Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Presse Rénale
You have accessRestricted Access

Renal Transplantation

William M. Bennett and Mohamed H. Sayegh
CJASN January 2008, 3 (1) 7-9; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.04471007
William M. Bennett
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mohamed H. Sayegh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Incidence of cancers in people with HIV/AIDS compared with immunosuppressed transplant recipients: A meta-analysis. Lancet 370: 59–67, 2007

Grulich AE, van Leeuwen MT, Falster MO, Vajdic CM

Immunodeficiency is known to predispose to malignancy in populations with HIV/AIDS and with therapeutic immunosuppression for solid organ transplantation. The types of cancer that have arisen seem to be related to specific viral infections. For ascertainment of whether these types of malignancies were a product of the immunosuppressed state or specific for these disease entities, cancer incidence was compared in large population-based cohort studies between people with HIV/AIDS and solid organ transplant immunosuppression. The methods used were meta-analyses of log standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for specific tumors in both populations.

Findings.

Seven studies of patients with HIV/AIDS totaling 44,172 individuals were compared with five studies of transplant recipients (97% of which were renal transplant recipients) involving 31,977 transplants. Of the 28 types of cancer examined, there was an increased incidence in both populations for 20. Most of these cancers were related to known viral infections in both populations. The most common epithelial cancers did not occur at greatly increased rates, although some specific tumors did show increases in the renal transplant population as compared with those seen in HIV/AIDS.

Commentary.

It is known to most nephrologists who care for transplant recipients that the incidence of posttransplantation malignancies is increased. Thus, a thorough search is made for malignancy risk before transplantation by serologic workup of patients who are about to undergo immunosuppression to look for immunity to Epstein-Barr virus, human papillomavirus, and other viruses. This article is the work of a large group of Australian epidemiologists and follows their study in 2006 examining the cancer incidence before and after kidney transplantation (1). This study showed that cancer incidence was markedly increased after transplantation with a SIR of 3.27 compared with 1.35 in dialysis patients and potential transplant recipients. In the previous study, there was increased incidence of 25 types of cancer with a relative risk >3 for 18 of these tumors. Most of the tumors were of suspected viral cause. This study shows that most likely the immunosuppressed state is responsible, because the incidence of these virally related tumors is increased similarly in both HIV/AIDS and immunosuppressed transplant patients. In the latest study, the SIR for breast and prostate cancer were similar in both populations and not >1; however, colorectal, ovarian, and lung tumors were greater in both populations with SIR of 1.69, 1.55, and 2.18, respectively. As has been reported before, renal cancer has a large relative risk in transplant recipients of 6.78 compared with a lesser incidence of 1.50 in HIV/AIDS. These analyses do not include nonmelanoma skin cancers, which are exceedingly common in renal transplant recipients (2). Patients with these tumors may benefit from the use of sirolimus as a drug in maintenance immunosuppression, although proper studies need to be done in this regard. The “take-home message” for nephrologists who are caring for transplant patients is that malignancies are increased and that some patients at particular risk (e.g., those who are Epstein-Barr virus negative at the time of transplantation). Patients who have risk factors for human papillomavirus and are unvaccinated should be followed very closely. All recipients should at least get the cancer surveillance recommended for the general population. This if often not done by busy nephrologists who care for such patients. In the renal transplant patient with retained native kidneys, renal cell carcinoma remains a significant risk (3,4). Annual screening for cervical and breast cancer and colonoscopy at suggested intervals should be done. Renal imaging every 2 yr and yearly prostate assessments seem reasonable. Patients would also benefit from careful skin examinations with expert follow-up of all suspicious lesions. We rely heavily in our program on skilled transplant-aware dermatologists.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    Vajdic CM, McDonald SP, McCredie MR, van Leeuwen MT, Stewart JH, Law M, Chapman JR, Webster AC, Kaldor JM, Grulich AE: Cancer incidence before and after kidney transplantation. JAMA296 :2823– 2831,2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Wimmer CD, Rentsch M, Crispin A, Illner WD, Arbogast H, Graeb C, Jauch K-W, Guba M: The janus face of immunosuppression: De novo malignancy after renal transplantation—The experience of the Transplantation Center Munich. Kidney Int71 :1271– 1278,2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Scandling JD: Acquired cystic kidney disease and renal cell cancer after transplantation: Time to rethink screening? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2 :621– 622,2007
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Schwarz A, Vatandaslar S, Merkel S, Haller H: Renal cell carcinoma in transplant recipients with acquired cystic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2 :750– 756,2007
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

The impact of UGT1A8, UGT1A9, and UGT2B7 genetic polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetic profile of mycophenolic acid after a single oral dose in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 81: 392–400, 2007

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is a component of most modern immunosuppressive medication regimens for solid organ transplantation and is increasing used in renal diseases of immune pathogenesis. The pharmacokinetics are complex, and there is wide interindividual variation in drug metabolism and exposure. The target for mycophenolic acid, the active metabolite, is de novo purine biosynthesis limiting T cell proliferation capacity in response to stimuli. For other narrow therapeutic index drugs, therapeutic drug level monitoring has proven utility, but with MMF, no simple approach has proved useful. Perhaps knowing metabolism genotype might provide a better insight into dosing in patients before starting immunosuppression with mycophenolic acid. In this study, 17 healthy volunteers with no polymorphisms were compared with 17 carriers of UGT1A9 (−275/−2152) after a single 1.5-g oral dose of MMF).

Findings.

Compared with control subjects, the patients who were carriers for the specific UGT1A9 polymorphism showed significantly lower exposure to mycophenolic acid and lower estimated enterohepatic recycling. There was no apparent change in metabolism. Compared with the control subjects, carriers of a different UGT1A9 polymorphism, UgT1A9*3, had higher mycophenolic acid maximum concentrations. The results of this study indicate that mycophenolic acid dosage would be significantly affected by the UGT genotype of an individual. This provides at least a partial explanation for why “one size fits all” does not apply to dosing patients with MMF.

Commentary.

The information in this article, although somewhat peripheral to the day-to-day practice of nephrology, gives insight as to the complexity of mycophenolic acid exposure and thus efficacy and toxicity in individual patients. Clearly, the current practice of starting with a fixed dosage of 1 g twice daily and titrating down to the maximum dosage tolerable by adverse effects such as gastrointestinal intolerance and cytopenias is somewhat primitive. Disappointing is that simple trough level monitoring has not found much utility. Furthermore, there are differential effects of cyclosporine to block enterohepatic recycling and tacrolimus-based regimens to leave this process relatively unaffected. Area-under-the-curve monitoring is simply not practical for most transplant patients in long-term follow-up settings. Also, it is not even known whether the area under the curve is stable over time.

Having a signature genotype on the patient's drug-metabolizing enzymes might provide a useful clue to dosing initial therapy with MMF. Further studies on this approach will be forthcoming. For now, therapy with MMF will continue to be empiric. It should be recognized that patients with renal dysfunction have reduced protein binding of mycophenolic acid, leading to higher free concentration and enhanced adverse effects. Thus, nephrotic patients with low serum albumin may be at increased risk for adverse consequences, particularly cytopenias, if dosage adjustment is not made. Although studies that largely were supported by the manufacturers of MMF and the enteric-coated sodium salt have shown that reducing the dosage enhances rejection activity, none of these studies has provided a pharmacokinetic basis for these observations. The enteric-coated formula has shown no superiority in terms of efficacy or gastrointestinal adverse effects, and thus the foregoing discussion most likely applies to both drugs.

Results of an international, randomized trial comparing glucose metabolism disorders and outcome with cyclosporine versus tacrolimus. Am J Transplant 7: 1506–1514, 2007

New-onset diabetes is a significant comorbidity in patients who undergo what otherwise would be a life-extending procedure, namely resumption of normal kidney function by transplantation. The differences between standard immunosuppressive calcineurin inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus have been pointed out before. Somewhat paradoxic, cyclosporine increases other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as hypertension and LDL cholesterol, compared with tacrolimus, which increases new-onset diabetes. This study compared de novo renal transplant patients who were on a regimen of basiliximab, mycophenolic acid, steroids, and either cyclosporine microemulsion or tacrolimus. The cyclosporine therapy was monitored by C2 sampling, and the tacrolimus was monitored by trough levels. This study was an attempt to compare the two most commonly used calcineurin inhibitors in terms of their metabolic consequences because cardiovascular death, presumably associated with abnormal risk factors in these patients, is the most common cause of death with a functioning transplant.

Findings.

This was an intention-to-treat study of 682 patients, 336 of whom were treated with cyclosporine microemulsion and 346 with tacrolimus. A total of 567 did not have diabetes at the baseline visit, and their risk for diabetes including steroid doses was similar at baseline. The end point was new-onset diabetes after transplantation or impaired fasting glucose at 6 mo. This was a multicenter study, and a variety of steroid protocols were used in these patients. It is pointed out by an editorialist for these articles that the dosages of steroids and target tacrolimus trough levels may be higher than is currently used in clinical practice and may partially account for the results obtained (1). The primary efficacy end point was biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, or patient death at 6 mo. Renal function was estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula.

There was statistically more diabetes in the tacrolimus patients, 96 of whom developed the end point of new-onset diabetes or fasting glucose intolerance. This represents 33.6% of the patients. Seventy-three cyclosporine microemulsion patients achieved this end point for a 26% prevalence. Efficacy was no different between the groups with an end point occurring in 43 (12.8%) cyclosporine microemulsion patients and 34 (9.8%) tacrolimus patients. Renal function as estimated by the formula was no different. BP was no different, but total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were higher in cyclosporine compared with tacrolimus patients. It should be noted that the study was supported financially by Novartis.

Commentary.

This large, well-done clinical study points out what has been thought by transplant physicians, namely that the price for effective immunosuppression with both calcineurin inhibitors is an increased incidence of posttransplantation diabetes, which is obviously a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. A recent review of this subject has appeared in the pages of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (2). Efficacy between the two immunosuppressive drugs is similar as noticed in previous studies. The trend toward less rejection with tacrolimus is again noted. The major criticism of this study is the higher steroid burden and the trough levels and thus the increased exposure to tacrolimus provided by the protocol. Both steroids and tacrolimus cause insulin resistance, contributing to the risk for posttransplantation diabetes. Thus, the differences between the two drugs are not terribly surprising and do favor the sponsor's compounds. For the physician contemplating which calcineurin inhibitor to use, the choice should be based on individual patient factors. These include the immunologic risk of the patients versus the risk for cardiovascular and metabolic complications. Individual choices can then be rationalized. We have two effective calcineurin inhibitors, and their differences and similarities should be considered in prescribing for the individual patient.

References

  1. ↵
    van Hooff JP, Christiaans MH, Van Duijnhoven EM: Glucose metabolic disorder after transplantation. Am J Transplant7 :1435– 1436,2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Crutchlow MF, Bloom RD: Transplant-associated hyperglycemia: A new look at an old problem. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2 :343– 355,2007
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

Cyclosporine sparing with mycophenolate mofetil, daclizumab and corticosteroids in renal allograft recipients: The CAESAR Study. Am J Transplant 7: 560–570, 2007

Calcineurin inhibitors have revolutionized renal transplantation. The drugs cyclosporine and tacrolimus have led to improved renal allograft survivals and patient survivals and enabled the emergence of extrarenal organ transplantation in the 1980s and 1990s. The downside of calcineurin inhibitors is their widely known adverse effects, the most prominent of which is nephrotoxicity. Much of this nephrotoxicity is mediated by impairment of renal hemodynamics, but chronic tubulointerstitial disease has also been shown both experimentally and clinically (1). This has led to protocols to try to minimize the exposure of renal transplant recipients to calcineurin inhibitors after an initial period of more intense immunosuppression. The Cyclosporine Avoidance Eliminates Serious Adverse Renal Toxicity (CAESAR) study is an attempt to withdraw or minimize calcineurin exposure after 6 mo after engraftment.

Findings.

A total of 536 patients who were receiving their first renal transplant were randomly assigned to one of three regimens. All patients received induction with daclizumab, a CD25 mAb, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. Withdrawal from cyclosporine starting at month 4 and completed by month 6 was given to one group, another had low-dosage cyclosporine continued but targeting a lower-than-usual trough blood level of 50 to 100 ng/ml, and a final group received a standard dosage of cyclosporine. There was significant increase in biopsy-proven acute rejection in the group that was withdrawn from cyclosporine of 38% versus the low- or standard-dosage cyclosporine groups, which were 25.4 and 27.5%, respectively. Renal function as measured by GFR was not different in all three groups. The authors concluded that maintenance of cyclosporine probably is useful in avoiding higher rejection rates and that low-dosage cyclosporine as indicated by this protocol targeting lower trough levels is safe.

Commentary.

As pointed out by the editorialists for this article, this study does document a lower level of rejection when calcineurin inhibitors are maintained versus their withdrawal at 4 to 6 mo (2). This begs the question of whether the addition of a presumably non-nephrotoxic immunosuppressive agent such as sirolimus would provide lower rates of rejection comparable to the calcineurin inhibitor arms of the study. Left unexplained is the higher-than-usual rejection rates of all groups in this study versus what is reported by other transplant centers usually experiencing 10 to 15% acute rejection rates. Deficiencies in this study are again noted by the editorialist. Cyclosporine levels in the standard arm approach the low-dosage arm, perhaps accounting for the minor differences in rejection between these two groups. The lack of effect on renal function may be due to short-term follow-up. Translation of these data to the longer term effects of calcineurin inhibitors to reduce renal function gradually over time cannot be addressed by this short-term study. It is not known whether exposure to cyclosporine in lower-than-conventional dosages is beneficial over the long haul. Also, the effect of more potent induction before calcineurin withdrawal is left up in the air. Because excellent results are obtained in renal transplantation at the present time using triple drug regimens, the standard protocols for cyclosporine and tacrolimus maintenance therapies should aim for 6-mo trough calcineurin levels between 100 and 150 and tacrolimus levels between 5 and 10. This should remain the standard of care until well-controlled, long-term clinical results are available from CAESAR or other studies.

References

  1. ↵
    Bennett WM, DeMattos A, Meyer MM, Andoh T, Barry JM: Chronic cyclosporine nephropathy: The Achilles’ heel of immunosuppressive therapy. Kidney Int50 :1089– 1100,1996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Kaplan B, Budde K: Lessons from the CAESAR study: Calcineurin inhibitors—Can't live with them and can't live without them. Am J Transplant7 :495– 496,2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 3, Issue 1
January 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Renal Transplantation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Renal Transplantation
William M. Bennett, Mohamed H. Sayegh
CJASN Jan 2008, 3 (1) 7-9; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04471007

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Renal Transplantation
William M. Bennett, Mohamed H. Sayegh
CJASN Jan 2008, 3 (1) 7-9; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04471007
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Findings.
    • Commentary.
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Findings.
    • Commentary.
    • Findings.
    • Commentary.
    • References
    • Findings.
    • Commentary.
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Systemic Diseases: From Amyloidosis to CryoglobulinemiaHereditary fibrinogen A α-chain amyloidosis: Phenotypic characterization of a systemic disease and the role of liver transplantation. Blood 115: 2998–3007, 2010Long-term TNF-α blockade in patients with amyloid A amyloidosis complicating rheumatic diseases. Am J Med 123: 454–461, 2010Bortezomib with or without dexamethasone in primary systemic (light-chain) amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol 28: 1031–1037, 2010Rituximab plus Peg-interferon-α/ribavirin compared with Peg-interferon-α/ribavirin in hepatitis C-related mixed cryoglobulinemia. Blood 116: 326–334, 2010
  • More on Clinical Renal GeneticsNewborn screening for Fabry disease in Taiwan reveals a high incidence of the later-onset mutation c.936+919G>A (IVS4+919G>A). Hum Mutat 30: 1397–1405, 2009Lanreotide reduces the volume of polycystic liver: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Gastroenterology 137: 1661–1668, 2009Cerebrovascular disease related to COL4A1 mutations in HANAC syndrome. Neurology 73: 1873–1882, 2009Dominant renin gene mutations associated with early-onset hyperuricemia, anemia, and chronic renal failure. Am J Hum Genet 85: 204–213, 2009Mutations in the formin gene INF2 cause focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Nat Genet 42: 72–76, 2009
  • Sizzling Issues in Clinical Renal TransplantationTransplant nephrectomy improves survival following a failed renal allograft. J Am Soc Nephrol 21: 324–380, 2010The success of continued steroid avoidance after kidney transplantation in the US. Am J Transplant 9: 2768–2776, 2009Factors associated with progression of interstitial fibrosis in renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 88: 897–903, 2009
Show more Presse Rénale

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire