Comparisons of mean creatinine (Cr) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Table 4) showed similar and favorable levels in groups I and II over time, with slight trends for renal function among patients with functioning grafts improving in both groups between 1 and 36 months posttransplant. At 36 months posttransplant, the geometric mean*/standard error (SE) serum Cr and arithmetic mean eGFR (±SE) were 1.14*/1.05 and 72.1±3.3 in group I vs. 1.24*/1.05 and 67.5±3.3 in group II (N.S.).
Patient and graft survival ±SE (Table 5, Fig. 1c, d) were similar in the two groups, with actuarial estimates at 48 months posttransplant being 96%±2% and 91%±3% in group I (four deaths, four graft failures) vs. 92%±3% and 83%±5% in group II (seven deaths, six graft failures), respectively (P=0.35 and 0.25). Causes of graft failure were vascular rejection (n=1), Epstein-Barr virus infection/BPAR (n=1), noncompliance (n=1), and pseudoaneurysm (n=1) in group I; primary nonfunction (n=1), arterial thrombosis of pediatric en bloc kidneys (n=1), BPAR (n=2), chronic allograft injury (CAI) (n=1), and cardiovascular disease (n=1) in group II. Excluding the two patients in group II with grafts that never functioned, four graft failures were observed in each group (P=0.98), and actuarial graft survival in group II at 48 months became 85%±5% (P=0.45). Each of the 11 deaths occurred with functioning grafts; proportions of graft failures and deaths occurring during the first 12 months posttransplant were 9 of 10 and 6 of 11, respectively. Causes of death were cardiovascular event (n=1), sepsis (n=1), systemic amyloidosis (n=1), and unknown (n=1) in group I; sepsis (n=2), cardiovascular event (n=2), metastatic lung cancer (n=1), necrotizing fasciitis (n=1), and cerebrovascular accident (n=1) in group II. Although not statistically different, it should be noted that 3 of 4 deaths due to infection occurred in group II.
Percentages and types of infections during the study were equivalent in the two groups (Table 6). In total, 27% (54 of 200) developed an infection (29 in group I; 25 in group II, P=0.52); 43 of 54 patients had infections during the first year posttransplant (22 in group I; 21 in group II, N.S.). Only four patients developed cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (CMV syndrome for one case in group I; CMV syndrome for two cases and CMV hepatitis for one case in group II). Three patients developed polyoma viral infection (one in group I; two in group II). No patients developed posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).
Among patients having no pretransplant history of diabetes, new onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation (NODAT) developed in 8 of 75 group I vs. 8 of 70 group II patients (P=0.88); 10 of 16 events (six in group I; four in group II) occurred during the first 12 months posttransplant (N.S.). NODAT patients requiring insulin:oral hypoglycemic agents were 6:2 vs. 7:1 in groups I and II, respectively; 2 of 16 were placed on maintenance steroids before the development of NODAT. Finally, there were no noteworthy differences in lipid profiles or in percentages of patients requiring antilipidmia therapy between groups (not shown).
In our two earliest trials using five doses of Dac combined with TAC/mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroid maintenance (5, 6), the 1 year BPAR rates were 5.1% and 4.0% (excluding borderline cases), with 1 year mean TAC trough levels of 8.0 to 9.0 ng/mL. Our next trial (13) comparing single-agent induction with ATG versus alemtuzumab versus Dac (early CSWD in the alemtuzumab group only) yielded disappointing 1 year BPAR rates of 17% in each group, with rTd and 1 year mean TAC trough levels of 6.0 to 7.0 ng/mL. Based on these findings, we then embarked on the dual ATG/Dac induction strategy (using fewer doses of each agent than if used alone) along with rTd and planned early CSWD, achieving an overall 1 year BPAR rate of 6.0% (23), and thus providing rationale for this study.
In February 2006, we initiated a prospective, single-center, open-label randomized trial of 200 (mostly non-white) patients administering the dual-induction combinations of ATG/Dac (three doses of ATG, two doses of Dac) versus ATG/C1H (one dose each), along with (in both arms) rTd, EC-MPS, and early CSWD (7 days). To our knowledge, this is the first such randomized trial to compare two distinct dual-induction strategies, with both arms using fewer doses of ATG, Dac, and C1H than if used alone at our center. Given the known association of acute rejection with decreased long-term graft survival (33), the goal in using dual-induction therapy was to produce rapid and effective lymphocyte depletion, resulting in lower daily requirements of maintenance therapy while achieving favorable long-term graft and patient survival (4, 11–15, 26, 27, 30). With a median follow-up of 38 months posttransplant, there were no notable differences between the two study arms in BPAR rate, both during the first 12 months posttransplant and throughout the follow-up period. Overall BPAR incidence for both groups combined at 48 months posttransplant was 27 of 200 (actuarial estimate: 15%) including borderline and 19 of 200 (actuarial estimate: 11%) excluding borderline cases, demonstrating the long-term antirejection efficacy of both study arms.
In a recently published report by Ekberg et al. (2), among 401 (mostly white) patients who received five doses of Dac, rTd, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids, the rejection rate at 36 months was 14% (excluding borderline), being similar to our overall actuarial estimate of 11% at 48 months posttransplant. Renal function was also favorably high as in our study, demonstrating the effective use of rTd in combination with an IMPDH inhibitor (34, 35), known to have antiproliferative effects on vascular smooth muscle cells, perhaps decreasing arterial intimal thickening (36), angiogenesis, and other less well-defined causes of CAI, which contribute to long-term graft loss (37).
One half the standard daily EC-MPS dose was targeted in group II to avoid severe leukopenia as previously seen with C1H use at our center (13–15). Consequently, two interesting findings were observed. First, even with the planned lower dose of EC-MPS in group II, a moderately higher incidence of EC-MPS withholding due to leukopenia still occurred. Second, none of the patients in group II had EC-MPS withheld due to GI symptoms (suggesting that a threshold dose to cause this complication may exist) versus a 7% (7 of 100) incidence in group I (P=0.007). Because higher AR incidence (38–40) and greater graft loss rates (40, 41) have been reported after the development of GI symptoms and subsequent IMPDH inhibitor dose reduction/withholding, planned use of dual-induction therapy combined with lower (than standard) target dosing of EC-MPS may provide a solution for overcoming this problem.
Long-term corticosteroid therapy is still considered by many to be part of standard maintenance immunosuppression, but multiple side effects including increases in known cardiovascular risk factors (high triglycerides, NODAT requiring insulin, and weight gain) are known. Recently, Woodle et al. (18) reported similar 5-year renal allograft survival and function in a prospective, multicenter randomized trial between early (7 days) CSWD (n=191) versus low-dose corticosteroid therapy (n=195), with CSWD also providing improvements in cardiovascular risks factors. In terms of BPAR, however, CSWD was associated with a significantly higher BPAR (17.8%) in comparison with low-dose corticosteroid therapy (10.8%) (P=0.04, log-rank test). Similar results were also reported in a recent meta-analysis (42).
Promisingly, 76.5% (153 of 200) of our study patients have been withdrawn from corticosteroids, with no apparent increase in the AR rate, and actuarial graft and death-censored graft survival for the whole cohort at 48 months were 87% and 94%, respectively. In addition, the incidence rates of infectious diseases and NODAT were acceptably low in both study arms. In fact, the rates of viral infections were low, with only four CMV and three polyoma viral infections (and no PTLDs) being observed overall (BK viral titers were not monitored routinely).
Limitations in drawing conclusions from any single-center study do exist. First, as this was a randomized trial of 200 patients, limitations of statistical power with respect to comparing patient and graft survival (and the incidence of adverse events such as PTLD/malignancy) clearly occurred at earlier periods of follow-up. Second, any potential generalization of our study results to other patient populations would require independent validation, particularly as the majority of our patients were non-white (although no differential effects of treatment arm by race/ethnicity were observed). Although bioavailability of TAC is known to be markedly lower among African Americans (i.e., a higher TAC dose is required to achieve a specified 12-hour trough level) (43, 44), the observed trend for lower bioavailability of TAC in the ATG/C1H arm will require further observation, as factors such as race/ethnicity, use of alemtuzumab, or a lower EC-MPS dose in the ATG/C1H arm may have contributed to this surprising finding, although it may have occurred by chance alone. Furthermore, although Dac is no longer available, successful combination of ATG/basiliximab as dual induction in kidney transplantation has been reported (21, 22) along with equivalency in clinical outcomes using basiliximab versus Dac (10). Finally, although determination of a best single-agent induction strategy in renal transplantation is still of great interest as demonstrated by two recent randomized trials comparing ATG and basiliximab versus alemtuzumab (45, 46), the focus of the current study was to compare two distinct dual-induction strategies using less aggressive dosing for each agent than if used alone at our center.
In conclusion, our attempt to improve long-term patient and graft survival by using innovative immunosuppression strategies designed to reduce the BPAR rate without increasing the rates of other adverse events seems promising. Although this protocol will require longer term follow-up (currently planned) to demonstrate its ultimate relationship with patient and graft survival (in particular, to determine whether there will be any long-term graft survival inferiority in group II, given that its actuarial estimate at 48 months was 83% vs. 91% in group I), the randomized trial component of this protocol (with median follow-up of 38 months) yielded no notable differences in major clinical outcomes between study arms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Between February 2006 and April 2009, 200 adult recipients (age, 18–71 years) of deceased donor or non-human leukocyte antigen identical living donor first kidney transplants were randomized in this open-label study immediately before transplantation. In the ATG/Dac arm (group I) (n=100), ATG (1 mg/kg) (Thymoglobulin) was given intraoperatively, with equivalent additional doses given on days 2 and 3 posttransplant. The first dose of Dac (1 mg/kg) (Zenapax) was also given intraoperatively, with one additional dose given 14 days later (23, 24). In the ATG/C1H arm (group II) (n=100), ATG (1 mg/kg) was given intraoperatively, and C1H (0.3 mg/kg) was given within 24 hr posttransplant. The center institutional review board approved the protocol, and all patients gave written informed consent before enrollment. In both groups, tacrolimus was initiated at 0.1 mg/kg twice daily after renal function had improved (serum Cr concentration <4 mg/dL absent dialysis), with a target (12 hr) trough level of 4 to 8 ng/mL. Target EC-MPS dosing was 720 mg vs. 360 mg twice daily for groups I and II, respectively. One half of the standard daily EC-MPS dose was targeted in group II to avoid severe leukopenia previously seen with C1H (12–14). Any withholding of EC-MPS for a minimum period of 1 month was documented along with reasons for withholding. Methylprednisolone was given intravenously at 500 mg/day for 3 days postoperatively followed up by daily oral methylprednisolone or IV Solumedrol at 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/day during the first week primarily to avoid hypersensitivity reactions to the induction antibodies. No further corticosteroid use was planned after the first postoperative week. All patients were documented as intent-to-treat.
The schedule of nonimmunosuppressive adjunctive therapy was the same as in our previous protocols (5–8, 13–15, 23, 24). For CMV prophylaxis, all patients were treated immediately posttransplant with intravenous ganciclovir (Roche Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA) for 3 days, followed up by daily valganciclovir orally for 3 months with doses based on renal function. In donor CMV Ig+/recipient CMV Ig− combinations, treatment was given for 6 months postoperatively. In patients developing rejection that required steroids or antilymphocyte therapy, intravenous ganciclovir or valganciclovir was reinstituted. Pneumocystis prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was also given (5–8, 13–15, 23, 24).
Histocompatibility typing of human leukocyte antigen-A, -B, and -DR loci, donor-specific crossmatching, panel-reactive antibodies, and donor-specific antibody monitoring (at baseline and any time of suspected acute rejection) were determined serologically by the University of Miami Histocompatibility Testing Laboratory. All deceased donor organs were cryopreserved using Water's RM3 Renal Preservation Machine with Belzer-MPS Machine Perfusion Solution (Trans-Med Corp., Elk River, MN) (47).
Tacrolimus trough levels were routinely compiled for each patient, performed by whole blood immunoassay, with blood samples taken 3/wk, 2/wk, and 1/wk during the first 3 months, respectively, monthly for the next 9 months, and then once every 2 months thereafter. Dosing of all maintenance drugs at those times were recorded. DGF was defined as the requirement for dialysis during the first week posttransplant; SGF as serum Cr decreasing less than 0.5 mg/dL during the first 24 hr posttransplant. All patients were followed for the incidence of BPAR, graft loss, death, CAI, renal function (serum Cr and eGFR) (48), NODAT, and infections.
BPAR was defined as a rise of 0.3 mg/dL or greater from the nadir Cr, accompanied by a confirmatory kidney transplant biopsy within 24 hr of initiation of antirejection therapy; Banff criteria were used to determine biopsy rejection severity and CAI (interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy) (49). Graft loss was determined as the time of reestablishment of long-term dialysis or death. NODAT was defined as the use of insulin or oral antihyperglycemic agents for more than or equal to 30 days in patients without a preoperative history of diabetes mellitus. Peripheral blood myeloid and lymphoid cell counts, dyslipidemias, and statin therapy were also compiled.
Primary endpoint was the incidence of first BPAR (including treated borderline cases) at 12 months posttransplant. Our previously reported trial using dual ATG/Dac induction in all 150 patients achieved an overall 12-month BPAR rate of 6% (9 of 150) (22, 23). Thus, this study was designed with 100 patients per treatment arm to ensure that good statistical power (≥0.80) existed (using a two-sided test with 0.05 type I error) for detecting a 14% to 15% difference: 6% vs. 20%, 8% vs. 23%, or 10% vs. 25%. Detection of secondary outcomes such as patient and graft survival with good statistical power would clearly require long-term follow-up.
Statistical analysis was performed using an intent-to-treat approach. Standard t tests were used to compare mean values between treatment arms; percentages were compared using the Pearson (uncorrected) chi square test. Arithmetic means±SEs were calculated except for variables that were skewed toward larger values, in which case geometric means and corresponding SEs were reported, with comparisons based on log-transformed values (50). Incidences of first BPAR, NODAT, graft failure (death-censored graft loss), graft loss, and death were compared by the log-rank test, with time-to-failure curves generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. P values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. With the exception of patient survival, all clinical outcomes were censored (patients not followed) beyond the date of graft failure. Thus, analyses of renal function (serum Cr and eGFR) at various times posttransplant were based on comparing patients who were still alive with functioning grafts at those times. Although imputation of an arbitrarily chosen low value for eGFR (say, 10 mL/min) was considered for patients who previously experienced graft failure (1, 2), the results were quite similar to those found without using imputation and will therefore not be shown.
A randomized block scheme using Proc Plan in SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems) was implemented to perform the randomization of patients into the study. Specifically, patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms in blocks of 4 and 6 patients (block sizes were also randomly selected), ensuring a balance of patients after each block of patients was randomized.
As of the last follow-up date, May 1, 2010, median follow-up among 170 ongoing survivors with a functioning graft was 38 months (range, 13–50 months), with 21 patients experiencing graft loss, and 10 patients being lost-to-follow-up (range, 3–40 months, all but one with a functioning graft) (5 in group I, 5 in group II). For each clinical outcome, actuarial percentages of failure at 48 months posttransplant were calculated. For each time-to-event outcome, patients who were lost to follow-up were censored at their lost-to-follow-up times. With the exception of tabulating infections (last value carried forward approach), all other measurements (drug dose, drug trough level, serum Cr, etc.) performed at various times beyond the dates of patients being lost-to-follow-up were assumed to be missing (i.e., no imputation). A flow diagram for the study is presented in Figure 2.
1.Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation
. N Engl J Med
2007; 357: 2562.
2.Ekberg H, Bernasconi C, Tedesco-Silva H, et al. Calcineurin inhibitor minimization in the symphony study: Observational results 3 years after transplantation. Am J Transplant
2009; 9: 1876.
3.Silva HT Jr, Yang HC, Abouljoud M, et al. One-year results with extended-release tacrolimus
/MMF and cyclosporine/MMF in de novo kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant
2007; 7: 595.
4.Mourad G, Rostaing L, Legendre C, et al. Sequential protocols using basiliximab versus anti-thymocyte globulins in renal-transplant patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Transplantation
2004; 78: 584.
5.Ciancio G, Burke GW, Suzart K, et al. Daclizumab
, mycophenolate mofetil and steroids as an immunosuppression regimen for primary kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation
2002; 73: 1100.
6.Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus
and sirolimus versus tacrolimus
and mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (NEORAL) and sirolimus in renal transplantation
. I. Drug interactions and rejection at one year. Transplantation
2004; 77: 244.
7.Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus
/sirolimus versus tacrolimus
/mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (NEORAL)/sirolimus in renal transplantation
. II. Survival, function, and protocol compliance at 1 year. Transplantation
2004; 77: 252.
8.Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus
/sirolimus versus tacrolimus
/mycophenolate versus cyclosporine/sirolimus in renal transplantation
: Three-year analysis. Transplantation
2006; 81: 845.
9.Brennan DC, Daller JA, Lake KD, et al; for the Thymoglobulin Induction Study Group. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin
versus basiliximab in renal transplantation
. N Engl J Med
10.Kandus A, Arnol M, Omahen K, et al. Basiliximab versus daclizumab
combined with triple immunosuppression in deceased donor renal transplantation
: A prospective, randomized study. Transplantation
2010; 89: 1022.
11.Ortiz J, Palma-Vargas J, Wright F, et al. Campath induction for kidney transplantation: Report of 297 cases. Transplantation
2008; 85: 1550.
12.Kaufman DB, Leventhal JR, Axelrod D, et al. Alemtuzumab
induction and prednisone-free maintenance immunotherapy in kidney transplantation: Comparison with basiliximab induction—Long-term results. Am J Transplant
2005; 5: 2539.
13.Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized trial of three renal transplant induction antibodies: Early comparison of tacrolimus
, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid dosing, and newer immune-monitoring. Transplantation
2005; 80: 457.
14.Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized trial of thymoglobulin vs. alemtuzumab
(with lower dose maintenance immunosuppression) vs. daclizumab
in renal transplantation
at 24 months of follow-up. Clin Transplant
2008; 22: 200.
15.Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Roth D, et al. Randomized trial of thymoglobulin vs. alemtuzumab
(with lower dose maintenance immunosuppression) vs. daclizumab
in living donor renal transplantation
. Transplant Proc
2010; 42: 3503.
16.Matas AJ, Kandaswamy R, Gillingham KJ, et al. Prednisone-free maintenance immunosuppression—A 5-year experience. Am J Transplant
2005; 5: 2473.
17.Vincenti F, Schena FP, Paraskevas S, et al; on behalf of the FREEDOM Study Group. A randomized, multicenter study of steroid avoidance
, early steroid withdrawal or standard steroid therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant
2008; 8: 307.
18.Woodle ES, First MR, Pirsch J, et al; for the Astellas Corticosteroid Withdrawal Study Group. A prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial comparing early (7 day) corticosteroid cessation versus long-term, low-dose corticosteroid therapy. Ann Surg
2008; 248: 564.
19.Burke GW, Ciancio G, Figueiro J, et al. Can acute rejection be prevented in SPK transplantation? Transplant Proc
2002; 34: 1913.
20.Burke GW III, Ciancio G, Figueiro J, et al. Steroid-resistant acute rejection following SPK: Importance of maintaining therapeutic dosing in a triple-drug regimen. Transplant Proc
2002; 34: 1918.
21.Ruggenenti P, Codreanu I, Cravedi P, et al. Basiliximab combined with low-dose rabbit anti-human thymocyte globulin: A possible further step toward effective and minimally toxic T cell-targeted therapy in kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol
2006; 1: 546.
22.Favi E, Gargiulo A, Spagnoletti G, et al. Induction with basiliximab plus thymoglobulin is effective and safe in old-for-old renal transplantation
: Six-month results of a prospective clinical study. Transplant Proc
2010; 42: 1114.
23.Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. Randomized trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium
in primary renal transplant recipients given tacrolimus
/thymoglobulin: One year follow-up. Transplantation
2008; 86: 67.
24.Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Zarak A, et al. Randomized trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium
in primary renal transplantation
and steroid avoidance
: Four year analysis. Transplantation
2011; 91: 1198.
25.Sageshima J, Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, et al. Addition of anti-CD25 to thymoglobulin for induction therapy: Delayed return of peripheral blood CD25 positive population. Clin Transplant
2011; 25: E132.
26.Gaber AO, First MR, Tesi RJ, et al. Results of the double-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial of Thymoglobulin versus Atgam in the treatment of acute graft rejection episodes after renal transplant. Transplantation
1998; 66: 29.
27.Goggins WC, Pascual MA, Powelson JA, et al. A prospective, randomized, clinical trial of intraoperative versus postoperative Thymoglobulin in adult cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplantation
2003; 76: 798.
28.Zand MS, Vo T, Huggins J, et al. Polyclonal rabbit antithymocyte globulin
triggers B-cell and plasma cell apoptosis by multiple pathways. Transplantation
2005; 79: 1507.
29.Zand MS. B-cell activity of polyclonal antithymocyte globulins. Transplantation
2006; 82: 1387.
30.Ciancio G, Burke GW. Minireview: Alemtuzumab
(Campath-1H) in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant
2008; 8: 15.
31.Gurkan S, Luan Y, Dhillon N, et al. Immune reconstitution following rabbit antithymocyte globulin
. Am J Transplant
2010; 10: 2132.
32.Kreijveld E, Koenen HJPM, Klasen IS, et al. Following anti-CD25 treatment, a functional CD4+CD25+ regulatory T-cell pool is present in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant
2007; 7: 249.
33.Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, Payne WD, et al. The impact of an acute rejection episode on long-term renal allograft survival (t1/2). Transplantation
1994; 57: 857.
34.Salvadori M, Holzer H, de Mattos A, et al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium
is therapeutically equivalent to mycophenolate mofetil en de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant
2003; 4: 231.
35.Budde K, Curtis J, Knoll G, et al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium
can be safely administered in maintenance renal transplant patients: Results of 1-year study. Am J Transplant
2003; 4: 237.
36.Gregory CR, Huang X, Pratt RE, et al. Treatment with rapamycin and mycophenolic acid reduces arterial intimal thickening produced by mechanical injury and allows endothelial replacement. Transplantation
1995; 59: 655.
37.Humar A, Hassoun A, Kandaswamy R, et al. Immunologic factors: The major risk for decreased long-term renal allograft survival. Transplantation
1999; 68: 1842.
38.Knoll GA, MacDonald I, Khan A, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reduction and the risk of acute rejection after renal transplantation
. J Am Soc Nephrol
2003; 14: 2381.
39.Tierce JC, Porterfield-Baxa J, Petrilla AA, et al. Impact of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-related gastrointestinal complications and MMF dose alterations on transplant outcomes and healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients. Clin Transplant
2005; 19: 779.
40.Pelletier RP, Akin B, Henry ML, et al. The impact of mycophenolate mofetil dosing patterns on clinical outcome after renal transplantation
. Clin Transplant
2003; 17: 200.
41.Bunnapradist S, Lentine KL, Burroughs TE, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reductions and discontinuations after gastrointestinal complications are associated with renal transplant graft failure. Transplantation
2006; 82: 102.
42.Knight SR, Morris PJ. Steroid avoidance
or withdrawal after renal transplantation
increases the risk of acute rejection but decreases cardiovascular risk. A meta-analysis. Transplantation
2010; 89: 1.
43.Mancinelli LM, Frassetto L, Floren LC, et al. The pharmacokinetics and metabolic disposition of tacrolimus
: A comparison across ethnic groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther
2001; 69: 24.
44.Dirks NL, Huth B, Yates CR, et al. Pharmacokinetics of immunosuppressants: A perspective on ethnic differences. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther
2004; 42: 701.
45.Farney AC, Doares W, Rogers J, et al. A randomized trial of alemtuzumab
versus antithymocyte globulin
induction in renal and pancreas transplantation. Transplantation
2009; 88: 810.
46.Hanaway MJ, Woodle ES, Mulgaonkar S, et al. Alemtuzumab
induction in renal transplantation
. N Engl J Med
2011; 364: 1909.
47.Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Sageshima J, et al. Favorable outcomes with machine perfusion and longer pump times in kidney transplantation: A single-center, observational study. Transplantation
2010; 90: 882.
48.Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, et al. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: A new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med
1999; 130: 461.
49.Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC, et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: Updates and future directions. Am J Transplant
2008; 8: 753.
50.Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 6th ed. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press 1967.
Keywords:© 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Renal transplantation; Antithymocyte globulin; Daclizumab; Alemtuzumab; Tacrolimus; Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium; Steroid avoidance; Biopsy-proven acute rejection; Graft survival