BACKGROUND: While early surgical success made organ transplantation possible in the 1950s and 1960s, the breakthrough in clinical organ transplantation was achieved through the discovery and invention of modern immunosuppressive agents in the early/mid-1980s. Especially during the 1990 s, a large array of immunosuppressants has expanded the armamentarium used to prevent and treat allograft rejection, resulting in an excellent short-term and an acceptable long-term outcome. However, these drugs have potent but still non-specific immunosuppressive properties and frequently show severe acute and chronic side effects, sometimes questioning the overall success. CONCEPTS/TRENDS: As the "Holy-Grail" of the transplant community, the induction of "true donor-specific tolerance" has not been achieved yet; current immunosuppressive strategies, in particular in Europe, include "individually tailored immunosuppressive" protocols, mostly based on specific immunologic and non-immunologic risk factors. These protocols allow for optimal immunosuppressive protocols for each patient group according to their needs by choosing the most suitable, well-tolerated combination of agents and the most effective doses to avoid acute rejection episodes (incidence and severity) and minimise drug-related toxicity to reduce long-term drug-related morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, transplant recipient are still being forced to take a life-long course of chemical immunosuppressive agents to keep their graft, knowing about the possible life-threatening side effects. SUMMARY: We review current trends of immunosuppressive protocols in liver and kidney transplantation, focusing on calcineurin-inhibitor-sparing protocols, mammalian-target-of-rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor based-protocols and corticosteroid-avoidance protocols, being aware of the fact, that most of these strategies could be applicable for other transplanted organs, too. Finally, we describe future trends and new developments that are rising on the horizon.
BACKGROUND: While early surgical success made organ transplantation possible in the 1950s and 1960s, the breakthrough in clinical organ transplantation was achieved through the discovery and invention of modern immunosuppressive agents in the early/mid-1980s. Especially during the 1990 s, a large array of immunosuppressants has expanded the armamentarium used to prevent and treat allograft rejection, resulting in an excellent short-term and an acceptable long-term outcome. However, these drugs have potent but still non-specific immunosuppressive properties and frequently show severe acute and chronic side effects, sometimes questioning the overall success. CONCEPTS/TRENDS: As the "Holy-Grail" of the transplant community, the induction of "true donor-specific tolerance" has not been achieved yet; current immunosuppressive strategies, in particular in Europe, include "individually tailored immunosuppressive" protocols, mostly based on specific immunologic and non-immunologic risk factors. These protocols allow for optimal immunosuppressive protocols for each patient group according to their needs by choosing the most suitable, well-tolerated combination of agents and the most effective doses to avoid acute rejection episodes (incidence and severity) and minimise drug-related toxicity to reduce long-term drug-related morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, transplant recipient are still being forced to take a life-long course of chemical immunosuppressive agents to keep their graft, knowing about the possible life-threatening side effects. SUMMARY: We review current trends of immunosuppressive protocols in liver and kidney transplantation, focusing on calcineurin-inhibitor-sparing protocols, mammalian-target-of-rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor based-protocols and corticosteroid-avoidance protocols, being aware of the fact, that most of these strategies could be applicable for other transplanted organs, too. Finally, we describe future trends and new developments that are rising on the horizon.
Authors: Z Włodarczyk; J Wałaszewski; F Perner; S Vitko; M Ostrowski; P Bachleda; F Kokot; M Klinger; P Szenohradsky; P Studenik; P Navratil; L Asztalos; B Rutkowski; K Kalmar Nagy; D Hickey Journal: Ann Transplant Date: 2002 Impact factor: 1.530
Authors: Markus Guba; Philipp von Breitenbuch; Markus Steinbauer; Gudrun Koehl; Stefanie Flegel; Matthias Hornung; Christiane J Bruns; Carl Zuelke; Stefan Farkas; Matthias Anthuber; Karl-Walter Jauch; Edward K Geissler Journal: Nat Med Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Yves Vanrenterghem; Johannes P van Hooff; Jean-Paul Squifflet; Kaija Salmela; Paolo Rigotti; Rahul M Jindal; Julio Pascual; Henrik Ekberg; Luis Sanchez Sicilia; John N Boletis; Josep M Grinyo; Manuel Arias Rodriguez Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Norman M Kneteman; José Oberholzer; Mohammed Al Saghier; Glenda A Meeberg; Maurice Blitz; Mang M Ma; Winnie W S Wong; Klaus Gutfreund; Andrew L Mason; Larry D Jewell; A M James Shapiro; Vincent G Bain; David L Bigam Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: J Adami; H Gäbel; B Lindelöf; K Ekström; B Rydh; B Glimelius; A Ekbom; H-O Adami; F Granath Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-10-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Felix C Popp; Barbara Fillenberg; Elke Eggenhofer; Philipp Renner; Johannes Dillmann; Volker Benseler; Andreas A Schnitzbauer; James Hutchinson; Robert Deans; Deborah Ladenheim; Cheryl A Graveen; Florian Zeman; Michael Koller; Martin J Hoogduijn; Edward K Geissler; Hans J Schlitt; Marc H Dahlke Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Marcus N Scherer; Justine Rochon; Johannes Sothmann; Stefan A Farkas; Martin Loss; Edward K Geissler; Aiman Obed; Hans J Schlitt Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2010-09-14 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Ronald F Parsons; Kumar Vivek; Robert R Redfield; Thi-Sau Migone; Michael P Cancro; Ali Naji; Hooman Noorchashm Journal: Expert Rev Clin Immunol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.473