW was associated with lower risk of PTD compared with CSM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = _0.720.79_0.86), but the risk differed by recipient age (P_interaction = 0.09 for comparison between recipients aged 18–29 and those aged 30–54; P_interaction = 0.01 for comparison between recipients aged 18–29 and those aged ≥55). ESW was associated with lower risk of PTD among recipients aged ≥55 (aHR = _0.620.71_0.81) and those aged 30–54 (aHR = _0.730.83_0.95), but not among recipients aged 18–29 (aHR = _0.811.18_1.72). Although recipients who received ESW had a higher risk of acute rejection across the age groups (adjusted odds ratio = _1.011.17_1.34), recipients with no PTD had a lower risk of mortality (aHR = _0.580.66_0.74).

Conclusions.

The beneficial association of ESW with decreased PTD was more pronounced among recipients aged ≥55, supporting an age-specific assessment of the risk-benefit balance regarding ESW.

Does steroid-free immunosuppression improve the outcome in kidney transplant recipients compared to conventional protocols?

Steroids continue to be the cornerstone of immune suppression since the early days of organ transplantation. Steroids are key component of induction protocols, maintenance therapy and in the treatment of various forms of rejection. Prolonged steroid use resulted in significant side effects on almost all the body organs owing to the presence of steroid receptors in most of the mammalian cells. Kidney allograft recipients had to accept the short and long term complications of steroids because of lack of effective alternatives. This situation changed with the intro-duction of newer and more effective immune suppression agents with a relatively more acceptable side effect profile. As a result, the clinicians have been contemplating if it is the time to abandon the unquestionable reliance on maintenance steroids in modern transplantation practice. This review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various steroid-minimization approaches (steroid avoidance, early steroid withdrawal, and late steroid withdrawal) in kidney transplant recipients. A meticulous electronic search was conducted through the available data resources like SCOPUS, MEDLINE, and Liverpool University library e-resources. Relevant articles obtained through our search were included. A total number of 90 articles were eligible to be included in this review [34 randomised controlled trials (RCT) and 56 articles of other research modalities]. All articles were evaluating the safety and efficacy of various steroid-free approaches in comparison to maintenance steroids. We will cover only the RCT articles in this review. If used in right clinical context, steroid-free protocols proved to be comparable to steroid-based maintenance therapy. The appropriate approach should be tailored individually according to each recipient immuno-logical challenges and clinical condition.

Management of dyslipidemia in adult solid organ transplant recipients

Solid organ transplantation (SOT) has revolutionized treatment of end-stage disease. Improvements in the SOT continuum of care have unmasked a significant burden of cardiovascular disease, manifesting as a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Although several risk factors for development of post-transplant cardiovascular disease exist, dyslipidemia remains one of the most frequent and modifiable risks. An important contributor to dyslipidemia in SOT recipients is the off-target metabolic effects of immunosuppressive medications, which may alter lipoproteins and their metabolism. Dyslipidemia management is paramount as lipid-lowering therapy with statins has demonstrated reductions in graft vasculopathy, decreased rejection rates, and improved survival. Several nonstatin medication options are available, but data supporting their benefit in the SOT population are minimal, typically extrapolated from studies in the general population. Further compounding dyslipidemia management is the complex interplay of drug interactions between lipid-lowering and immunosuppressant medications, which can result in serious toxicity and/or therapeutic failure.

Drug-Induced Hematological Cytopenia in Kidney Transplantation and the Challenges It Poses for Kidney Transplant Physicians

Drug-induced hematological cytopenia is common in kidney transplantation. Various cytopenia including leucopenia (neutropenia), thrombocytopenia, and anemia can occur in kidney transplant recipients. Persistent severe leucopenia or neutropenia can lead to opportunistic infections of various etiologies. On the contrary, reducing or stopping immunosuppressive medications in these events can provoke a rejection. Transplant clinicians are often faced with the delicate dilemma of balancing cytopenia and rejection from adjustments of immunosuppressive regimen. Differentials of drug-induced cytopenia are wide. Identification of culprit medication and subsequent modification is also challenging. In this review, we will discuss individual drug implicated in causing cytopenia and correlate it with corresponding literature evidence.

Early Steroid Withdrawal in Recipients of a Kidney Transplant From a Living Donor: Experience of a Single Mexican Center

BACKGROUND

Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) can improve lipid and hemodynamic profiles without severe acute rejection (AR) events in renal transplant patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effects of ESW on the frequency and severity of AR.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial was performed on renal transplant recipients with a follow-up of 12 months. In the ESW group, patients were selected for corticosteroid treatment withdrawal on the fifth day post transplantation. In the Control group, patients continued with steroid treatment. All patients were over 18 years of age with panel reactive antibody (PRA) class I and II HLA <20%.

RESULTS

In total, 71 patients, 37 in the ESW group (52.1%) and 34 in the Control group (47.9%), had comparable AR incidences at the end of the follow-up (16% vs 15%) (NS) (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.32-3.33). Although renal graft survival was similar between the ESW and Control groups (87% vs 94%), renal function was superior in the ESW group (85 vs 75 mL/min). Additionally, hypertension was less frequent in the ESW group (3% vs 35%), requiring the use of fewer antihypertensives (8% vs 50%).

CONCLUSIONS

ESW was also associated with better blood pressure control and similar AR risk. The ESW group exhibited stable renal function.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted in recent decades to avoid morbidity from long-term steroid intake among kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown a significant increase in acute rejection. There are various protocols to withdraw steroids after kidney transplantation and their possible benefits or harms are subject to systematic review. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal or avoidance for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which steroids were avoided or withdrawn at any time point after kidney transplantation were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction was performed by two authors independently and disagreement resolved by discussion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 studies (224 reports) that involved 7803 randomised participants. Of these, three studies were conducted in children (346 participants). The 2009 review included 30 studies (94 reports, 5949 participants). Risk of bias was assessed as low for sequence generation in 19 studies and allocation concealment in 14 studies. Incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 22 studies and 37 were free of selective reporting.The 48 included studies evaluated three different comparisons: steroid avoidance or withdrawal compared with steroid maintenance, and steroid avoidance compared with steroid withdrawal. For the adult studies there was no significant difference in patient mortality either in studies comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1913 participants, death at one year post transplantation: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30) or in studies comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1462 participants, death at one year after transplantation: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80). Similarly no significant difference in graft loss was found comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (8 studies, 1817 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92) and comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (7 studies, 1211 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.86). The risk of acute rejection significantly increased in patients treated with steroids for less than 14 days after transplantation (7 studies, 835 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.30) and in patients who were withdrawn from steroids at a later time point after transplantation (10 studies, 1913 participants, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.61). There was no evidence to suggest a difference in harmful events, such as infection and malignancy, in adult kidney transplant recipients. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review increases the evidence that steroid avoidance and withdrawal after kidney transplantation significantly increase the risk of acute rejection. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in patient mortality or graft loss up to five year after transplantation, but long-term consequences of steroid avoidance and withdrawal remain unclear until today, because prospective long-term studies have not been conducted.

Prospective controlled protocol for three months steroid withdrawal with tacrolimus, basiliximab, and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients

During the past few years, new immunosuppressants, such as tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and basiliximab, have been shown to successfully decrease the incidence of acute rejection, possibly acting as potent substrates for safe steroid withdrawal. Therefore, clinical outcome of 3 months steroid withdrawal, while using the above immunosuppressants, was analyzed. Clinical trial registry No. was NCT 01550445. Thirty de novo renal transplant recipients were enrolled, and prednisolone was slowly withdrawn 3 months post-transplantation by 2.5 mg at every two weeks, until 8 weeks. During steroid withdrawal, 10 patients (30.0%) discontinued the protocol and they were maintained on steroid treatment. Among 20 steroid free patients, 8 patients (40.0%) re-started the steroid within 12 months post-transplantation. By the study endpoint, 12 (40%) recipients did not take steroid and survival of patients and grafts was 100%. In conclusion, in kidney transplant patients, 3 months steroid withdrawal while taking tacrolimus, basiliximab and mycophenolate mofetil was not associated with increased mortality or graft loss. Despite various causes of failure of steroid withdrawal during the follow-up period, it is a strategy well advised for kidney transplant recipients with regard to long-term steroid-related complications.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal after renal transplantation increases the risk of acute rejection but decreases cardiovascular risk. A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The morbidity related to long-term steroid therapy has led to continued interest in withdrawal of steroids from immunosuppressant regimens after renal transplantation. A number of recent trials have provided long-term information regarding the risks and benefits of steroid avoidance or withdrawal (SAW).

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Ovid Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Transplant Library. Randomized controlled trials comparing a maintenance steroid group with complete avoidance or withdrawal of steroids were selected. All studies were assessed for methodological quality. Trials were pooled by meta-analysis to provide summary effects (relative risk [RR] or weighted mean difference) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies including 5,637 patients met the inclusion criteria. SAW regimens significantly increased the risk of acute rejection (AR) over maintenance steroids (RR 1.56, CI 1.31-1.87, P<0.0001). No significant differences in corticosteroid resistant AR, patient survival, or graft survival were observed. Serum creatinine was increased and creatinine clearance was reduced with SAW. Cardiovascular risk factors including incidence of hypertension (RR 0.90, CI 0.85-0.94, P<0.0001), new onset diabetes (RR 0.64, CI 0.50-0.83, P=0.0006), and hypercholesterolemia (RR 0.76, CI 0.67-0.87, P<0.0001) were reduced significantly by SAW.

CONCLUSION

Despite an increase in the risk of AR with SAW protocols, there is only a small effect on graft function with no measurable effect on graft or patient survival. There are significant benefits in cardiovascular risk profiles after SAW. SAW protocols would seem justified with current immunosuppressive protocols in low-risk recipients.

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted during the last two decades in order to avoid morbidity in kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown significant increases in acute rejection and an increase in graft failure rates. Steroid avoidance in kidney transplantation is increasingly attempted and the possible benefits or harms have never been a subject of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of steroid withdrawal or avoidance in patients receiving a kidney transplant.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, references lists and abstracts from international transplantation society scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) of steroid avoidance or withdrawal were included providing that one treatment arm consisted in steroid avoidance or withdrawal and intention-to-treat rates of acute rejection and graft failure were clearly established after steroid avoidance or use or withdrawal or continuation. Observational studies were tabulated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 RCTs (5949 participants). Steroid-sparing strategies showed no effect on mortality or graft loss including death. Patients on any steroid-sparing strategy showed a higher risk of graft loss excluding death than those with conventional steroid use (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.52), especially in those not receiving MMF/Myf or everolimus (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.90). Acute rejection was more frequent with a steroid-sparing strategy (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.40) and more frequent after steroid withdrawal or avoidance when compared with standard steroid treatment when cyclosporin (CsA) was used. Steroid-sparing and withdrawal strategies showed benefits in reducing antihypertensive drug need, serum cholesterol, antihyperlipidaemic drug need, new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) requiring any treatment and cataracts. Steroid avoidance did not alter serum cholesterol, but was associated with less frequent NODAT requiring any treatment. Cardiovascular events were reduced with steroid avoidance. Reduced antihypertensive drug need and serum cholesterol were similar with CsA or tacrolimus (TAC). Reduced antihyperlipidaemic drug need was only evident with TAC, whereas the reduction in NODAT requiring any treatment was only evident with CsA. Infection was lower in steroid-sparing patients using CsA (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). NODAT requiring any treatment was less frequent with steroid avoidance than with steroid withdrawal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review confirms that steroid avoidance and steroid withdrawal strategies in kidney transplantation are not associated with increased mortality or graft loss despite an increase in acute rejection. These immunosuppression strategies may allow safe steroid avoidance or elimination a few days after kidney transplantation if antibody induction treatment is prescribed or after three to six months if such induction is not used.

Corticosteroid-sparing strategies in renal transplantation: are we still balancing rejection risk with improved tolerability?

Chronic allograft nephropathy and death with a functioning graft (mainly due to cardiovascular causes) are the most common causes of graft loss after the first year of renal transplantation. Immunosuppressants, and corticosteroids among them, contribute to an increase in cardiovascular risk because of their significant adverse effects, including hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and hyperglycaemia. Thus, corticosteroid discontinuation or avoidance has become a priority among the transplant community in order to enhance long-term graft and patient survival. Nevertheless, corticosteroid-sparing strategies may increase the risk of acute and chronic rejection and, thus, worsen the prognosis of transplant recipients. Initial attempts during the azathioprine epoch did not provide satisfactory results, as they were associated with high acute rejection rates, emphasising the risk of under-immunosuppression. The advent of new immunosuppressants, such as mycophenolate mofetil, mTOR inhibitors and anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies, have renewed the interest in corticosteroid-sparing protocols, and the results of new trials suggest that these corticosteroid-sparing strategies, even at an early stage after transplantation, are safe enough in view of the stable renal function and low rates of acute rejection reported. However, immunological risk factors, such as African American ethnicity, the presence of panel-reactive anti-HLA antibodies (even at low rates), and a history of previous acute rejection episodes should be taken into account and corticosteroid withdrawal strategies should be undertaken with caution. Long-term follow-up studies must be performed to confirm the encouraging short-term data.

Late corticosteroid withdrawal can be safely performed for kidney recipients with stable graft function under pathological confirmation

Corticosteroid withdrawal (CSWD) protocols to minimize the risk of cardiovascular events after kidney transplantation have been reported. However, most of them were within one year post-transplant, and the pathological survey after CSWD was poorly done. We conducted the present retrospective study to elucidate the usefulness and safety of late-steroid withdrawal more than one year after transplantation in kidney recipients with pathological evaluation. Twenty kidney recipients with stable graft function more than one year post-transplant, and whose corticosteroid (CS) was withdrawn were enrolled in this study. The change in their clinical parameters of graft function (sCr and uP/Cr), metabolic profiles, and histological graft status (Banff 97 scoring system) were studied pre- and post-CSWD, and compared with a control cohort taking continuous CS. The dose of CS was tapered gradually and has been maintained with the minimal dose of CS (1.25-5 mg of prednisone) by three months after transplant. CS was furthermore reduced thereafter, if graft function had been stable more than one year and a patient wanted CS to be withdrawn, then a graft biopsy was undertaken. CSWD was accomplished between 16 and 195 (median 41.5) months post-transplant, if there was no significant histological graft damage or on-going acute rejection. A repeat biopsy was carried out two to 21 months after CSWD. In contrast, the observation point of the control cohort was 24 to 49 (median 36.5) months after transplant, and the second biopsy was done five to 30 months after the initial biopsy. The control cohort took 2.5 to 5 (median 2.5) mg of prednisone daily. There were no significant alterations of graft function between pre- and post-CSWD (sCr: 1.14 +/- 0.1 and 1.17 +/- 0.1 mg/dL, respectively, p = 0.3299, uP/Cr: 0.12 +/- 0.01 and 0.21 +/- 0.06, respectively, p = 0.0574). The hypertension rate between both groups was not different between double biopsy points. In addition the rates of glucose intolerance and hyperlipidemia were comparable between two points in both cohorts. There was no significant change in the acute/active lesion scoring (2 t1 and 3 i1 were only positive factors before CSWD and they all returned to t0 and i0 after CSWD). Moreover, chronic/sclerosing allograft nephropathy scorings were minimal and similar between pre- and post-CSWD compared with the control. CSWD for more than one year is safe for patients whose graft functions are stable with pathological confirmation; however, a longer follow-up study is warranted.

Immunosuppressive agents in solid organ transplantation: Mechanisms of action and therapeutic efficacy

Effective immunosuppression is an essential pre-requisite for successful organ transplantation and improvements in outcome after transplantation have to a large extent been dependent on developments in immunosuppressive therapy. Here we provide an overview of the different immunosuppressive agents currently used in solid organ transplantation. A historical perspective on the development of immunosuppression for organ transplantation is followed by a review of the individual agents, with a focus on their mechanism of action and efficacy. Steroids, anti-proliferative agents (azathioprine and mycophenolate), calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine and tacrolimus) and TOR inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus) are discussed along with both polyclonal and monoclonal antibody preparations. Many of the key clinical trials that underpin current clinical usage of these agents are described and side-effects of the different agents are highlighted. Finally, a number of newer agents still in various stages of clinical development are briefly considered.

Pregnancy in patients with previous successful renal transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk factors affecting pregnancy, perinatal outcomes, and short-term graft condition in women who underwent renal transplantation.

METHOD

Between May 1998 and January 2005, the histories of 20 pregnancies in 17 renal transplant recipients were reviewed retrospectively at the Ministry of Health Aegean Obstetrics and Gynecology Teaching Hospital.

RESULT

There were significant associations between high serum creatinine level (>1.5 mg/dL) prior to pregnancy and preterm delivery (P=0.04), and between short interval between transplantation and pregnancy (<2 years) and increased rate of cesarean sections (P=0.04). There were no significant changes in serum creatinine levels during pregnancy in these women, and there were no acute rejection and graft loss during pregnancy or in the 6 months following delivery.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that, although pregnancy does not adversely affect short-term renal allograft function, the rates of obstetric and perinatal complications are increased. Risk factors present before conception are a short interval between renal transplantation and pregnancy and poor renal function.

Reduction of immunosuppression for transplant-associated skin cancer: rationale and evidence of efficacy

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant recipients may develop numerous or life-threatening skin cancers. In addition to aggressive standard treatment of skin cancer, reduction of immunosuppression has been considered an adjuvant therapeutic strategy, albeit without direct proof of efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To review the rationale for and evidence supporting the efficacy of reduction of immunosuppression for severe skin cancer in transplant recipients.

METHODS

Review of the literature regarding direct and indirect evidence on reduction of immunosuppression for transplant-associated skin cancer.

RESULTS

Although there are no randomized controlled trials of reduction of immunosuppression as a therapeutic intervention for transplant patients with skin cancer, multiple lines of evidence suggest that this strategy may be an effective adjuvant therapy. A randomized trial has demonstrated a lower incidence of skin cancer in transplant recipients after reduction of immunosuppression, albeit in a cohort not previously affected by skin cancer. Case series of reduction or cessation of immunosuppression demonstrate a lower incidence of skin cancer or improved outcomes of preexisting skin cancer. Lower overall immunosuppression is associated with a lower incidence of skin cancer. Multiple cancers affecting the skin have been shown to regress with reduction of immunosuppression.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction of immunosuppression may be an effective adjuvant therapeutic strategy when confronting severe transplant-associated skin cancer. The risks of reduction of immunosuppression must be better defined, and randomized trials of this strategy are necessary.

Successful steroid withdrawal in lung transplant recipients: result of a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Corticosteroids play a key role in immunosuppression after transplantation. However, because chronic steroid treatment may cause significant morbidity and mortality, steroid-free immunosuppression remains a desirable goal. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on successful steroid withdrawal (SW) in lung transplant recipients.

METHODS

The study group included 35 patients who underwent heart-lung, double-lung or single-lung transplantation. Criteria for initiation of SW were stable pulmonary function tests and absence of clinical or bronchoscopic evidence of acute or chronic rejection in the last 6 months. Pulmonary function, blood pressure and metabolic parameters were compared between the patients who underwent SW and those who did not.

RESULTS

Eight patients (23%) underwent SW. Median follow-up was 19 months (range 11-23 months). Compared to the non-withdrawal group, the withdrawal group was older (60+/-6 vs. 52+/-13 years, P=0.01, r=0.49), had higher rates of emphysema (88% vs. 18%, P=0.01) and use of a cyclosporine-based regimen (62% vs. 26%, P=0.0001), and had longer time from transplantation to the withdrawal attempt (70+/-13 vs. 29+/-26 months, P=0.0002). The SW group showed no adverse effects in graft function and no deterioration on pulmonary function tests. SW had a beneficial metabolic effect, with a decrease in mean cholesterol level from 229+/-45 to 194+/-25 mg/dl (P=0.02) and no significant change in weight, systolic blood pressure or glucose level. In the non-withdrawal group, mean cholesterol levels increased from 175+/-34 to 209+/-57 mg/dl (P=0.0005), weight increased from 72+/-15 to 80+/-14 kg (P=0.0001), and systolic blood pressure increased from 125+/-15 to 139+/-16 mmHg (P=0.001); glucose levels did not change. There was a significant correlation between total cholesterol level and weight in both groups (P=0.0006, r=-0.56 and P=0.01, r=-0.46, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Late SW is safe in stable patients after lung transplantation. There was no evidence of rejection or a deterioration in pulmonary function. Lipid profile improvement and blood pressure stabilization accompanied the termination of steroid therapy.

Maintenance versus reduction of immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients with aggressive squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There has been a significant increase in skin cancers in transplant patients in recent years. Transplant recipients are also more likely to develop skin cancers that are locally invasive with the potential to metastasize early.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the effect of significantly reducing or stopping immunosuppressive therapy on prognosis of aggressive squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs).

PATIENTS/METHODS

Retrospective study of nine patients with aggressive SCC identified two groups, one whose immunosuppressive therapy was not altered and the other who had their therapy stopped or significantly reduced.

RESULTS

Aggressive SCC all occurred on the head and neck, with five of the primary tumors originating from the ear. Using a Wilcoxon-Breslow test to compare equality of survivor functions, reducing or stopping immunosuppression was associated with the prolongation of metastatic disease-free survival period (p=0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

This nonrandomized pilot study suggests that reduction of immunosuppression in RTRs with aggressive SCC may improve prognosis compared to patients whose immunosuppression is unchanged. Allograft function may continue despite significant reduction of immunosuppression.

Kidney transplantation after liver transplantation from the same donor: four cases of successful steroid withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Administration of corticosteroids to kidney recipients has hampered the complete clinical success of kidney transplantation. Because most organ transplantation in Japan is living-related, we had the experience of performing kidney transplantation (KT) after liver transplantation (LT) from the same donor in four patients and successfully withdrew corticosteroid administration.

METHODS

Three pediatric and one adult patient received kidney allografts from 3 to 10 months after LT from the same donor. The immunosuppressive regimen consisted of a corticosteroid and tacrolimus. The steroid was withdrawn after KT in all four patients. After complete withdrawal of the steroid, DNA was extracted from two recipients and examined by polymerase chain reaction to detect microchimerism. A mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and cell-mediated lymphocytotoxicity assay (CML) were performed to test for donor-specific hyporesponsiveness.

RESULTS

Steroid withdrawal was successfully accomplished after KT in every patient. No steroid-withdrawal-associated complications were observed. In the three pediatric patients, remarkable catch-up growth was observed after steroid withdrawal. In the two patients tested, donor DNA was not detected by polymerase chain reaction, suggesting the absence of microchimerism. MLR and CML showed that recipient lymphocytes reacted against donor lymphocytes at the same level as against the third-party lymphocytes.

CONCLUSION

Steroid withdrawal was successfully achieved in four kidney recipients who had received a liver allograft from the same donor. The MLR and CML findings indicated the absence of donor-specific hyporesponsiveness in vitro. Although the precise mechanism is not yet clear, KT after LT from the same donor should be considered as a method that allows steroids to be withdrawn from the immunosuppressive regimen of KT.