Comparative analysis of induction immunosuppressive therapy protocols in renal transplant recipients (retrospective review)

Objective: to evaluate the clinical efficacy and outcomes of kidney transplants performed using an alternative immunosuppressive therapy protocol that is based on double induction. Materials and methods. We examined 296 cases of kidney transplants performed in 295 patients between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2018. Based on induction immunosuppressive therapy regimen, the patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 included patients who underwent transplantation from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2013 and who used the standard induction immunosuppression protocol. Group 2 included patients who did transplant surgeries between the period January 7, 2013 and December 31, 2018 and who received the “double” induction protocol being analyzed. The method of dividing patients into these groups is associated with routine implementation of the analyzed protocol at the transplantation center since July 1, 2013. Results. Graft and recipient survival rates at all follow-up periods were higher in the group of patients who received the “double” induction immunosuppressive protocol than in the standard group. The studied protocol provides initially better and more stable graft function than in standard therapy. This is especially valuable in centers experiencing difficulties in assessing pre-transplant immunological risk. The graft and recipient survival rates achieved by the analyzed protocol are more pronounced in deceaseddonor kidney transplantation. Conclusion. Positive results obtained from retrospective analysis of the protocol under study justify a prospective randomized study.

1. Gautier SV. Transplantologiya XXI veka: vysokie tekhnologii v meditsine i innovatsii v biomeditsinskoy nauke. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennykh organov. 2017; 3: 10–32.

2. Shilov EM, Kotenko ON, Shilova MM, Mil’chakov KS, Gabaev MA, Khal’fin RA. Sostoyanie nefrologicheskoy sluzhby: zamestitel’naya pochechnaya terapiya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii v period s 2015-go po 2019 g. Klinicheskaya nefrologiya. 2020; 1: 6–14.

3. Suslov DN. Osnovnye printsipy immunosupressivnoy terapii posle transplantatsii pochki. Transplantologiya. 2018; 1: 42–49.

4. Danovich GM. Transplantatsiya pochki (perevod s angliyskogo pod red. Ya.G. Moysyuka.). M.: GOETAR-Media, 2013. 848.

5. Rayniene T, Asakiene E, Zelvis A, Trofimenko II. Vliyanie otsrochennoy funktsii transplantata na vyzhivaemost’ v techenie goda posle transplantatsii. Nefrologiya. 2005; 4: 63–66.

6. Hellemans R, Bosmans J-L, Abramowicz D. Induction Therapy for Kidney Transplant Recipients: Do We Still Need Anti-IL2 Receptor Monoclonal Antibodies? Am J Transplant. 2017 Jan; 17 (1): 22–27.

7. Pinchuk AV. Induktsionnaya immunosupressiya pri transplantatsii pochki: Timoglobulin® (obzor literatury). Transplantologiya. 2014; 2: 31–43.

8. Arzumanov SV, Tiptsov DV, Mitish AE, Gramotnev AK. Opyt primeneniya razlichnykh protokolov induktsionnoy terapii istoshchayushchimi antitelami pri transplantatsii pochki. Transplantologiya. 2015; 2: 14– 19.

9. Brennan DC, Schnitzler MA. Longterm results of rabbit antithymocyte globulin and basiliximab induction. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359 (16): 1736–1738.