肾移植术后患者应用西罗莫司对他克莫司剂量的影响

目的观察肾移植术后联合应用西罗莫司(雷帕霉素)对他克莫司(FK506)剂量的影响。方法60例肾移植术后患者随机分为两组,研究组30例,免疫抑制方案采用西罗莫司+他克莫司+泼尼松;对照组30例,采用麦考酚吗乙酯(MMF)+他克莫司+泼尼松联合治疗。术后随访2年,比较两组的人、肾存活率,急性排斥反应率,他克莫司用量,肾功能变化和不良事件发生率。结果研究组、对照组全部如期完成观察,两组的人肾存活率均为100%,研究组、对照组急性排斥反应发生率分别为7%(2/30)、10%(3/30),经肾上腺皮质激素(激素)冲击治疗后逆转;研究组在维持他克莫司血药浓度与对照组相当情况下,其用量低于对照组,比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组的不良事件发生率相近(60%比70%,P0.05)。结论联合西罗莫司+他克莫司+泼尼松方案用作肾移植术后免疫抑制治疗是安全有效的,且能减少他克莫司的剂量。     

他克莫司缓释胶囊在肾移植术后的早期应用

目的探讨肾移植术后早期应用他克莫司缓释胶囊(Tac-ER)的有效性及安全性。方法回顾性分析接受34对供肾所行肾移植的68例受者临床资料,接受同一供者两侧肾脏的2例受者术后分别采用Tac-ER(Tac-ER组)和他克莫司胶囊(Tac-IR)(Tac-IR组)作为基础免疫抑制药之一。比较两组他克莫司剂量及血药浓度变化、药物浓度个体内变异度(IPV)、肾功能、急性排斥反应发生率、受者和移植物存活率、不良事件发生情况。结果Tac-ER组的平均他克莫司日剂量高于Tac-IR组(F=8.386,P=0.005)。Tac-ER组术后4 d平均谷浓度未达目标浓度,为(6.14±4.04)ng/m L,低于Tac-IR组的(9.41±5.47)ng/m L(F=7.854,P=0.007)。Tac-ER组术后1个月内他克莫司谷浓度IPV高于Tac-IR组(0.44±0.15比0.36±0.12,P=0.032)。术后第6个月时,Tac-ER组和Tac-IR组肾功能比较差异无统计学意义[血清肌酐为(126±26)μmol/L比(120±28)μmol/L,估算肾小球滤过率为(56±13)m L/(min·...     

Notch1受体表达水平在移植肾排斥反应诊断中的意义

目的 探讨肾移植受者外周血单个核细胞(PBMC)上Notch1受体表达水平与移植肾排斥反应之间的关系.方法 肾移植受者40例均采用环孢素A(或他克莫司)、吗替麦考酚酯和糖皮质激素预防排斥反应.根据移植肾穿刺活检结果(Banff'97标准)将受者分成3组,其中急性排斥反应组11例,钙调磷酸酶抑制剂(CNI)中毒组16例,肾功能稳定组13例,抽取血液样本;急性排斥反应组中有8例于排斥反应逆转后再次抽取血液样本;另取11名正常人的血液样本作为对照.常规提取样本中PBMC,用流式细胞仪间接荧光法检测Notch1的表达水平.结果 急性排斥反应组受者外周血PBMC上Notch1的荧光强度明显高于CNI中毒组、肾功能稳定组和正常对照组(P<0.05).CNI中毒组、肾功能稳定组和正常对照组荧光强度的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).40例受者外周血PBMC上Notch1的荧光强度为2.60±2.37,血肌酐为(241.2±137.1)μmol/L,二者之间存在相关性(r=0.358,P<0.05).急性排斥反应组受者排斥反应逆转后的Notch1的荧光强度低于排斥反应期间,差异有统计学意义.结论 肾移植受者急性排斥反应期间外周血PBMC上Notch1受体表达水平增高.Notch1可做为监测肾移植受者免疫状态的指标,其表达水平与同期肌酐水平有相关性,可在一定程度上反映排斥反应对肾功能的损害程度.     

高度致敏受者肾移植的临床处理

目的 总结高度致敏受者肾移植的临床处理经验.方法 26例群体反应性抗体(PRA)峰值≥50%的高致敏患者行同种异体肾移植术.男8例,女18例.平均年龄(47.6±7.4)岁.首次接受移植者15例,二次移植者10例,三次移植者1例.亲属供肾1例,尸体供肾25例.术前要求交叉配型阴性.术后采用抗CDzs单克隆抗体诱导,他克莫司加吗替麦考酚酯加激素三联维持治疗.结果 18例移植后1周内血肌酐(SCr)降至正常.2例分别于术后第2、3天出现加速性排斥反应,经过血浆置换3次及抗CD3单克隆抗体5 mg/d治疗5 d后,1例3周后移植肾功能逐渐恢复正常,另1例排斥反应未能逆转,最终摘除移植肾.发生急性排斥反应6例,2例经激素冲击治疗后逆转,4例为耐激素排斥反应,经抗CD3单克隆抗体5 mg/d治疗5 d和血浆置换治疗3次后,排斥反应逆转.1年移植肾存活率96%(25/26).结论 高度致敏受者肾移植不仅需要HLA配型良好,并且要求供者HLA抗原避开受者所有预存的抗HLA抗体;术后采用抗CD25单克隆抗体诱导,他克莫司加吗替麦考酚酯加激素三联维持治疗,能有效预防和治疗急性排斥反应.     

他克莫司和雷帕霉素对肝癌肝移植患者Foxp3+ Treg的影响及防治排斥反应的研究

目的 探讨免疫抑制剂他克莫司和雷帕霉素对肝癌肝移植受者Foxp3+ Treg产生的影响及其防治排斥反应的疗效.方法 自移植后第2个月到第12个月,每月采血,采用实时荧光定量PCR法检测他克莫司组和雷帕霉素组肝癌肝移植受者新鲜外周血单个核细胞中Foxp3 mRNA的表达水平,通过同期术后观察和实验室检查,比较两组受者间Foxp3 mRNA表达水平和急性排斥反应发生率的差异.结果 他克莫司组受者的外周血单个核细胞中Foxp3 mRNA表达水平(0.1032±0.0943)明显低于雷帕霉素组受者(1.2136±0.6738),差异有统计学意义(t=5.1610,P＜0.01);雷帕霉素组患者比同期他克莫司组受者术后急性排斥反应发生率明显减低,差异有统计学意义(x2=2.2222,P＜0.05).结论 他克莫司抑制了肝癌肝移植术后免疫耐受的诱导,而雷帕霉素可能参与了免疫耐受的诱导和维持;雷帕霉素对肝癌肝移植受者防治排斥反应的效果更好.     

他克莫司缓释胶囊与他克莫司胶囊的临床对照试验

目的 比较和评价首次肾移植受者使用他克莫司缓释胶囊和他克莫司胶囊治疗的安全性和有效性.方法 11家中心的241例肾移植受者随机分配为试验组(应用他克莫司缓释胶囊+吗替麦考酚酯+皮质激素)和对照组(应用他克莫司胶囊+吗替麦考酚酯+皮质激素),观察时间从移植当天至术后12周.试验组受试者每天上午一次性服用他克莫司缓释胶囊,对照组受试者每天早晚分2次服用他克莫司胶囊.两组试验药物的起始剂量均为0.1～0.15 mg·kg-1·d-1.分别在治疗前和治疗后第1、3、7、14、28、56和84 d各随访1次.对两组受者用药的有效性、安全性、依从性以及不良反应进行对比分析.结果 进入符合方案分析集者共223例,其中试验组111例,对照组112例.两组受者的平均年龄、性别、原发病的差异均无统计学意义,各有12例发生急性排斥反应.对照组和试验组分别有36例(32.1%)和37例(33.3%)发生与试验药物相关的不良反应.无受者连续3 d未按照方案服用药物.两组治疗后期较治疗前期的服药量均减少,且组内差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).治疗早期两组血他克莫司浓度较接近,从28 d开始,试验组血药浓度低于对照组,但差异无统计学意义.结论 从药物安全性、药物治疗的有效性、相关不良反应以及受者依从性各方面分析显示,每天1次的他可莫司缓释胶囊均非劣效于每天2次的他克莫司胶囊,在临床应用中,用他克莫司缓释胶囊代替他克莫司胶囊是切实可行的.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of twice-daily tacrolimus (Tacrolimus BID; Prograf) vs once-daily prolonged release tacrolimus (Tacrolimus QD; Advagraf), combined with steroids and mycophenolate mofetil in preventing acute rejection in De Novo renal transplantation patients. Methods 241 patients from 11 centers were randomized into two groups with 3 months observation period post-transplantation. Advagraf was administered as a single oral dose in the morning (initially 0. 1-0. 15 mg/kg every day) and Prograf was administered in two equal oral doses 12h apart (initially 0. 1-0. 15 mg/kg). Study visits were scheduled for days 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 84post-transplantion. The efficacy, safety, compliance and adverse effects were compared between two groups. Results Totally 223 patients completed the study. The two groups were comparable in age,gender and primary disease. There were 12 episodes of acute rejection in each group. There was no graft loss or patient death in both groups. The incidence of drug related adverse events was 32. 1 %and 33. 3% respectively in the control and experimental groups. Dosage was decreased in both groups and there was significant difference in each group. The trough level was similar at the initiate period.Twenty-eight days post-transplantation the trough level in the Advagraf group was lower than in the Prograf group. Conclusion Advagraf has the same efficacy, safety and drug related adverse effects as Prograf. It is practical and feasible for Advagraf substitute for Prograf in clinical practice.     

肾移植后早期应用咪唑立宾的有效性及安全性

目的 探讨肾移植后早期应用咪唑立宾( MZR)的有效性和安全性.方法 采用前瞻性临床随机对照研究.将61例首次肾移植受者按随机数字表法分为2组:(1)MZR组:33例,应用他克莫司(Tac)+ MZR+泼尼松(Pred)预防排斥反应;(2)吗替麦考酚酯组(MMF)组:28例,应用Tac+ MMF+ Pred预防排斥反应.MZR的用法为:体重＜50 kg者为150mg/d,早餐后口服;体重≥50kg者为200 mg/d,分早、晚2次口服.MMF、Tac和Pred按常规剂量服用.2组受者均于术前2h和术后4d接受巴利昔单抗(20mg/d)诱导治疗.观察并比较2组受者术后6个月内的急性排斥反应(AR)发生率、移植肾存活率以及高尿酸血症、骨髓抑制、巨细胞病毒感染、胃肠道反应等的发生率.结果 术后6个月内,MZR组AR发生率为15.2％,MMF组AR发生率为10.7％ (P＞0.05);MZR组移植肾存活率为97.0％,MMF组移植肾存活率为89.3％(P＞0.05).MZR组和MMF组间高尿酸血症、骨髓抑制、胃肠道反应和肺部感染的发生率的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).其中,MZR组未发生巨细胞病毒感染,而MMF组则发生4例(36.4％),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 在严密监测下,MZR可应用于肾移植术后早期抗排斥反应治疗.     

不同霉酚酸剂型在儿童肾移植不同年龄段的暴露差异

目的 探讨儿童肾移植术后服用不同霉酚酸(MPA)制剂在≤12岁与>12岁年龄段的暴露差异.方法 回顾性分析73例接受心脏死亡器官捐献(DCD)儿童肾移植受者的临床资料,术后免疫抑制方案均为MPA+他克莫司+糖皮质激素,按照MPA剂型分为A组(37例,服用吗替麦考酚酯胶囊)、B组(28例,服用麦考酚钠肠溶片)和C组(8例...     

肾移植术后他克莫司缓释剂型不同转换方案101例临床经验

目的回顾性分析肾移植术后稳定期受者他克莫司普通剂型转换为缓释剂型的不同转换方案的疗效和安全性, 为肾移植受者他克莫司转换策略提供参考。方法收集2020年1月至2020年6月中山大学附属第一医院术后稳定期他克莫司普通剂型转换为他克莫司缓释剂型的101例肾移植受者资料, 男性62例, 女性49例, 年龄19～69岁, 转换时按照等剂量转换和增加剂量转换两种方案进行分组, 先对比他克莫司普通剂型转换为缓释剂型后的变化, 再根据他克莫司普通剂型转换为缓释剂型不同转换剂量, 将受者分为两组:按照1∶1转换组受者55例;按照>1∶1(1∶1.2～1∶1.4)转换组受者46例。比较两组间转换后各项临床指标, 如血清肌酐(serum creatinine, Scr)、血尿素氮(blood urea nitrogen, BUN)、丙氨酸氨基转移酶(alanine aminotransferase, ALT)、天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(aspartate aminotransferase, AST)、碱性磷酸酶(alkaline phosphatase, ALP)、血清白蛋白(albumin, ALB)、...     

不同剂型吗替麦考酚酯用于同种肾移植的有效性和安全性比较

目的 比较国产吗替麦考酚酯分散片(国产MMF)与吗替麦考酚酯胶囊(进口MMF)预防移植肾急性排斥反应的有效性和安全性.方法 进行国产及进口MMF联合应用环孢素(CsA)和皮质激素预防肾移植急性排斥反应的多中心、开放性的比较研究.首次肾移植受者90例,年龄18～65岁.原发病均为慢性肾炎、慢性肾功能衰竭(尿毒症期),术前接受血液透析1～48个月.根据术后所服药物分为国产MMF组60例,进口MMF组30例.各中心均使用CsA加MMF加泼尼松的用药方案.MMF参考剂量为体质量＜50 kg受者1.0 g/d,50～70 kg受者1.5 g/d,＞70 kg受者1.5～2.0 g/d,分2次口服.要求CsA谷浓度具有可比性,前2个月CsA谷浓度为200～250 ng/ml,以后维持在100～200 ng/ml.术后密切观察肾功能、肝功能、血尿常规、药物不良反应、感染发生率和人/肾存活率,根据移植肾活检或临床表现诊断急性排斥反应.术后7、14 d,1、2、3个月为观察点,观察终点为3个月.结果 急性排斥反应发生率按全分析集(FAS)人群分析,国产MMF组和进口MMF组分别为5.0%(3/60)和3.3%(1/30),P=0.6613.观察终点3个月时2组SCr分别为(93.7±24.5)和(93.1±20.6)μmol/L,P=0.9131.患者存活率按FAS人群计算,2组分别为98.3%(59例)和100.0%(30例),P=0.5506.国产MMF组中1例患者于术后15 d因CsA肾毒性反应而停用所有口服免疫抑制药物,退出试验.该例于术后26 d因心肌梗死带功能肾死亡.不良反应发生率国产MMF组为41.7%(25/60),进口MMF组为36.7%(11/30),P=0.6481.结论 联合应用CsA和激素时,国产MMF分散片用于首次同种肾移植的治疗效果和不良反应与进口MMF胶囊相比无明显差别.     

Dose optimization of mycophenolate mofetil when administered with a low dose of tacrolimus in cadaveric renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Supplementation of immunosuppressive therapy with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been found to reduce the rate of acute rejection in renal transplantation. We report a dose-finding study for MMF when administered in combination with low-dose tacrolimus and corticosteroid prophylaxis in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-two patients at 16 centers were enrolled in this randomized, parallel-group study. The three treatment groups were tacrolimus and corticosteroids (MMF-0 group, n=82); tacrolimus, corticosteroids, and 1 g of MMF daily (MMF-1 g group, n=79); and tacrolimus, corticosteroids, and 2 g of MMF daily (MMF-2 g group, n=71). Study duration was 6 months, and patients were followed up for patient and graft survival for 12 months. RESULTS: At 6 months posttransplantation, daily doses of 1 g and 2 g of MMF were associated with significantly lower rates of acute rejection compared with tacrolimus alone. The Kaplan-Meier rates were 48.5%, 24.9%, and 22.9%, respectively, for the three treatment groups when acute rejection was determined by clinical criteria (P=0.007). At month 12, patient survival rates were 100%, 97.5%, and 97.2% and graft survival rates were 90.2%, 92.4%, and 93.0% for the MMF-0 group, MMF-1 g group, and the MMF-2 g group, respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events and leukopenia were higher in the MMF groups, especially in the MMF-2 g group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose tacrolimus combined with a MMF dose of 1 g daily and corticosteroids provided an optimized efficacy and safety profile. A higher dose of MMF (2 g) was associated with greater toxicity without a significant improvement in efficacy.     

The influence of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine and mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics on the incidence of acute rejection and infectious complications after renal transplantation

PURPOSE: The present retrospective study investigated the influence of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) instead of azathioprine (AZA) as part of tacrolimus-based immunosuppression. Mycophenolic acid (MPA) pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were used for associations with the incidence of acute rejection (AR) episodes and infectious complications after renal transplantation. METHODS: The 66 consecutive renal transplant recipients reported herein excluded ABO-incompatible transplants or cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative recipients. The immunosuppressive regimen consisted of tacrolimus, steroids, and AZA 1-2 mg/kg/d in 22 patients (between February 1998 and December 2000) or MMF 2 g/d in 44 patients (since January 2001). CMV infection was defined as positive CMV-antigenemia. MPA PK was studied on day 28 after transplantation in 21 recipients. RESULTS: AR occurred in 13.6% of patients in the MMF group compared with 18.2% in the AZA group. The viral infection (CMV, varicella zoster virus, adenovirus hemorrhagic cystitis, and malignancy related to Epstein-Barr [EB] virus) rate was 22.7% in the MMF group and 0% in the AZA group (P = .015). There were no bacterial or fungal infections observed in the 2 groups. MMF dose per body weight was significantly lower among patients with AR than those without AR (25.1 vs 35.6 mg/kg; P = .026). There were no differences in MPA PK parameters between patients with and without viral infections. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with MMF required less treatment for AR, however, there were no significant differences. MMF dose per body weight may play an important role in the occurrence of AR. Although virus infections occurred in recipients treated with MMF, MPA PK did not influence the infectious complications after renal transplantation.     

Randomized comparative trial of mizoribine versus mycophenolate mofetil in combination with tacrolimus for living donor renal transplantation

Background

Mizoribine (MZR) was approved in 1984 in Japan for the suppression of rejection in renal transplantation with an approved administration dosage of 1–3 mg/kg/day. The action of MZR resembles that of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), but MZR dosing is markedly lower than that of MMF. To examine whether higher dosing of MZR could obtain efficacy similar to MMF in renal transplantation, we conducted a comparative study of MZR and MMF using a high daily dose of MZR.

Methods

A prospective, randomized comparative study of MZR versus MMF using tacrolimus (FK) and steroids as the base was conducted in 35 patients who had undergone living-donor renal transplantation (ABO-incompatible patients were not included) at 8 institutions in Japan between July 2005 and June 2007. Starting doses were 12 mg/kg/day for MZR and 2 g/day for MMF. Dosages of FK and steroids were set according to the protocol of each institution.

Results

Patient and graft survival rate at 1 year after transplantation was 100 % in each group, with no significant difference in rejection rate apparent between groups. Adverse events found in both groups were characteristic, frequently involving infection and digestive organ disorder in the MMF group and elevated uric acid levels in the MZR group.

Conclusions

Based on these results, MZR and MMF are considered almost equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety.     

Significant reduction of Tacrolimus trough level after conversion from twice daily Prograf to once daily Advagraf in Chinese renal transplant recipients with or without concomitant diltiazem treatment

Abstract

A dose ratio of 1:1 was recommended for the conversion from Standard-release Tacrolimus (Prograf) to Prolonged-release Tacrolimus (Advagraf). We investigated the trough tacrolimus blood level in Chinese kidney transplant recipients after conversion, including subjects receiving concomitant treatment with diltiazem. Eighteen stable renal allograft recipients were followed prospectively for 12 weeks after conversion from Prograf to Advagraf at the same daily dose. Tacrolimus blood trough level decreased significantly within 8 weeks after conversion (p?<?0.01). Twelve patients required escalation of the Advagraf dose by 1.10?±?0.36?mg. For the whole group the daily tacrolimus dose was increased from 0.057?±?0.032?mg/kg to 0.068?±?0.033?mg/kg (p?<?0.0001). At week 12 the daily dose of Advagraf was 127?±?32% of the original daily dose of Prograf. In the subgroup of patients receiving diltiazem, their tacrolimus trough level decreased significantly after conversion (p?=?0.001), and the daily tacrolimus dose was increased from 0.060?±?0.036?mg/kg to 0.073?±?0.036?mg/kg (p?<?0.0001). At week 12, their daily dose of Advagraf was 131?±?34% of the original daily dose before conversion. To conclude, conversion from Prograf to Advagraf in renal allograft recipients with or without diltiazem co-treatment necessitated an increase in the daily dose by approximately 30% to maintain the target blood trough level unchanged.     

Steroid-Withdrawal at 3 Days After Renal Transplantation with Anti-IL-2 Receptor α Therapy: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Study

Steroids have been included in most immunosuppressive regimens after renal transplantation, but are feared for their side-effects. We conducted a prospective multicenter study to investigate whether it is feasible to withdraw steroids early after transplantation with the use of anti-IL-2Ralpha induction, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). A total of 364 patients were randomized to receive either two doses of daclizumab (1 mg/kg) and, for the first 3 days, 100 mg of prednisolone (daclizumab group n = 186), or steroids (tapered to 0 mg at week 16; controls n = 178). All patients received tacrolimus and MMF. The incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection at 12 months was not different between the daclizumab group (15%) and the controls (14%) (95% confidence interval of difference: -6 to + 8%, NS). Graft survival at 12 months was comparable in the two groups (daclizumab group: 91%; controls: 90%). Mean arterial blood pressure, serum lipids, and incidence of patients with hyperglycemia were temporary lower in the daclizumab group compared with controls. The immunosuppressive regimen of the daclizumab group was associated with increased costs. In conclusion, with the use of anti-IL-2Ra induction and daily therapy with tacrolimus and MMF it is feasible to withdraw steroids at 3 days after renal transplantation.     

Neoral versus prograf in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation with portal venous drainage: three-year results of a single-center, open-label, prospective, randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND: The preferential use of tacrolimus (Prograf) over cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKTx) is mainly based on historical, retrospective studies. We herein report the 3-year results of a single-center, prospective, randomized comparison of the two calcineurin inhibitors in the setting of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-based immunosuppression and portal drainage of pancreas allografts. METHODS: Between May 2001 and August 2004, 47 SPKTx recipients who were stratified by recipient sex, were alternatively assigned to treatment with Neoral (n = 22) or Prograf (n = 25). Concurrent immunosuppression included induction treatment with basiliximab and maintenance with MMF and steroids. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, all patients remained in the study arm into which they were initially enrolled. No pancreas rejection episode was observed. One acute kidney rejection was recorded in the Neoral arm (4.5%) as compared with 7 (28.0%) including one steroid-resistant episode, in the Prograf arm (P = .03). The cumulative incidence of adverse events was 31.8% (n = 7) in the Neoral arm compared with 92.0% (n = 23) in the Prograf arm (P < .0001). One patient died in each study arm. Patient, pancreas, and kidney survivals overlapped at 1- and 3-years posttransplant, namely all 95.4% for the Neoral arm compared with 95.8%, 91.8%, and 95.8%, respectively, for the Prograf arm (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in MMF-based immunosuppression there is no convincing evidence that Prograf should be preferred to Neoral in SPKTx.     

Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Our clinical trial was designed to investigate the optimal combination of immunosuppressants for renal transplantation. METHODS: A randomized three-arm, parallel group, open label, prospective study was performed at 15 North American centers to compare three immunosuppressive regimens: tacrolimus + azathioprine (AZA) versus cyclosporine (Neoral) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus tacrolimus + MMF. All patients were first cadaveric kidney transplants receiving the same maintenance corticosteroid regimen. Only patients with delayed graft function (32%) received antilymphocyte induction. A total of 223 patients were randomized, transplanted, and followed for 1 year. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline demography between the three treatment groups. At 1 year the results are as follows: acute rejection 17% (95% confidence interval 9%, 26%) in tacrolimus + AZA; 20% (confidence interval 11%, 29%) in cyclosporine + MMF; and 15% (confidence interval 7%, 24%) in tacrolimus + MMF. The incidence of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy was 12% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 11% in the cyclosporine + MMF group, and 4% in the tacrolimus + MMF group. There were no significant differences in overall patient or graft survival. Tacrolimus-treated patients had a lower incidence of hyperlipidemia through 6 months posttransplant. The incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus requiring insulin was 14% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 7% in the cyclosporine + MMF and 7% in the tacrolimus + MMF groups. CONCLUSIONS: All regimens yielded similar acute rejection rates and graft survival, but the tacrolimus + MMF regimen was associated with the lowest rate of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy.     

Randomized trial of tacrolimus in combination with sirolimus or mycophenolate mofetil in kidney transplantation: results at 6 months

BACKGROUND: This is the first report of a randomized, multicenter, clinical trial comparing the combination of sirolimus or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression in kidney transplantation. Results at 6 months of follow-up are presented. METHODS: Before transplantation, patients were randomized to receive tacrolimus plus corticosteroids with sirolimus (n=185) or MMF (n=176). The primary endpoint of the study was the incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection. Patient and graft survival, renal function, and composite endpoints also were evaluated. Safety was assessed by monitoring laboratory parameters and adverse events. RESULTS: By 6 months of follow-up, the incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection was similar in both treatment groups (13.0% tacrolimus+sirolimus vs. 11.4% tacrolimus+MMF; P=0.64 log-rank). Patient survival (97.3% tacrolimus+sirolimus vs. 97.7% tacrolimus+MMF) and graft survival (93.0% tacrolimus+sirolimus vs. 95.5% tacrolimus+MMF) were equivalent (P=0.53, overall survival log-rank). There was a significantly higher incidence of study drug discontinuation in patients receiving sirolimus (21.1% vs. 10.8%; P=0.008). Renal function was significantly better in the MMF-treatment group (serum creatinine 1.44+/-0.45 mg/dL vs. 1.77+/-1.42 mg/dL; P=0.018). Hyperlipidemia was significantly more prevalent in the sirolimus-treatment group. Diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher in sirolimus-treated patients. There were significantly more leukopenia and gastrointestinal adverse events in the MMF-treatment group. The incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus was 7.6% in the sirolimus group and 7.7% in the MMF group. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus is equally effective in renal transplantation when combined with sirolimus or MMF. The tacrolimus-MMF combination may be superior in terms of improved renal function and improved cardiovascular risk factors including hyperlipidemia and hypertension.     

Single-center, open, prospective, randomized pilot study comparing cyclosporine versus tacrolimus in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Although tacrolimus (Prograf) is the calcineurin inhibitor usually employed in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKTx), no prospective randomized studies have compared its efficacy to cyclosporine (Neoral), when either drug is used in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and the pancreas is drained into the portal vein. METHODS: Between May 2001 and June 2003, 16 SPKTx recipients were randomized to be prescribed Neoral and 17 Prograf in addition to basiliximab, steroids, and MMF. All pancreata were drained into the portal vein. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 15.6 months, six kidney acute rejection episodes were observed with Prograf (36.5%; one steroid-resistant) and one Neoral (n = 1, 6.2%; P =.04). No pancreas rejection episode was recorded. Two infections occurred in two recipients from each group. No major adverse events were noted other than a severe hematological toxicity (Prograf). Metabolic parameters were equivalent in the two groups, save for higher total cholesterol (212 +/- 39 mg/dL vs 173 +/- 23 mg/dL; P =.008), LDL (129 +/- 33 mg/dL vs 101 +/- 21 mg/dL; P =.029), and triglyceride (191 +/- 86 mg/dL vs 126 +/- 40 mg/dL; P =.028), values with Neoral, although the same differences were already present at baseline. One recipient (Neoral) died with functioning grafts. Patient, pancreas, and kidney survival rates were all 94% for Neoral versus 100% for Prograf. CONCLUSIONS: Although a larger series and a longer follow-up are needed, Neoral and Prograf used in combination with MMF seem to achieve equivalent success rates among primary SPKTx when the pancreas is drained into the portal vein.