Journal Information
Vol. 31. Issue. 1.January 2011
Pages 1-128
Vol. 31. Issue. 1.January 2011
Pages 1-128
Full text access
CLINICAL EVIDENCE ON THE USE OF ANTI-mTOR DRUGS IN RENAL TRANSPLANTATION
Evidencias clínicas sobre el uso de los fármacos anti-mTOR en el trasplante renal
Visits
...
, Domingo Hernándezb, D.. Hernándezc, Dolores Martínezb, D.. Martínezc, Elena Gutiérrezb, E.. Gutiérrezc, Verónica Lópezb, V.. Lópezc, Cristina Gutiérrezb, C.. Gutiérrezc, Patricia Garcíab, P.. Garcíac, Carmen Cobelob, C.. Cobeloc, Mercedes Cabellob, M.. Cabelloc, Dolores Burgosb, D.. Burgosc, Eugenia Solab, E.. Solac, Miguel González-Molinab, M.. González-Molinac
b Servicio de Nefrolog??a, Hospital Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, M??laga, Spain,
c Servicio de Nefrolog??a, Hospital Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, M??laga,
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (3)
Show moreShow less

Calcineurin inhibitor drugs (CNI) are the mainstay of modern immunosuppression in renal transplantation. However, they contribute significantly to the chronic loss of renal grafts and the high morbidity and mortality in this population due to their deleterious effects on the renal graft, cardiovascular profile and tumour pathology. Anti-mTOR drugs, sirolimus (SRL) and everolimus (EVE) are potent immunosuppressants with antiproliferative and anti-migratory capacities. These properties mean that they have a potential protective role in graft dysfunction, in renal function optimisation and the appearance of malignant tumours. Indeed, clinical trials and observational studies have demonstrated that conversion from CNI to anti-mTOR-based maintenance therapy has beneficial effects on transplant outcomes in terms of renal function, without significant increase in acute rejection rates. This review article examines the evidence of the use of anti-mTOR in the following clinical situations following renal transplantation: 1) prevention of immune dysfunction and renal function preservation in de novo renal transplantation and after early or late CNI withdrawal; 2) chronic dysfunction of the renal graft; 3) cardiovascular effects; 4) de novo post-transplant diabetes, and 5) de novo tumour pathology.


Keywords:
Everolimus
Keywords:
Anti-mTOR drugs
Keywords:
Renal transplantation
Keywords:
Sirolimus
Keywords:
Proliferation signal inhibitors

Los fármacos inhibidores de la calcineurina (ICN) constituyen los pilares de la moderna inmunosupresión en el trasplante renal. Sin embargo, contribuyen significativamente a la pérdida crónica de los injertos renales y a la elevada morbimortalidad en esta población por sus efectos deletéreos sobre el injerto renal, el perfil cardiovascular y la patología tumoral. Los fármacos anti-mTOR, sirolimus (SRL) y everolimus (EVE), son potentes inmunosupresores con capacidad antiproliferativa y antimigratoria, propiedades que les confieren un potencial papel protector en la disfunción del injerto, en la optimización de la función renal y en la aparición de tumores. En efecto, ensayos clínicos controlados y estudios observacionales de conversión han demostrado el efecto beneficioso de estos fármacos en términos de función renal, sin incremento significativo de las tasas de rechazo agudo. En esta revisión se analizan las evidencias del empleo de los fármacos anti-mTOR en los siguientes aspectos clínicos de los pacientes con trasplante renal: 1) prevención de la disfunción inmunológica precoz y preservación de la función renal en el uso de novo y conversión precoz o tardía; 2) disfunción crónica del injerto renal; 3) efectos cardiovasculares; 4) diabetes de novo postrasplante, y 5) patología tumoral de novo.

Palabras clave:
Everolimus
Palabras clave:
Fármacos anti-mTOR
Palabras clave:
Trasplante renal
Palabras clave:
Sirolimus
Palabras clave:
Inhibidores de la señal de proliferación
Full Text

INTRODUCTION

 

Calcineurin inhibitor drugs (CNI) are the mainstay of modern immunosuppression but their deleterious effects on patients and renal grafts means that long-term survival rates for renal transplantation (TX) have not improved in keeping with the good results obtained during the first year post-TX.1

 

In recent years, the advent of new immunosuppressants has helped for therapeutic strategies to be designed which are aimed at minimising the negative impact of CNI on chronic graft dysfunction, and cardiovascular and tumour comorbidity. Undoubtedly, this could increase survival rates, especially in long-lived individuals who receive TX from elderly donors.

 

Anti-mTOR drugs, sirolimus (SRL) and everolimus (EVE) are potent immunosuppressants with antiproliferative and anti-migratory capacity that work by blocking the intracellular signalling that regulates the growth and proliferation of T2 cells. This gives them a potentially protective role in renal graft dysfunction, which could simultaneously optimise the cardiovascular profile and reduce the appearance of de novo tumours. However, their side effects may offset these benefits in the longer term (Figure 1).

 

In this review article, we shall analyse the evidence of anti-mTOR drug use in the field of TX, with major emphasis on the following clinical features: 1) prevention of early immune dysfunction and renal function preservation in de novo use and early or late conversion; 2) chronic dysfunction of the renal graft; 3) cardiovascular effects; 4) de novo post-transplant diabetes, and 5)de novo tumour pathology.

 

PREVENTION OF EARLY IMMUNE DYSFUNCTION AND PRESERVATION OF RENAL FUNCTION

 

De Novo Use

 

Initial studies showed that using SRL with or without induction and avoiding CNI was associated with better renal function compared to regimens with cyclosporine (CsA) with a similar rate of acute rejection, as long as it was associated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).3-11 It was also noted that, in addition to optimising renal function, using SRL instead of CsA was associated with a lower expression of genes involved in the development of chronic graft dysfunction (CGD). For example, the gene that encodes the transforming growth factor (TGF-β) protein or the monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1).12

 

More recently, it was found that induction therapy with thymoglobulin in addition to SRL in de novo transplantations was associated with improved renal function compared to conventional immunosuppression therapy (prednisone, tacrolimus and MF). However, the price to pay may be a higher rate of adverse effects and loss of grafts with the use of SRL.13 The mTOR protein regulates memory CD8 T-cell differentiation.14 Furthermore, the combination of thymoglobulin and SRL is associated with a greater degree of preservation and recovery of memory T-lymphocytes compared to those receiving CsA.15 This may well explain the higher rate of immune dysfunction in SRL use in de novo transplantation compared to CNI, especially after administration of polyclonal antibodies.

 

Nevertheless, what happens with EVE? An excellent review article on the use of this drug showed that using 1.5 or 3 mg of EVE with full or reduced doses of CsA conferred a similar rate of acute rejections and graft survival as conventional therapy with CsA and MMF. Although there was a lower rate of severe rejections using 3mg of EVE.16 In any case, worsening renal function was the common denominator in clinical trials that used higher doses of EVE (3 mg/day) despite a reduction in CsA, which suggested the need to combine low doses of CNI and anti-mTOR.17,18 Indeed, controlled studies combining low doses of CsA and EVE have shown that preservation of renal function is associated with acceptable rates of rejection and graft survival one year after transplantation,19-21 including those patients with risk of delayed renal function (CALLISTO study).22 In terms of renal function preservation and rejection rates, something similar happens when patients are treated with EVE (1.5mg/day) and low or standard doses of tacrolimus (TAC). This could result in a higher graft survival rate.23 In any case, EVE reduces the oral bioavailability of TAC in a dose-dependent manner.24 It is therefore mandatory to adjust doses and levels of both drugs when carrying out minimisation strategies with this combination of immunosuppressants.

 

Even so, a major clinical trial (the SYMPHONY study) showed that the SRL use in de novo transplantation without CNI was associated with a high rate of acute immune dysfunction and worse renal function compared with other guidelines that incorporated full or reduced doses of CNI.25 In any case, low doses and levels of SRL were used, which may result in a bias in the efficacy. If we add to this the fact that early or late use of an anti-mTOR (SRL or EVE) is associated with a high rate of surgical wound complications and that these drugs are a risk factor even without these complications,26,27 its use in de novo transplantations may be questionable. The KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) clinical practice guidelines discourage the use of these drugs as initial immunosuppressants in renal transplantations.28 Therefore, in accordance with extensive evidence: 1) the use of an anti-mTOR (low doses) in de novo transplantation without CNI is associated with a higher rate of immune dysfunction and surgical wound complications, and is therefore not recommended as an initial immunosuppressant and 2) the combined use of low-dose CNI with an anti-mTOR provides immune protection, at least in the short-term.

 

Early and late conversion

 

In light of these results, it is possible that the main indication of anti-mTOR drugs (SRL or EVE) lies in replacing CNI in the first months post-TX, once the initial danger of the immune system attacking the new graft has subsided. Nevertheless, what evidence is there for this therapeutic approach? In line with this reasoning, initial studies have shown that the reduction or elimination of CsA in therapy with SRL during the first months post-TX could offer improved renal function with acceptable graft survival rates despite a slight increase in the rate of acute rejection.10 This was endorsed in a systematic review with its corresponding meta-analysis that included six controlled clinical trials in which the withdrawal of CNI with SRL therapy resulted in better renal function despite a slight increase in the rate of immune dysfunction.29 More recently, randomised conversion of CsA to SRL between the second and third weeks post-TX was associated with a significant improvement of renal function compared to patients who continued with CsA (SMART study).30 Similar findings have been observed with TAC. The withdrawal of this drug in the first months post-TX, while under SRL therapy, preserved renal function compared to potent immunosuppression (TAC with SRL) two year after transplantation, without a significant increase in proteinuria.31 It is possible that this early beneficial effect is at least partly due to the decrease in intrarenal vascular resistance parameters, as described earlier.32

 

On the other hand, in therapeutic regimens without this initial drug combination (TAC with SRL), the substitution of CsA/TAC for SRL starting from the sixth month post-TX improved renal function significantly, especially in those patients who started with a better glomerular filtration rate (>40ml/min). Furthermore, there was a lower incidence of tumours (CONVERT study).33 Similarly, the conversion of CsA for SRL at the third month post-TX with withdrawal of steroids at the eighth month was associated with significant improvement in renal function (CONCEPT study).34 However, this improvement in glomerular filtration rate was not accompanied by less interstitial fibrosis in protocol biopsies performed one year after transplantation.35

 

Nevertheless, what happens with EVE? In early abrupt conversions from CsA to EVE (seven weeks post-TX), there is a significant increase in renal function with an acceptable rate of acute rejection six months after transplantation.36 Furthermore, observational studies have shown that the conversion from a CNI to EVE preserved renal function six months after transplantation. This is a relevant fact if we take into account that many conversions were performed due to the chronic deterioration of graft function.37-39 A recent clinical trial in patients with no immunological risk, who received conventional immunosuppression for 6 months, showed that patients converted from CsA to EVE had lower rejection rates and improved renal function than those who remained on treatment with MMF or CsA.40 Preliminary data from a controlled, multicentre Spanish study (ERIC study) shows that the conversion from TAC to EVE after three months post TX is associated with a tendency to improve the GFR, with a slight increase in the rate of acute rejections.41 Therefore, in light of available evidence (a moderate level of evidence), we can claim that the conversion from a CNI to an anti-mTOR is associated with stable renal function, which can help prevent the progression of CGD. As indicated by the KDIGO guidelines, this therapeutic approach should be considered especially in low immunological risk individuals.28

 

CHRONIC RENAL GRAFT DYSFUNCTION

 

The mTOR protein intervenes in the pathogenic mechanisms of the progression of chronic renal disease. Therefore, SRL and EVE can play an important role in the prevention of CGD due to their antiproliferative actions (Figure 2). Nevertheless, what evidence is there?

 

In the chronic rejection animal model, the administration of EVE minimises the histological lesions inherent in CGD through antiproliferative mechanisms or by stimulating the apoptosis of cells that are involved in tissue remodelling.42 In sensitised rats receiving a renal graft, the administration of EVE dramatically reduced cellular infiltration of the allogeneic response and minimised interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy. This can help slow the progression of CGD.43

 

In the clinical field, the withdrawal of CsA in SRL therapy three months post-TX can prevent the occurrence of CGD lesions and optimise renal function three years after transplantation.44 A randomised study on patients with CGD showed that the administration of SRL markedly reduced interstitial and vascular expression of profibrogenic molecules compared to those who received reduced doses of CsA with MMF. This was accompanied by an improvement in graft survival two years after transplantation.45 Observational studies of late conversion from a CNI to an anti-mTOR (SRL or EVE), mainly due to CGD, have consistently shown improvement or stabilisation of renal graft function.37-39,46 However controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. In light of the limited evidence available, the KDIGO guidelines only “suggest” (but do not categorically recommend) this therapeutic change in patients with CGD.28 Moreover, anti-mTORs preserve the production of interferon-gamma; a molecule with an important antiviral action,47 which can also prevent the occurrence of chronic polyomavirus BK nephropathy.48

 

Even so, anti-mTOR drugs can lead to proteinuria, especially in patients with previous renal damage.49 This proteinuria is a predictor of endothelial dysfunction and mortality in patients with TX. This may worsen the overall TX results in the longer term.50 In light of this information, SRL and EVE may represent therapeutic alternatives in patients with CGD and minimal or no proteinuria, as long as they are not associated with a CNI (low level of evidence). The exact moment of conversion to optimise TX results remains uncertain.

 

CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS

 

In the heart, SRL inhibits the mTOR protein, which regulates intracellular protein synthesis involved in the development of cardiac ventricular hypertrophy as a result of pressure stimulus. The administration of SRL in mice subjected to cardiac pressure overload decreased the growth of myocardial cells by 50% compared to the control group. This was accompanied by reduced expression of proteins involved in mechanisms of cardiac hypertrophy such as the ribosomal protein S6.51,52 Furthermore, in the chronic renal disease animal model, administration of SRL reduces cardiomyocyte growth and reverses intermyocardiocytic fibrosis,53 which could improve cardiac remodelling. Observational studies with low numbers of patients show that the clinical conversion of a CNI to SRL significantly reduces left ventricular mass (approximately 30%), regardless of blood pressure.54 In any case, longitudinal studies are needed with a greater numbers of patients to confirm these interesting findings.

 

Anti-mTOR drugs produce dose-dependent dyslipidaemia that can contribute to the development of post-TX cardiovascular disease.55 However, in the atheromatosis animal model (apolipoprotein E knockout mice), the administration of increasing doses of SRL was able to reduce aortic atheromatous lesions in more than 50% of cases. This was accompanied by decreased expression of interleukins involved in the atheromatous process (IL-10) compared to the control group.56 This way, SRL preserves endothelial function when compared to CsA, maintaining acetylcholine-dependent vasodilation and lowering endothelin-1 levels.57,58 These actions may explain the prevention of graft vasculopathy and renal function improvement in therapeutic regimens that use anti-mTOR drugs. A clinical symptom may be a lower arterial stiffness, as was observed in a controlled study in which the conversion from CsA to EVE was associated with a slower pulse wave compared to those who continued with CsA.59 Lastly, administration of anti-mTOR decreases the incidence of CMV infection,60,61 an effect that could result in a lower occurrence of indirect effects potentially caused by this opportunistic infection such as ischaemic heart disease or peripheral vascular disease.62,63 Future prospective studies will clarify these interesting issues.

 

POST-TRANSPLANT DE NOVO DIABETES

 

The mTOR protein regulates beta cell proliferation and is involved in the intracellular signalling pathway of insulin. In stable patients with CGD, the conversion from CsA to SRL produces insulin resistance shown by an increased expression of cellular insulin receptor substrates (IRS-1 and IRS-2).64,65 An observational study of the American registry with thousands of patients showed that the risk of post-TX de novo diabetes was significantly higher in all drug combinations that included SRL compared to other therapeutic associations without this drug.66 In fact, the administration of rapamycin in animal models decreases insulin sensitivity and reduces the pancreatic beta cell mass by 50% through increased apoptosis of these cells, especially when there is a predisposition to developing diabetes mellitus, as happens in obese rats.67

 

Therefore, albeit with a low level of evidence, anti-mTORs can slow left ventricular growth and progression of atheromatosis. Although, they may predispose individuals towards development of post-TX diabetes, especially in predisposed patients.

 

DE NOVO TUMOUR PATHOLOGY

 

In general, there is an increase in the incidence of tumours after TX and CNI plays a crucial role in their development.68 The mTOR protein stimulates the production of growth factors (VEGF, PDGF-α, TNF-α) that increase angiogenesis, cellular proliferation and tumour growth (Figure 3). Hence, SRL and EVE can potentially slow the development and growth of neoplastic cells.69 An observational study of the American registry of more than 30,000 patients showed that immunosuppressive treatment that included SRL or EVE reduced the risk of cutaneous and non-cutaneous cancer by 60% as compared to treatment with CNI.70 An intention-to-treat analysis of a randomised clinical trial showed that the incidence of cutaneous and non-cutaneous carcinomas was lower in patients who received SRL compared to those who received CsA with SRL. However, the control group received more potent immunosuppressive drug, which constitutes an important bias for evaluating the anti-tumour effect of anti-mTOR drugs.71 As noted previously, a lower incidence of tumours was observed in the CONVERT study in patients who were converted from a CNI to an SRL.33 Lastly, a more recent controlled trial in patients with non-melanocytic skin tumours showed that treatment with SRL can slow the development of new neoplasms and cause pre-existing lesions to regress compared to those patients who received CsA (moderate level of evidence).72

 

At the same time, some viruses such as herpes or the Epstein-Barr virus may be responsible for the increase in neoplasms after TX. Anti-mTOR drugs can optimise the specific antiviral lymphocyte response (T lymphocytes) through an increase in CD4 and CD8. This is a mechanism that could explain the lower incidence of viral infections with these drugs.73 Obviously, this could result in a lower occurrence of neoplasms of viral origin. In fact, in a surprising study of patients with TX and Kaposi's sarcoma, the substitution of CsA for SRL led to a disappearance of histologic tumours six months after transplantation. This seemed to be due to decreased angiogenesis and reduced vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).74 In view of this, the KDIGO guidelines suggest the use of anti-mTOR drugs in patients undergoing TX who have this pathology.28 In either case, controlled studies are needed to confirm the benefit of anti-mTOR drugs in the treatment of tumours.

 

KEY CONCEPTS

1.       The use anti-mTOR in de novo transplantation without a CNI leads to a greater risk of rejection and surgical wound complications after TX.

2.      The initial combination of low doses of an anti-mTOR and a CNI provides acceptable short-term immune protection.

3.      The early conversion from a CNI to SRL/EVE may, at least, offer stable renal function. Whether this therapeutic manoeuvre prevents chronic graft dysfunction is still unknown.

4.      With a low level of evidence, the anti-mTOR drugs reduce the left ventricular mass and may potentially slow atheromatosis after TX.

5.      Anti-mTOR drugs can increase the risk of post-TX diabetes, especially in predisposed individuals.

6.      SRL and EVE reduce the incidence of post-TX de novo neoplasms.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

This study was financed in part by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España (Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain [SAF2007-60314]).

Figure 1. Potential clinical benefits and adverse effects of anti-mTOR drugs

Figure 2. Mechanisms of action of anti-mTOR drugs to slow the progression of chronic graft dysfunction.

Figure 3. Potential mechanism of action of anti-mTOR drugs for inhibiting tumour growth

Bibliography
[1]
Meier-Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Srinivas TR, Kaplan B. Lack of improvement in renal allograft survival despite a marked decrease in acute rejection rates over the most recent era. Am J Transplant 2004;4:378-83. [Pubmed]
[2]
2.??Lieberthal W, Levine JS. The role of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) in renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20:2493-502. [Pubmed]
[3]
Groth CG, Backman L, Morales JM, Calne R, Kreis H, Lang P, et al. Sirolimus (rapamycin)- based therapy in human renal transplantation: similar efficacy and different toxicity compared with cyclosporine. Sirolimus European Renal Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1999;67:1036-42.
[4]
4.??Kreis H, Cisterne JM, Land W, Wramner L, Squifflet JP, Abramowicz D, et al. Sirolimus in association with mycophenolate mofetil induction for the prevention of acute graft rejection in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 2000;69:1252-60. [Pubmed]
[5]
5.??Tran HT, Acharya MK, McKay DB, Sayegh MH, Carpenter CB, Auchincloss H, et al. Avoidance of cyclosporine in renal transplantation: effects of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11:1903-9. [Pubmed]
[6]
6.??Vincenti F, Ramos E, Brattstrom C, Cho S, Ekberg H, Grinyo J, et al. Multicenter trial exploring calcineurin inhibitors avoidance in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2000;71:1282-7. [Pubmed]
[7]
7.??Flechner SM, Goldfarb D, Modlin C, Feng J, Krishnamurthi V, Mastroianni B, et al. Kidney transplantation without calcineurin inhibitor drugs: a prospective, randomized trial of sirolimus versus cyclosporine. Transplantation 2002;74:1070-6. [Pubmed]
[8]
8.??Grinyo JM, Gil-Vernet S, Cruzado JM, Cald??s A, Riera L, Ser??n D, et al. Calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression based on antithymocyte globulin and mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric kidney transplantation: results after 5 years. Transpl Int 2003;16:820-7. [Pubmed]
[9]
9.??Lo A, Egidi MF, Gaber LW, Amiri HS, Vera S, Nezakatgoo N, et al. Comparison of sirolimus-based calcineurin inhibitor-sparing and calcineurin inhibitor-free regimens in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 2004;77:1228-35. [Pubmed]
[10]
Hern??ndez D, Gonz??lez-Posada JM. Evidencias en la inmunosupresi??n de mantenimiento en el trasplante renal. Nefrologia 2005;25:369-80. [Pubmed]
[11]
11.??Pascual J. Everolimus: immunosuppression with antilymphoproliferative therapy. Nefrologia 2004;24:112-23. [Pubmed]
[12]
12.??Flechner SM, Kurian SM, Solez K, Cook DJ, Burke JT, Rollin H, et al. De novo kidney transplantation without use of calcineurin inhibitors preserves renal structure and function at two years. Am J Transplant 2004;4:1776-85. [Pubmed]
[13]
13.??Glotz D, Charpentier B, Abramovicz D, Lang P, Rostaing 1, Rifle G, et al. Thymoglobulin induction and sirolimus versus tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Transplantation 2010;89:1511-7.
[14]
14.??Araki K, Turner AP, Shaffer VO, Gangappa S, Keller SA, Bachmann MF, et al. mTOR regulates memory CD8 T-cell differentiation. Nature 2009;460:108-12. [Pubmed]
[15]
15.??Morelon E, Lefran??ois N, Besson C, Pr??vautel J, Brunet M, Touraine JL, et al. Preferential increase in memory and regulatory subsets during T-lymphocyte immune reconstitution after Thymoglobulin induction therapy with maintenance sirolimus vs cyclosporine. Transpl Immunol 2010;23:53-8. [Pubmed]
[16]
16.??Pascual J. Everolimus in clinical practice renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21(Suppl 3):iii18-23. [Pubmed]
[17]
17.??Lorber MI, Mulgaonkar S, Butt KM, Elkhammas E, Mendez R, Rajagopalan PR, et al. Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study. Transplantation 2005;80:244-52. [Pubmed]
[18]
18.??V??tko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W, Dantal J, Kuypers D, Winkler M, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2005;5:2521-30. [Pubmed]
[19]
19.??Tedesco-Silva H Jr, Vitko S, Pascual J, Eris J, Magee JC, Whelchel J, et al. 12-month safety and efficacy of everolimus with reduced exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transpl Int 2007;20:27-36. [Pubmed]
[20]
20.??Salvadori M, Scolari MP, Bertoni E, Citterio F, Rigotti P, Cossu M, et al. Everolimus with very low-exposure cyclosporine a in de novo kidney transplantation: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Transplantation 2009;88:1194-202. [Pubmed]
[21]
21.??Tedesco Silva H Jr, Cibrik D, Johnston T, Lackova E, Mange K, Panis C, et al. Everolimus plus reduced-exposure CsA versus mycophenolic acid plus standard-exposure CsA in renal-transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2010;10:1401-13. [Pubmed]
[22]
22.??Dantal J, Berthoux F, Moal MC, Rostaing L, Legendre C, Genin R, et al. Efficacy and safety of de novo or early everolimus with low cyclosporine in deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients at specified risk of delayed graft function: 12-month results of a randomized, multicenter trial. Transpl Int 2010 May 24 [Epub ahead of print]
[23]
23.??Chan L, Greenstein S, Hardy MA, Hartmann E, Bunnapradist S, Cibrik D, et al. Multicenter, randomized study of the use of everolimus with tacrolimus after renal transplantation demonstrates its effectiveness. Transplantation 2008;85:821-6.
[24]
24.??Pascual J, Del Castillo D, Cabello M, Pallard?? L, Griny?? JM, Fern??ndez AM, et al. Interaction between everolimus and tacrolimus in renal transplant recipients: a pharmacokinetic controlled trial. Transplantation 2010;89:994-1000. [Pubmed]
[25]
25.??Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, V??tko S, Nashan B, G??rkan A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2562-75. [Pubmed]
[26]
26.??Albano L, Berthoux F, Moal MC, Rostaing L, Legendre C, Genin R, et al. Incidence of delayed graft function and wound healing complications after deceased-donor kidney transplantation is not affected by de novo everolimus. Transplantation 2009;88:69-76. [Pubmed]
[27]
27.??Hern??ndez D, Rufino M, Armas S, Gonz??lez A, Guti??rrez P, Barbero P, et al. Retrospective analysis of surgical complications following cadaveric kidney transplantation in the modern transplant era. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:2908-15. [Pubmed]
[28]
28.??Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009;9(Suppl 3):S1-155. [Pubmed]
[29]
29.??Mulay AV, Hussain N, Fergusson D, Knoll GA. Calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal from sirolimus-based therapy in kidney transplantation: a systematic review of randomized trials. Am J Transplant 2005;5:1748-56. [Pubmed]
[30]
Guba M, Pratschke J, Hugo C, Kr??mer BK, Nohr-Westphal C, Brockmann J, Andrassy??J, Reinke P, Pressmar K, Hakenberg O, Fischereder M, Pascher A, Illner WD, Banas??B, Jauch KW; SMART-Study Group. Renal function, efficacy, and safety of sirolimus??and mycophenolate mofetil after short-term calcineurin inhibitor-based quadruple??therapy in de novo renal transplant patients: one-year analysis of a randomized??multicenter trial. Transplantation. 2010; 90 :175-83 [Pubmed]
[31]
31.??Morales JM, Griny?? JM, Campistol JM, Garc??a-Mart??nez J, Arias M, Paul J, et al. Improved renal function, with similar proteinuria, after two years of early tacrolimus withdrawal from a regimen of sirolimus plus tacrolimus. Transplantation 2008;86:620-2. [Pubmed]
[32]
32.??Lee PC, Lee CY, Hu RH, Lo C, Tsai MK, Lee PH. Intrarenal vascular resistance parameters in kidney transplant patients receiving calcineurin inhibitor-based or sirolimus-based regimens. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:1675-80. [Pubmed]
[33]
33.??Schena FP, Pascoe MD, Alberu J, del Carmen Rial M, Oberbauer R, Brennan DC, et al. Conversion from calcineurin inhibitors to sirolimus maintenance therapy in renal allograft recipients: 24-month efficacy and safety results from the CONVERT trial. Transplantation 2009;87:233-42. [Pubmed]
[34]
34.??Lebranchu Y, Thierry A, Toupance O, Westeel PF, Etienne I, Thervet E, et al. Efficacy on renal function of early conversion from cyclosporine to sirolimus 3 months after renal transplantation: concept study. Am J Transplant 2009;9:1115-23. [Pubmed]
[35]
35.??Servais A, Meas-Yedid V, Toupance O, Lebranchu Y, Thierry A, Moulin B, et al. Interstitial fibrosis quantification in renal transplant recipients randomized to continue cyclosporine or convert to sirolimus. Am J Transplant 2009;9:2552-60. [Pubmed]
[36]
36.??Holdaas H, Bentdal O, Pfeffer P, Mj??rnstedt L, Solbu D, Midtvedt K. Early, abrupt conversion of de novo renal transplant patients from cyclosporine to everolimus: results of a pilot study. Clin Transplant 2008;22:366-71. [Pubmed]
[37]
37.??Ruiz JC, S??nchez A, Rengel M, Beneyto I, Plaza JJ, Z??rraga S, et al. Use of the new proliferation signal inhibitor everolimus in renal transplant patients in Spain: preliminary results of the EVERODATA registry. Transplant Proc 2007;39:2157-9. [Pubmed]
[38]
38.??Fern??ndez A, Marc??n R, Galeano C, Cald??s S, Amezquita Y, Villafruela J, et al. Complete switch to everolimus in long-term kidney transplants: evolution of the renal function. Transplant Proc 2009;41:2345-7. [Pubmed]
[39]
39.??Inza A, Balda S, ??lvarez E, Z??rraga S, Ga??nza FJ, Lampreabe I. Conversion to everolimus in kidney transplant recipients with decreased renal function. Transplant Proc 2009;41:2134-6. [Pubmed]
[40]
40.??Bemelman FJ, De Maar EF, Press RR, Van Kan HJ, Ten Berge IJ, Homan van der Heide JJ, et al. Minimization of maintenance immunosuppression early after renal transplantation: an interim analysis. Transplantation 2009;88:421-8. [Pubmed]
[41]
41.??S??nchez-Fructuoso A, Ruiz JC, Hern??ndez D, S??nchez-Plumed J, Fern??ndez A, Pastor Rodr??guez A, et al. Early everolimus introduction and calcineurine inhibitor withdrawal in renal transplant patients: a multicenter, randomized open-label study (The ERIC study) [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2010;10(Suppl. 4):506.
[42]
42.??Lutz J, Zou H, Liu S, Antus B, Heemann U. Apoptosis and treatment of chronic allograft nephropathy with everolimus. Transplantation 2003;76:508-15. [Pubmed]
[43]
43.??Koch M, Mengel M, Poehnert D, Nashan B. Effects of everolimus on cellular and humoral immune processes leading to chronic allograft nephropathy in a rat model with sensitized recipients. Transplantation 2007;83:498-50.
[44]
44.??Mota A, Arias M, Taskinen EI, Paavonen T, Brault Y, Legendre C, et al. Sirolimus-based therapy following early cyclosporine withdrawal provides significantly improved renal histology and function at 3 years. Am J Transplant 2004;4:953-61. [Pubmed]
[45]
45.??Stallone G, Infante B, Schena A, Battaglia M, Ditonno P, Loverre A, et al. Rapamycin for treatment of chronic allograft nephropathy in renal transplant patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:3755-62. [Pubmed]
[46]
46.??Sola E, L??pez V, Guti??rrez C, Cabello M, Burgos D, Gonz??lez Molina M, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of conversion to sirolimus in 85 renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2009;41:2137-8. [Pubmed]
[47]
47.??Egli A, K??hli S, Dickenmann M, Hirsch HH. Inhibition of polyomavirus BK-specific T-Cell responses by immunosuppressive drugs. Transplantation 2009;88:1161-8. [Pubmed]
[48]
48.??Benavides CA, Pollard VB, Mauiyyedi S, Podder H, Knight R, Kahan BD. BK virus-associated nephropathy in sirolimus-treated renal transplant patients: incidence, course, and clinical outcomes. Transplantation 2007;84:83-8. [Pubmed]
[49]
49.??Franz S, Regeniter A, Hopfer H, Mihatsch M, Dickenmann M. Tubular toxicity in sirolimus- and cyclosporine-based transplant immunosuppression strategies: an ancillary study from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2010;5:335-43.
[50]
50.??Van Ree RM, Oterdoom LH, de Vries AP, Homan van der Heide JJ, Van Son WJ, Navis G, et al. Circulating markers of endothelial dysfunction interact with proteinuria in predicting mortality in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2008;86:1713-9. [Pubmed]
[51]
51.??McMullen JR, Sherwood MC, Tarnavski O, Zhang L, Dorfman AL, Shioi T, et al. Inhibition of mTOR signaling with rapamycin regresses established cardiac hypertrophy induced by pressure overload. Circulation 2004;109:3050-5. [Pubmed]
[52]
52.??Gao XM, Wong G, Wang B, Kiriazis H, Moore XL, Su YD, et al. Inhibition of mTOR reduces chronic pressure-overload cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis. J Hypertens 2006;24:1663-70. [Pubmed]
[53]
53.??Siedlecki AM, Jin X, Muslin AJ. Uremic cardiac hypertrophy is reversed by rapamycin but not by lowering of blood pressure. Kidney Int 2009;75:800-8. [Pubmed]
[54]
54.??Paoletti E, Amidone M, Cassottana P, Gherzi M, Marsano L, Cannella G. Effect of sirolimus on left ventricular hypertrophy in kidney transplant recipients: a 1-year nonrandomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2008;52:324-30. [Pubmed]
[55]
55.??Groth CG, B??ckman L, Morales JM, Calne R, Kreis H, Lang P, et al. Sirolimus (rapamycin)-based therapy in human renal transplantation: similar efficacy and different toxicity compared with cyclosporine. Sirolimus European Renal Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1999;67:1036-42.
[56]
56.??Elloso MM, Azrolan N, Sehgal SN, Hsu PL, Phiel KL, Kopec CA, et al. Protective effect of the immunosuppressant sirolimus against aortic atherosclerosis in apo E-deficient mice. Am J Transplant 2003;3:562-9. [Pubmed]
[57]
57.??Ramzy D, Rao V, Tumiati LC, Xu N, Miriuka S, Delgado D, et al. Role of endothelin-1 and nitric oxide bioavailability in transplant-related vascular injury: comparative effects of rapamycin and cyclosporine. Circulation 2006;114(1 Suppl):I214-9. [Pubmed]
[58]
58.??Joannides R, Etienne I, Iacob M, de Ligny BH, Barbier S, Bellien J, et al. Comparative effects of sirolimus and cyclosporin on conduit arteries endothelial function in kidney recipients. Transpl Int 2010 Jun 7. [Epub ahead of print].
[59]
59.??Seckinger J, Sommerer C, Hinkel UP, Hoffmann O, Zeier M, Schwenger V. Switch of immunosuppression from cyclosporine A to everolimus: impact on pulse wave velocity in stable de-novo renal allograft recipients. J Hypertens 2008;26:2213-9. [Pubmed]
[60]
60.??Webster AC, Lee VW, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression of kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Transplantation 2006;81:1234-48. [Pubmed]
[61]
61.??Fortun J, Mart??n-D??vila P, Pascual J, Cervera C, Moreno A, Gavald?? J, et al. Immunosuppressive therapy and infection after kidney transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis 2010 Jun 11. [Epub ahead of print].
[62]
62.??Sun Y, Pei W, Welte T, Wu Y, Ye S, Yang Y. Cytomegalovirus infection is associated with elevated interleukin-10 in coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis 2005;179:133-7. [Pubmed]
[63]
63.??De Mattos AM, Prather J, Olyaei AJ, Shibagaki Y, Keith DS, Mori M, et al. Cardiovascular events following renal transplantation: role of traditional and transplant-specific risk factors. Kidney Int 2006;70:757-64. [Pubmed]
[64]
64.??Teutonico A, Schena PF, Di Paolo S. Glucose metabolism in renal transplant recipients: effect of calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal and conversion to sirolimus. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:3128-35. [Pubmed]
[65]
65.??Di Paolo S, Teutonico A, Leogrande D, Capobianco C, Schena PF. Chronic inhibition of mammalian target of rapamycin signaling downregulates insulin receptor substrates 1 and 2 and AKT activation: A crossroad between cancer and diabetes? J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:2236-44. [Pubmed]
[66]
66.??Johnston O, Rose CL, Webster AC, Gill JS. Sirolimus is associated with new-onset diabetes in kidney transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;19: 1411-8. [Pubmed]
[67]
67.??Fraenkel M, Ketzinel-Gilad M, Ariav Y, Pappo O, Karaca M, Castel J, et al. mTOR inhibition by rapamycin prevents beta-cell adaptation to hyperglycemia and exacerbates the metabolic state in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2008;57:945-57. [Pubmed]
[68]
68.??Kasiske BL, Snyder JJ, Gilbertson DT, Wang C. Cancer after kidney transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2004;4:905-13. [Pubmed]
[69]
69.??Lieberthal W, Levine JS. The role of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) in renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20:2493-502. [Pubmed]
[70]
70.??Kauffman HM, Cherikh WS, Cheng Y, Hanto DW, Kahan BD. Maintenance immunosuppression with target-of-rapamycin inhibitors is associated with a reduced incidence of de novo malignancies. Transplantation 2005;80:883-9. [Pubmed]
[71]
71.??Campistol JM, Eris J, Oberbauer R, Friend P, Hutchison B, Morales JM, et al. Sirolimus therapy after early cyclosporine withdrawal reduces the risk for cancer in adult renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:581-9. [Pubmed]
[72]
72.??Salgo R, Gossmann J, Sch??fer H, Kachel HG, Kuck J, Geiger H, et al. Switch to a sirolimus-based immunosuppression in long-term renal transplant recipients: reduced rate of (pre-)malignancies and nonmelanoma skin cancer in a prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled clinical trial. Am J Transplant 2010;10:1385-93. [Pubmed]
[73]
73.??Barozzi P, Bonini C, Potenza L, Masetti M, Cappelli G, Gruarin P, et al. Changes in the immune responses against human herpesvirus-8 in the disease course of posttransplant Kaposi sarcoma. Transplantation 2008;86:738-44. [Pubmed]
[74]
Stallone G, Schena A, Infante B, Di Paolo S, Loverre A, Maggio G, et al.??Sirolimus for Kaposi's sarcoma in renal-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1317-23. [Pubmed]
Idiomas
Nefrología (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?