Nuria Montero1, María José Pérez-Sáez2, Julio Pascual11, Daniel Abramowicz4, Klemens Budde5, Chris Dudley6, Mark Hazzan7, Marian Klinger8, Umberto Maggiore9, Rainer Oberbauer10, Julio Pascual11, Soren S Sorensen12, Ondrej Viklicky13. 1. Department of Nephrology, Hospital Universitari Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Red de Investigación Renal (Redinren) Instituto Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Department of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Red de Investigación Renal (Redinren) Instituto Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; Department of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: julpascual@gmail.com. 4. Department of Nephrology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium. 5. Department of Nephrology Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany. 6. Richard Bright Renal Unit, Bristol, UK. 7. Service de Néphrologie, Univ Lille Nord de France, Lille, France. 8. Department of Nephrology and Transplantation Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland. 9. Department of Nephrology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy. 10. Department of Nephrology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 11. Department of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. 12. Department of Nephrology P, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 13. Department of Nephrology, Transplant Centre, Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Elderly are the fastest growing part of kidney transplant recipients. The best immunosuppressive strategy is unknown. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials and observational studies focused on safety and efficacy of different immunosuppression strategies in elderly kidney recipients. Data extraction and risk of bias evaluation were systematically performed. RESULTS: Ten studies were included: 2 randomized clinical trials and 8 observational. A marginal benefit was found for early renal function with delayed tacrolimus or complete tacrolimus avoidance using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Observational cohort studies looked at different antibody induction strategies, calcineurin-inhibitors based maintenance immunosuppression, calcineurin-inhibitor-free sirolimus-based therapy and use of MMF versus azathioprine. Treatment with interleukin-2 receptor antibody induction, calcineurin-inhibitor minimization with MMF and steroid minimization is advisable in the low immunologic risk elderly recipient, considering the increased risk of toxicities, infection and malignancies. In the high immunologic risk elderly recipient, taking into account the morbid consequences of acute rejection in the elderly, observational studies support antibody induction with depletive antibodies, calcineurin-inhibitor, MMF and steroids; calcineurin-inhibitor-minimization is not recommended. CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence for the benefits and harms of different immunosuppression strategies in the elderly. Most of the published literature are observational studies, and randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.
BACKGROUND: The Elderly are the fastest growing part of kidney transplant recipients. The best immunosuppressive strategy is unknown. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials and observational studies focused on safety and efficacy of different immunosuppression strategies in elderly kidney recipients. Data extraction and risk of bias evaluation were systematically performed. RESULTS: Ten studies were included: 2 randomized clinical trials and 8 observational. A marginal benefit was found for early renal function with delayed tacrolimus or complete tacrolimus avoidance using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Observational cohort studies looked at different antibody induction strategies, calcineurin-inhibitors based maintenance immunosuppression, calcineurin-inhibitor-free sirolimus-based therapy and use of MMF versus azathioprine. Treatment with interleukin-2 receptor antibody induction, calcineurin-inhibitor minimization with MMF and steroid minimization is advisable in the low immunologic risk elderly recipient, considering the increased risk of toxicities, infection and malignancies. In the high immunologic risk elderly recipient, taking into account the morbid consequences of acute rejection in the elderly, observational studies support antibody induction with depletive antibodies, calcineurin-inhibitor, MMF and steroids; calcineurin-inhibitor-minimization is not recommended. CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence for the benefits and harms of different immunosuppression strategies in the elderly. Most of the published literature are observational studies, and randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.
Authors: María José Pérez-Sáez; Núria Montero; Dolores Redondo-Pachón; Marta Crespo; Julio Pascual Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Susanne Brakemeier; Wolfgang Arns; Frank Lehner; Oliver Witzke; Oliver Vonend; Claudia Sommerer; Anja Mühlfeld; Thomas Rath; Robert Schuhmann; Bianca Zukunft; Irena Kroeger; Martina Porstner; Klemens Budde Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yara Dadalti Fragoso; Heloisa Helena Ruocco; Ronaldo Maciel Dias; Hideraldo Cabeça; Ricardo Gonçalves; Nise A de Carvalho Sousa; Caroline Vieira Spessotto; Carlos Bernardo Tauil; Soniza Vieira Alves-Leon; Sidney Gomes; Marcus Vinicius M Gonçalves; Suzana C Nunes Machado; Andrea Anacleto; Eber Castro Correa; Maria Lucia V Pimentel; Gutemberg Augusto C Santos Journal: Neurol Ther Date: 2019-07-02
Authors: Amelia R Cossart; Nicole M Isbel; Carla Scuderi; Scott B Campbell; Christine E Staatz Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 5.810