| Literature DB >> 31136582 |
Opas Traitanon1,2, James M Mathew3,4,5, Aneesha Shetty1, Sai Vineela Bontha6, Daniel G Maluf6, Yvonne El Kassis1, Sook H Park1, Jing Han4, M Javeed Ansari1,4, Joseph R Leventhal3,4, Valeria Mas6, Lorenzo Gallon1,4.
Abstract
Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), the cornerstone of immunosuppression after transplantation are implicated in nephrotoxicity and allograft dysfunction. We hypothesized that combined low doses of CNI and Everolimus (EVR) may result in better graft outcomes and greater tolerogenic milieu. Forty adult renal transplant recipients were prospectively randomized to (steroid free) low dose Tacrolimus (TAC) and EVR or standard dose TAC and Mycophenolate (MMF) after Alemtuzumab induction. Baseline characteristics were statistically similar. EVR levels were maintained at 3-8 ng/ml. TAC levels were 4.5±1.9 and 6.4±1.5 ng/ml in the TAC+EVR and TAC+MMF group respectively. Follow up was 14±4 and 17±5 months respectively and included protocol kidney biopsies at 3 and 12 months post-transplantation. Rejection-rate was lower in the TAC+EVR group. However patient and overall graft survival, eGFR and incidence of adverse events were similar. TAC+EVR induced expansion of CD4+CD25hiFoxp3+ regulatory T cells as early as 3 months and expansion of IFN-γ+CD4+CD25hiFoxp3+ regulatory T cells at 12 months post-transplant. Gene expression profile showed a trend toward decreased inflammation, angiogenesis and connective tissue growth in the TAC+EVR Group. Thus, greater tolerogenic mechanisms were found to be operating in patients with low dose TAC+EVR and this might be responsible for the lower rejection-rate than in patients on standard dose TAC+MMF. However, further studies with longer follow up and evaluating impact on T regulatory cells are warranted.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31136582 PMCID: PMC6538151 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216300
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Consort diagram of enrollment.
Please see S3 File, Consort Checklist for additional information.
Fig 5Intracellular cytokine and transcription factor staining for interferon-γ, interlekin-17 (IL-17) and RAR-related orphan receptor gamma 2 (RORγt) in CD4+CD25hiFOXP3+ regulatory T cells between study groups.
The number of subjects analyzed at—Baseline: TAC+EVR N = 15,TAC+MMF N = 13; 3 mo: TAC+EVR N = 14,TAC+MMF N = 9; 12 mo: TAC+EVR N = 15,TAC+MMF N = 12. Please Tables D, E and F in S5 File for complete information.
Baseline characteristics.
| TAC+EVR (%) | TAC+MMF (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| N | 20 | 20 |
| Age | 48.3 (16) | 48.4(13) |
| Gender (% male) | 13 (65) | 16 (80) |
| Race (% Caucasian) | 9 (45) | 13 (65) |
| Pre-emptive transplant | 6 (30) | 7 (35) |
| Cause of ESRD | ||
| Hypertension | 6 (30) | 5 (25) |
| Polycystic kidney disease | 3 (15) | 1 (5) |
| Lupus nephritis | 1 (5) | 1 (5) |
| Other/Unknown | 5 (25) | 5 (25) |
| Diabetics | 5 (25) | 10 (50) |
| Coronary artery disease | 2 (10) | 2 (10) |
| BMI | 24.9 (5) | 28.9(6) |
| PRA- Class I (Mean ± SD) | 1.4 ± 3.1 | 3.3 ± 10.6 |
| PRA- Class II (Mean ± SD) | 2.2 ± 8.3 | 3.8 ± 3.1 |
| Crossmatch | Negative | Negative |
| HLA match | 2 (1) | 2.2(1) |
| Alemtuzumab Induction | 19 (95) | 20 (100) |
Clinical results.
| Results | TAC+EVR | TAC+MMF | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 20 | n = 20 | ||
| Mean Follow up (months) | 14 ± 4 | 17 ± 5 | 0.02 |
| Lost to follow up | 0 | 1 | |
| Graft Survival (percent) | 100 | 100 | 1.00 |
| Tacrolimus level | 4.5 ± 1.9 | 6.4 ± 1.5 | 0.03 |
| Rejection episodes | 0 | 4 | 0.03 |
| Development of Denovo DSA without overt rejection | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Proteinuria > 1g/day | 2 | 2 | 1.00 |
| Adverse Events | |||
| Hypertriglyceridemia | 3 | 1 | 0.33 |
| BK nephropathy | 0 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Neutropenia | 0 | 1 | 1.00 |
| Other Infections | 5 | 3 | 0.44 |
* Results expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Please see Table A in S4 File for complete information.
** Other infections included bacteremia, clostridium difficile colitis, abdominal abscess and herpes zoster
Results– 12 month histopathology data.
| Pathology | TAC+EVR (n = 19) | TAC+MMF (n = 16) |
|---|---|---|
| GS: 8 (42%) | GS: 5 (33%) | |
| SS: 5 (26%) | SS: 4 (27%) | |
| g1: 0 (0%) | g1: 2 (13%) | |
| g2: 0 (0%) | g2: 0 (0%) | |
| g3: 0 (0%) | g3: 0 (0%) | |
| t1: 1 (5%) | t1: 2 (13%) | |
| t2: 2 (11%) | t2: 1 (6%) | |
| t3: 0 (0%) | t3: 0 (0%) | |
| Mild: 14 (74%) | Mild: 9 (56%) | |
| Moderate: 5 (26%) | Moderate: 1 (6%) | |
| Severe: 0 (0%) | Severe: 0 (0%) | |
| i1: 1 (5%) | i1: 2 (12%) | |
| i2: 0 (0%) | i2: 0 (0%) | |
| i3: 0 (0%) | i3: 0 (0%) | |
| ah1: 1 (5%) | ah1: 1 (6%) | |
| ah2: 0 (0%) | ah2: 0 (0%) | |
| ah3: 0 (0%) | ah3: 0 (0%) | |
| cv1: 5 (26%) | cv1: 4 (25%) | |
| cv2: 1 (5%) | cv2: 0 (0%) | |
| cv3: 0 (0%) | cv3: 0 (0%) | |
| ptc1: 0 (0%) | ptc1: 3 19%) | |
| ptc2: 0 (0%) | ptc:2: 2 (13%) | |
| ptc3: 0 (0%) | ptc:3: 0 (0%) | |
| Mild: 12 (63%) | Mild: 11 (70%) | |
| Moderate: 1 (5%) | Moderate: 1 (6%) | |
| Severe: 0 (0%) | Severe: 0 (0%) | |
| Minimal: 4 (21%) | Minimal: 1 (6%) | |
| Mild: 5 (26%) | Mild: 4 (25%) | |
| Moderate: 3 (16%) | Moderate: 3(20%) | |
| Severe: 0 (0%) | Severe: 0 (0%) | |
| t1: 4 (21%) | t1: 3 (20%) | |
| t2: 2 (11%) | t2: 1 (6%) | |
| t3: 0 (0%) | t3: 0 (0%) | |
| cg1: 0 (0%) | cg1:0 (0%) | |
| cg2: 0 (0%) | cg2:0 (0%) | |
| cg3: 0(0%) | cg3: 0 (0%) | |
| C4d1: 0 (0%) | C4d1: 0 (0%) | |
| C4d2: 0 (0%) | C4d2: 0 (0%) | |
| C4d3: 0 (0%) | C4d3: 4(25%) | |
| Borderline change:2 (12%) | Borderline change: 2/15 (13%) | |
| Subcapsular injury: 5 (30%) | Subcapsular injury: 2/15 (13%) | |
| Polyoma Virus: 1/15 (7%) | ||
| AMR: 4/15 (27%) |
* All values expressed as n (%). There was no significant difference between the 2 study groups. All pathological definitions are per Banff criteria. Please see Table B in S4 Data file for complete information.
** IFTA0 and IFTA1 combined in one group.