BACKGROUND: Given the nephrotoxicity of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), we asked whether their addition improved living related donor (LRD) human leukocyte antigen (HLA) identical kidney transplant recipient outcomes. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review and a single-center study comparing patient survival (PS) and graft survival (GS) of LRD HLA-identical kidney transplants for three different immunosuppression eras: Era 1 (up to 1984): anti-lymphocyte globulin (ALG) induction and maintenance immunosuppression with prednisone and azathioprine (AZA) (n = 114); Era 2a (1984-99): CNI added; evolution from ALG to thymoglobulin; AZA to mycophenolate (n = 262). Era 2b (1999-2011): rapid discontinuation of prednisone (thymoglobulin induction, CNI and mycophenolate) in recipients having first or second transplant and not previously on prednisone (n = 77). RESULTS: Demographics differed by era: recipient (P < 0.0001) and donor age (P < 0.0001) increased and the proportion of Caucasian donors (P = 0.02) and recipients (P = 0.003) decreased with each advancing era. There was no significant difference in PS (P = 0.6); cause of death (P = 0.5); death-censored GS (P = 0.8) or graft loss from acute rejection by era. Graft loss from chronic allograft nephropathy (P = 0.02) and hypertension (P = 0.005) were greater in the CNI eras. There were no significant differences in the 1/creatinine slopes between eras for the first (P = 0.6), second (P = 0.9) or >2 years post-transplant (P = 0.4). Literature review revealed no clear benefits for CNI in these human leukocyte antigen (HLA) identical LRD graft recipients. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that there are no benefits of CNIs for HLA-identical LRD recipients. Moreover, we did find evidence of potential harm. Thus, monotherapy or early discontinuation of CNI should be given consideration in these patients.
BACKGROUND: Given the nephrotoxicity of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), we asked whether their addition improved living related donor (LRD) human leukocyte antigen (HLA) identical kidney transplant recipient outcomes. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review and a single-center study comparing patient survival (PS) and graft survival (GS) of LRD HLA-identical kidney transplants for three different immunosuppression eras: Era 1 (up to 1984): anti-lymphocyte globulin (ALG) induction and maintenance immunosuppression with prednisone and azathioprine (AZA) (n = 114); Era 2a (1984-99): CNI added; evolution from ALG to thymoglobulin; AZA to mycophenolate (n = 262). Era 2b (1999-2011): rapid discontinuation of prednisone (thymoglobulin induction, CNI and mycophenolate) in recipients having first or second transplant and not previously on prednisone (n = 77). RESULTS: Demographics differed by era: recipient (P < 0.0001) and donor age (P < 0.0001) increased and the proportion of Caucasian donors (P = 0.02) and recipients (P = 0.003) decreased with each advancing era. There was no significant difference in PS (P = 0.6); cause of death (P = 0.5); death-censored GS (P = 0.8) or graft loss from acute rejection by era. Graft loss from chronic allograft nephropathy (P = 0.02) and hypertension (P = 0.005) were greater in the CNI eras. There were no significant differences in the 1/creatinine slopes between eras for the first (P = 0.6), second (P = 0.9) or >2 years post-transplant (P = 0.4). Literature review revealed no clear benefits for CNI in these human leukocyte antigen (HLA) identical LRD graft recipients. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that there are no benefits of CNIs for HLA-identical LRD recipients. Moreover, we did find evidence of potential harm. Thus, monotherapy or early discontinuation of CNI should be given consideration in these patients.
Authors: Christian Morath; Martina Mueller; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Vedat Schwenger; Gerhard Opelz; Martin Zeier Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: E Keitel; A F Santos; M A Alves; J P Neto; P G Schaefer; A E Bittar; J C Goldani; R Pozza; R M Bruno; D See; C D Garcia; V D Garcia Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Brian J Nankivell; Richard J Borrows; Caroline L-S Fung; Philip J O'Connell; Richard D M Allen; Jeremy R Chapman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Akinlolu O Ojo; Philip J Held; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe; Alan B Leichtman; Eric W Young; Julie Arndorfer; Laura Christensen; Robert M Merion Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-09-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Z M El-Zoghby; M D Stegall; D J Lager; W K Kremers; H Amer; J M Gloor; F G Cosio Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2008-02-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Matthew R Weir; Ellen D Burgess; James E Cooper; Andrew Z Fenves; David Goldsmith; Dianne McKay; Anita Mehrotra; Mark M Mitsnefes; Domenic A Sica; Sandra J Taler Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: J R Leventhal; J M Mathew; D R Salomon; S M Kurian; J J Friedewald; L Gallon; I Konieczna; A R Tambur; J Charette; J Levitsky; C Jie; Y S Kanwar; M M Abecassis; J Miller Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Zaid Brifkani; Daniel C Brennan; Krista L Lentine; Timothy A Horwedel; Andrew F Malone; Rowena Delos Santos; Thin Thin Maw; Tarek Alhamad Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2017-02-08