Literature DB >> 27650978

Ten Years of Preserved Kidney Function After Islet Transplant Graft Failure.

Eduardo Peixoto1,2, Francesco Vendrame1,3, Alvaro Arnau1,4, Nathalia Padilla1, David Baidal1,3, Ana Alvarez1, Valentina Delmonte1,5, Alessia Fornoni6, Camillo Ricordi1, Rodolfo Alejandro7,3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27650978      PMCID: PMC5127237          DOI: 10.2337/dc16-1093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


× No keyword cloud information.
Several studies in patients with type 1 diabetes have examined the impact of islet transplantation (ITx) on renal function (1–3). Our group and others (1,4) have reported the beneficial effect of ITx. Equally relevant, however, is the assessment of renal function in patients with graft failure (GF) who are exposed to the well-known potential toxicity from immunosuppressive drugs and risk of development or progression of diabetic nephropathy related to unstable glycemic control (5). In this study, we examined the renal function of 12 recipients of allogeneic ITx who developed GF (stimulated C-peptide <0.3 ng/mL) but had at least 1 year (range 1.0–5.1) of graft function. Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of sirolimus and tacrolimus, which were discontinued after GF. Patients were enrolled in the ongoing Long Term Surveillance of Islet Transplant Recipients Following Complete Graft Loss study at the University of Miami, 6.0 ± 1.8 years (range 2.9–8.8) after GF. In this interim report, we provide data on renal function for a mean of 10.7 years after islet GF (Fig. 1). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at the end of follow-up was comparable to eGFR at time of GF (86.0 ± 21.1 vs. 88.3 ± 21.8 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = 0.95 after comparison of all study time points) (Fig. 1). The rate of eGFR decline, variable among individuals, was not significantly different after immunosuppression discontinuation (0.5 ± 0.9 and 0.1 ± 1.0 mL/min/1.73 m2/year after ITx and GF, respectively; P = 0.35) (Fig. 1). By contrast, microalbuminuria (urine albumin–creatinine ratio 30–299 mg/g Cr) was observed in 2/12 (16.6%) subjects at ITx, 3/12 (25%) at half-graft survival, 5/12 (41.7%) at GF, and 1/11 (9.0%) at the last follow-up visit (Fig. 1). None had macroalbuminuria. Four of the five subjects with microalbuminuria at GF had resolution after discontinuation of immunosuppression (P = 0.0007). One subject continued to have microalbuminuria, but this initially appeared at GF. Two subjects with preexisting microalbuminuria and resolution after immunosuppression discontinuation were switched from tacrolimus to mycophenolate mofetil while having graft function because of tacrolimus toxicity. HbA1c improved following ITx and worsened after GF, despite reintroduction of insulin therapy, but was not significantly different throughout follow-up. Overall, we did not observe any association between proteinuria and renal function at time of ITx, blood pressure, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (3/5 subjects with microalbuminuria), or immunosuppression drug levels. We recognize that limitations of this study include the small sample size, a selection bias because inclusion criteria for ITx required an eGFR >60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (in one case the eGFR was 55), and lack of a control group to better address the association between immunosuppression and albuminuria. Nevertheless, in this patient population, the eGFR was not compromised during the 10-year follow-up after occurrence of islet GF and microalbuminuria regressed after discontinuation of immunosuppression in four out of five subjects. The careful selection of islet recipients, improvement of metabolic control during graft function, management of risk factors, and withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitor therapy may be responsible for stabilization of kidney function.
Figure 1

A: Demographic and clinical features of study subjects and study time points. The half-life graft survival (1/2 GS) provided information about renal function between ITx and GF. Data are presented as n (%) and mean ± SD. GF, graft failure; ITx, islet transplant; LTSS, enrollment in the long-term surveillance study; LV, last visit on follow-up; YFUP1-4, yearly follow-ups 1–4; the half-life graft survival provided information about renal function between ITx and GF. B: Renal function at the time of ITx, GF, study enrollment, and follow-up. The eGFR was calculated based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and presented as mean ± SD, median and range. C: Rate of decline of the eGFR. Each circle represents an ITx recipient; solid circles symbolize the changes in eGFR at ITx vs. last visit follow-up, and open circles symbolize the changes in eGFR at GF vs. last visit follow-up. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. D: Albumin excretion. Albuminuria was determined by the urine albumin–creatinine ratio (UACR) from first morning spot urine samples. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *Significant P values vs. GF after Dunn's test correction for multiple comparisons.

A: Demographic and clinical features of study subjects and study time points. The half-life graft survival (1/2 GS) provided information about renal function between ITx and GF. Data are presented as n (%) and mean ± SD. GF, graft failure; ITx, islet transplant; LTSS, enrollment in the long-term surveillance study; LV, last visit on follow-up; YFUP1-4, yearly follow-ups 1–4; the half-life graft survival provided information about renal function between ITx and GF. B: Renal function at the time of ITx, GF, study enrollment, and follow-up. The eGFR was calculated based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and presented as mean ± SD, median and range. C: Rate of decline of the eGFR. Each circle represents an ITx recipient; solid circles symbolize the changes in eGFR at ITx vs. last visit follow-up, and open circles symbolize the changes in eGFR at GF vs. last visit follow-up. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. D: Albumin excretion. Albuminuria was determined by the urine albumin–creatinine ratio (UACR) from first morning spot urine samples. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *Significant P values vs. GF after Dunn's test correction for multiple comparisons.
  5 in total

1.  Islet transplants and impact on secondary diabetic complications: does C-Peptide protect the kidney?

Authors:  A M James Shapiro
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 10.121

2.  Islet transplantation is associated with improvement of renal function among uremic patients with type I diabetes mellitus and kidney transplants.

Authors:  Paolo Fiorina; Franco Folli; Gianpaolo Zerbini; Paola Maffi; Chiara Gremizzi; Valerio Di Carlo; Carlo Socci; Federico Bertuzzi; Michael Kashgarian; Antonio Secchi
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 10.121

3.  Reduced progression of diabetic microvascular complications with islet cell transplantation compared with intensive medical therapy.

Authors:  David M Thompson; Mark Meloche; Ziliang Ao; Breay Paty; Paul Keown; R Jean Shapiro; Stephen Ho; Dan Worsley; Michelle Fung; Graydon Meneilly; Iain Begg; Mohammed Al Mehthel; Joma Kondi; Claire Harris; Blake Fensom; Sharon E Kozak; Suet On Tong; Mary Trinh; Garth L Warnock
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 4.939

4.  Kidney function after islet transplant alone in type 1 diabetes: impact of immunosuppressive therapy on progression of diabetic nephropathy.

Authors:  Paola Maffi; Federico Bertuzzi; Francesca De Taddeo; Paola Magistretti; Rita Nano; Paolo Fiorina; Andrea Caumo; Paolo Pozzi; Carlo Socci; Massimo Venturini; Alessandro del Maschio; Antonio Secchi
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  Improvement in outcomes of clinical islet transplantation: 1999-2010.

Authors:  Franca B Barton; Michael R Rickels; Rodolfo Alejandro; Bernhard J Hering; Stephen Wease; Bashoo Naziruddin; Jose Oberholzer; Jon S Odorico; Marc R Garfinkel; Marlon Levy; Francois Pattou; Thierry Berney; Antonio Secchi; Shari Messinger; Peter A Senior; Paola Maffi; Andrew Posselt; Peter G Stock; Dixon B Kaufman; Xunrong Luo; Fouad Kandeel; Enrico Cagliero; Nicole A Turgeon; Piotr Witkowski; Ali Naji; Philip J O'Connell; Carla Greenbaum; Yogish C Kudva; Kenneth L Brayman; Meredith J Aull; Christian Larsen; Tom W H Kay; Luis A Fernandez; Marie-Christine Vantyghem; Melena Bellin; A M James Shapiro
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 19.112

  5 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Advances in β-cell replacement therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Marie-Christine Vantyghem; Eelco J P de Koning; François Pattou; Michael R Rickels
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Long-term Persistence of Allosensitization After Islet Allograft Failure.

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

3.  Long-term outcome of islet transplantation on insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: An observational cohort study.

Authors:  Toshihiro Nakamura; Junji Fujikura; Takayuki Anazawa; Ryo Ito; Masahito Ogura; Hideaki Okajima; Shinji Uemoto; Nobuya Inagaki
Journal:  J Diabetes Investig       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 4.232

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.