Michael J Casey1, Xuerong Wen, Liise K Kayler, Ravi Aiyer, Juan C Scornik, Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 2 Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY. 3 Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA. 4 Department of Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 5 Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Princeton, NJ. 6 Address correspondence to: Michael J. Casey, M.D., Division of Nephrology, Hypertension, and Renal Transplantation, P.O. Box 100224, Gainesville, FL 32610-0224.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When kidney transplants fail, transplant medications are discontinued to reduce immunosuppression-related risks. However, retransplant candidates are at risk for allosensitization which prolonging immunosuppression may minimize. We hypothesized that for these patients, a prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal after graft failure preserves nonsensitization status (PRA 0%) better than early immunosuppression withdrawal. METHODS: We retrospectively examined subjects transplanted at a single center between July 1, 1999 and December 1, 2009 with a non-death-related graft loss. Subjects were stratified by timing of immunosuppression withdrawal after graft loss: early (≤3 months) or prolonged (>3 months). Retransplant candidates were eligible for the main study where the primary outcome was nonsensitization at retransplant evaluation. Non-retransplant candidates were included in the safety analysis only. RESULTS: We found 102 subjects with non-death-related graft loss of which 49 were eligible for the main study. Nonsensitization rates at retransplant evaluation were 30% and 66% for the early and prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal groups, respectively (P=0.01). After adjusting for cofactors such as blood transfusion and allograft nephrectomy, prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal remained significantly associated with nonsensitization (adjusted odds ratio=5.78, 95% CI [1.37-24.44]). No adverse safety signals were seen in the prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal group compared to the early immunosuppression withdrawal group. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that prolonged immunosuppression may be a safe strategy to minimize sensitization in retransplant candidates and provide the basis for larger or prospective studies for further verification.
BACKGROUND: When kidney transplants fail, transplant medications are discontinued to reduce immunosuppression-related risks. However, retransplant candidates are at risk for allosensitization which prolonging immunosuppression may minimize. We hypothesized that for these patients, a prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal after graft failure preserves nonsensitization status (PRA 0%) better than early immunosuppression withdrawal. METHODS: We retrospectively examined subjects transplanted at a single center between July 1, 1999 and December 1, 2009 with a non-death-related graft loss. Subjects were stratified by timing of immunosuppression withdrawal after graft loss: early (≤3 months) or prolonged (>3 months). Retransplant candidates were eligible for the main study where the primary outcome was nonsensitization at retransplant evaluation. Non-retransplant candidates were included in the safety analysis only. RESULTS: We found 102 subjects with non-death-related graft loss of which 49 were eligible for the main study. Nonsensitization rates at retransplant evaluation were 30% and 66% for the early and prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal groups, respectively (P=0.01). After adjusting for cofactors such as blood transfusion and allograft nephrectomy, prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal remained significantly associated with nonsensitization (adjusted odds ratio=5.78, 95% CI [1.37-24.44]). No adverse safety signals were seen in the prolonged immunosuppression withdrawal group compared to the early immunosuppression withdrawal group. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that prolonged immunosuppression may be a safe strategy to minimize sensitization in retransplant candidates and provide the basis for larger or prospective studies for further verification.
Authors: Oyedele A Adeyi; Alin L Girnita; Judy Howe; Marilyn Marrari; Yehia Awadalla; Medhat Askar; Joan Martell; Adrian Zeevi; Ron Shapiro; Michael Nalesnik; Parmjeet Randhawa; Anthony J Demetris; René J Duquesnoy Journal: Transpl Immunol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 1.708
Authors: Robert M Merion; Valarie B Ashby; Robert A Wolfe; Dale A Distant; Tempie E Hulbert-Shearon; Robert A Metzger; Akinlolu O Ojo; Friedrich K Port Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-12-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paola Rios; David Baidal; Joana Lemos; Stephanie S Camhi; Marco Infante; Nathalia Padilla; Ana M Alvarez Gil; Virginia Fuenmayor; Jonathan Ambut; Fatima A Qasmi; Alejandro M Mantero; Shari Messinger Cayetano; Phillip Ruiz; Camillo Ricordi; Rodolfo Alejandro Journal: Transplantation Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 5.385
Authors: Greg Knoll; Patricia Campbell; Michaël Chassé; Dean Fergusson; Tim Ramsay; Priscilla Karnabi; Jeffrey Perl; Andrew A House; Joseph Kim; Olwyn Johnston; Rahul Mainra; Isabelle Houde; Dana Baran; Darin J Treleaven; Lynne Senecal; Lee Anne Tibbles; Marie-Josée Hébert; Christine White; Martin Karpinski; John S Gill Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 14.978
Authors: Covadonga López Del Moral Cuesta; Sandra Guiral Foz; David Gómez Pereda; José Luis Pérez Canga; Marina de Cos Gómez; Jaime Mazón Ruiz; Ana García Santiago; José Iñigo Romón Alonso; Rosalía Valero San Cecilio; Emilio Rodrigo Calabia; David San Segundo Arribas; Marcos López Hoyos; Juan Carlos Ruiz San Millán Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2020-03-28