Safety and Efficacy of the Early Introduction of Everolimus (CerticanⓇ) with Low Dose of Cyclosporine in de Novo Kidney Recipients after 1 Month of Transplantation (Preliminary Results)

Delayed initiation or reduced initial dose of calcineurin-inhibitors for kidney transplant recipients at high risk of delayed graft function

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the preferred therapy for many patients with kidney failure. Delayed graft function (DGF) is more common in donors after cardiac death (DCD), especially those with older age, longer cold ischemia time, or higher creatinine levels. Currently, there is no agreement on the optimal immunosuppressive approach for patients at increased risk of DGF. Strategies include delaying the introduction of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) or using an initial low dose of CNI.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of delayed initiation of CNI or reduced CNI dose as initial immunosuppression therapy for kidney transplant recipients at high risk of DGF.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 11 December 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating delayed versus early initiation of CNI or reduced versus standard initial dose of CNI in kidney transplant recipients at high risk of DGF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study eligibility, and two assessed the risk of bias, certainty of evidence, extracted the data, and performed the analysis. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 1.0, and the certainty of the evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods, which are presented in the summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies (2230 randomised participants). All studies were performed in Europe. Around 60% of the participants were males, reflecting the expected proportion in the population on kidney replacement therapy in Europe. Most studies had insufficient information to judge adequate random sequence generation and, or allocation concealment. All studies were unblinded, and judged as high risk of bias for DGF if the definition was based on need for dialysis, and for acute rejection if the diagnosis did not require a biopsy. Overall, the level of certainty was low, and reasons to downgrade were mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. Delayed versus early initiation of CNI There may be little or no difference in DGF between the groups (6 studies, 905 recipients: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; low certainty evidence) or in acute rejection (8 studies, 1295 recipients: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.40; low certainty evidence). Delaying the initiation of CNI probably makes little or no difference to eGFR (6 studies, 851 recipients: MD -0.81 mL/min, 95% CI -3.33 to 1.72; moderate certainty evidence). Delaying the initiation of CNI may make little or no difference to graft loss censored for death (8 studies, 1295 recipients: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.65; very low certainty evidence) or to all-cause death (8 studies, 907 recipients: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.14; very low certainty evidence) although the evidence is very uncertain. There is probably little or no difference in all infections between the groups (6 studies, 1226 recipients: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; moderate certainty evidence). Low versus standard initial dose of CNI There may be little or no difference to DGF between the groups (5 studies, 983 recipients: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.50; low certainty evidence) or in acute rejection (5 studies, 947 recipients: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.30; low certainty evidence). Starting CNI at a lower dose may make little or no difference to eGFR (5 studies, 935 recipients: MD 4.06 mL/min, 95% CI -1.36 to 9.48, low certainty evidence). Starting CNI at a lower dose may make little or no difference to graft loss censored for death, although the evidence is very uncertain (5 studies, 983 recipients: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence), or to all-cause death (4 studies, 521 recipients: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.47; low certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in all infections between the groups (4 studies, 828 recipients: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07; moderate certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be little or no difference in DGF or acute rejection when delaying the start of CNI or when starting it at a lower dose in kidney transplant recipients at high risk of DGF. The available data are of low certainty.

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I; sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the therapy of choice for many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with an improvement in survival rates and satisfactory short term graft survival. However, there has been little improvement in long-term survival. The place of target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I) (sirolimus, everolimus), which have different modes of action from other commonly used immunosuppressive agents, in kidney transplantation remains uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the short and long-term benefits and harms of TOR-I (sirolimus and everolimus) when used in primary immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 20 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which drug regimens, containing TOR-I commenced within seven days of transplant, were compared to alternative drug regimens, were included without age restriction, dosage or language of report.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE MAIN RESULTS: Seventy studies (17,462 randomised participants) were included; eight studies included two comparisons to provide 78 comparisons. Outcomes were reported at six months to three years post transplant. Risk of bias was judged to be low for sequence generation in 25 studies, for allocation concealment in 23 studies, performance bias in four studies, detection bias in 65 studies, attrition bias in 45 studies, selective reporting bias in 48 studies, and for other potential bias in three studies. Risk of bias was judged to be at high risk of bias for sequence generation in two studies, allocation concealment in two studies, performance bias in 61 studies, detection bias in one study, attrition bias in four studies, for selective reporting bias in 11 studies and for other potential risk of bias in 46 studies. Compared with CNI and antimetabolite, TOR-I with antimetabolite probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.98; 19 studies) or malignancies (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48; 10 studies); probably increases graft loss censored for death (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.81; 15 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.04; 15 studies), need to change treatment (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.11; 14 studies) and wound complications (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.36; 12 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); but reduces CMV infection (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.63; 13 studies) (high certainty evidence). Compared with antimetabolites and CNI, TOR-I with CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.33; 31 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; 26 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; 24 studies); and malignancies (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 17 studies); probably increases the need to change treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.90; 25 studies), and wound complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.91; 17 studies); but probably reduces CMV infection (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58; 25 studies) (moderate certainty evidence). Lower dose TOR-I and standard dose CNI compared with higher dose TOR-I and reduced dose CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78; 9 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.20; 8 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.13; 8 studies), and CMV infection (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; 5 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to wound complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.71; 3 studies), malignancies (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04; 7 studies), and the need to change treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 5 studies) (low certainty evidence). Lower dose of TOR-I compared with higher doses probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; 13 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 12 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.43; 11 studies), CMV infection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 9 studies), wound complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29; 7 studies), and malignancy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.32; 10 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to the need to change treatments (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 studies) (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether sirolimus and everolimus differ in their effects on kidney function and lipid levels because the certainty of the evidence is very low based on a single small study with only three months of follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In studies with follow-up to three years, TOR-I with an antimetabolite increases the risk of graft loss and acute rejection compared with CNI and an antimetabolite. TOR-I with CNI potentially offers an alternative to an antimetabolite with CNI as rates of graft loss and acute rejection are similar between interventions and TOR-I regimens are associated with a reduced risk of CMV infections. Wound complications and the need to change immunosuppressive medications are higher with TOR-I regimens. While further new studies are not required, longer-term follow-up data from participants in existing methodologically robust RCTs are needed to determine how useful immunosuppressive regimens, which include TOR-I, are in maintaining kidney transplant function and survival beyond three years.

Calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal or tapering for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) can reduce acute transplant rejection and immediate graft loss but are associated with significant adverse effects such as hypertension and nephrotoxicity which may contribute to chronic rejection. CNI toxicity has led to numerous studies investigating CNI withdrawal and tapering strategies. Despite this, uncertainty remains about minimisation or withdrawal of CNI.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of CNI tapering or withdrawal in terms of graft function and loss, incidence of acute rejection episodes, treatment-related side effects (hypertension, hyperlipidaemia) and death.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 11 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where drug regimens containing CNI were compared to alternative drug regimens (CNI withdrawal, tapering or low dose) in the post-transplant period were included, without age or dosage restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 studies that involved 16,156 participants. Most were open-label studies; less than 30% of studies reported randomisation method and allocation concealment. Studies were analysed as intent-to-treat in 60% and all pre-specified outcomes were reported in 54 studies. The attrition and reporting bias were unclear in the remainder of the studies as factors used to judge bias were reported inconsistently. We also noted that 50% (47 studies) of studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.We classified studies into four groups: CNI withdrawal or avoidance with or without substitution with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR-I); and low dose CNI with or without mTOR-I. The withdrawal groups were further stratified as avoidance and withdrawal subgroups for major outcomes.CNI withdrawal may lead to rejection (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.12; moderate certainty evidence), may make little or no difference to death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; moderate certainty), and probably slightly reduces graft loss (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; low quality evidence). Hypertension was probably reduced in the CNI withdrawal group (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95; low certainty), while CNI withdrawal may make little or no difference to malignancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30; low certainty), and probably makes little or no difference to cytomegalovirus (CMV) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.45; low certainty)CNI avoidance may result in increased acute rejection (RR 2.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.49; low certainty) but little or no difference in graft loss (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.16; low certainty). Late CNI withdrawal increased acute rejection (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.48; moderate certainty) but probably reduced graft loss (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, low certainty).Results were similar when CNI avoidance or withdrawal was combined with the introduction of mTOR-I; acute rejection was probably increased (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.78; moderate certainty) and there was probably little or no difference in death (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.36, moderate certainty). mTOR-I substitution may make little or no difference to graft loss (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19; low certainty), probably makes little of no difference to hypertension (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; moderate), and probably reduced the risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; moderate certainty) and malignancy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00; low certainty). Lymphoceles were increased with mTOR-I substitution (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.21; low certainty).Low dose CNI combined with mTOR-I probably increased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (MD 6.24 mL/min, 95% CI 3.28 to 9.119; moderate certainty), reduced graft loss (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.02; moderate certainty), and made little or no difference to acute rejection (RR 1.13 ; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.40; moderate certainty). Hypertension was decreased (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; low certainty) as was CMV (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.06; low certainty). Low dose CNI plus mTOR-I makes probably makes little of no difference to malignancy (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.53; low certainty) and may make little of no difference to death (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.90; moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CNI avoidance increased acute rejection and CNI withdrawal increases acute rejection but reduced graft loss at least over the short-term. Low dose CNI with induction regimens reduced acute rejection and graft loss with no major adverse events, also in the short-term. The use of mTOR-I reduced CMV infections but increased the risk of acute rejection. These conclusions must be tempered by the lack of long-term data in most of the studies, particularly with regards to chronic antibody-mediated rejection, and the suboptimal methodological quality of the included studies.