Objectives. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the use of cinacalcet in the management of hyperparathyroidism in kidney transplant recipients. The secondary objective is to identify baseline factors that predict cinacalcet use after transplantation. Methods. In this single-center retrospective study, we conducted a chart review of all patients having been transplanted from 2003 to 2012 and having received cinacalcet up to kidney transplantation and/or thereafter. Results. Twenty-seven patients were included with a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 2.4 years. Twenty-one were already taking cinacalcet at the time of transplantation. Cinacalcet was stopped within the first month in 12 of these patients of which 7 had to restart therapy. The main reason for restarting cinacalcet was hypercalcemia. Length of treatment was 23 ± 26 months. There were only 3 cases of mild hypocalcemia. There was no statistically significant association between baseline factors and cinacalcet status a year later. Conclusions. Discontinuing cinacalcet within the first month of kidney transplantation often leads to hypercalcemia. Cinacalcet appears to be an effective treatment of hypercalcemic hyperparathyroidism in kidney transplant recipients. Further studies are needed to evaluate safety and long-term benefits.
We studied registry data of 12,944 adult kidney retransplant recipients categorized by induction regimen received into antithymocyte globulin (ATG) (N = 9120), alemtuzumab (N = 1687), and basiliximab (N = 2137) cohorts. We analyzed risk factors for 1-year acute rejection (AR) and 5-year death-censored graft loss (DCGL) and patient death. Compared with the reference, basiliximab: (1) one-year AR risk was lower with ATG in retransplant recipients of expanded criteria deceased-donor kidneys (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.35-0.91 and HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.27-1.08, resp.), while AR risk was lower with alemtuzumab in retransplant recipients with >3 HLA mismatches before transplant (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.44-0.93 and HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.63-1.06, resp.); (2) five-year DCGL risk was lower with alemtuzumab, not ATG, in retransplant recipients of African American race (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.34-0.86 and HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.51-1.04, resp.) or with pretransplant glomerulonephritis (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.43-0.98 and HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.60-1.12, resp.). Therefore, specific risk factor-induction regimen combinations may predict outcomes and this information may help in individualizing induction in retransplant recipients.
In this 3-year, open-label, multicenter study, 57 maintenance heart transplant recipients (>1 year after transplant) with renal insufficiency (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2) were randomized to start everolimus with CNI withdrawal (N = 29) or continue their current CNI-based immunosuppression (N = 28). The primary endpoint, change in measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from baseline to year 3, did not differ significantly between both groups (+7.0 mL/min in the everolimus group versus +1.9 mL/min in the CNI group, p = 0.18). In the on-treatment analysis, the difference did reach statistical significance (+9.4 mL/min in the everolimus group versus +1.9 mL/min in the CNI group, p = 0.047). The composite safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or treated acute rejection was not different between groups. Nonfatal adverse events occurred in 96.6% of patients in the everolimus group and 57.1% in the CNI group (p < 0.001). Ten patients (34.5%) in the everolimus group discontinued the study drug during follow-up due to adverse events. The poor adherence to the everolimus therapy might have masked a potential benefit of CNI withdrawal on renal function.
Background. Tacrolimus is the primary immunosuppressive drug used in kidney transplant patients. Replacing brand name products with generics is a controversial issue that we studied after a Chilean Ministry of Health mandate to implement such a switch. Methods. Forty-one stable Prograf (Astellas) receiving kidney transplant patients were switched to a generic tacrolimus (Sandoz) in a 1 : 1 dose ratio and were followed up for up to 8 months. All other drugs were maintained as per normal practice. Results. Neither tacrolimus doses nor their trough blood levels changed significantly after the switch, but serum creatinine did: 1.62 ± 0.90 versus 1.75 ± 0.92 mg/dL (p < 0.001). At the same time, five graft biopsies were performed, and two of them showed cellular acute rejection. There were nine infectious episodes treated satisfactorily with proper therapies. No patient or graft was lost during the follow-up time period. Conclusion. Switching from brand name tacrolimus to a generic tacrolimus (Sandoz) is feasible and appears to be safe, but it must be monitored carefully by treating physicians.