EVEROLIMUS IN DE NOVO RENAL TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2010-2-74-81
Abstract
Survival of renal transplants and renal transplants recipients has improved greatly last years, but long-term graft survival remains unchanged. Nephrotoxicity of calcineurin inhibitors is one of the main factors of late renal allograft disfunction. Everolimus, new proliferation signal inhibitor, can facilitate minimization cyclosporine A exposure and has antineoplastic activity. The paper reviews literature dates regarding to clinical aspects of everolimus use in de novo renal transplant recipients.
About the Author
E. I. Prokopenko
M.F. Vladimirsky Moscow regional clinical research institute, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. ANZDATA Registry Report 2004 // Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Ed. McDo- nald S., Excell L. Adelaide, Australia.
2. Bohler T., Waiser J., Budde K. et al. The in vivo effect of rapamycin derivate SDZ RAD on lymphocyte prolifera- tion // Transplant. Proc. 1998. Vol. 30. P. 2195–2197.
3. Budde K., Lehne G., Winkler M. et al. Influence of ever- olimus on steady-state pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in maintenance renal transplant patients // J. Clin. Phar- macol. 2005. Vol. 45(7). P. 781–791.
4. Certican® Summary of Product Characteristics, 2006.
5. Cоhen B., Smits J.M., Haase B. et al. Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation // Nephrol.
6. Dial. Transplant. 2005. Vol. 20. P. 34–41.
7. Fritsche L., Horstrup J., Budde K. et al. Old-for-old kid- ney allocation allows successful expansion of the donor and recipient pool // Am. J. Transplant. 2003. Vol. 3.
8. P. 1434–1438.
9. Goudar R.K., Shi Q., Hjelmeland M.D. et al. Combination
10. therapy of inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor/ vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (AEE788) and the mammalian target of rapamycin (RAD001) of- fers improved glioblastoma tumor growth inhibition // Mol. Cancer. Ther. 2005. Vol. 4. P. 101–112.
11. Hoyer P.F., Ettenger R., Kovarik J.M. et al. Everolimus in pediatric de novo renal transplant patients // Trans- plantation. 2003. Vol. 75. P. 2082–2085.
12. Kauffman H.M., Cherikh W.S., Cheng Y. et al. Main- tenance immunosuppression with target-of-rapamycin inhibitors is associated with a reduced incidence of de novo malignancies// Transplantation. 2005. Vol.80. P. 883–889.
13. Keown P. Improving quality of life. The new target for transplantation // Transplantation. 2001. Vol. 72 (12). P. S67–74.
14. Kirchner I.G., Meier-Wiedenbach I., Manns M.P. Clini- cal pharmacokinetics of everolimus // Clin. Pharmacol. 2004. Vol. 43 (2). P. 83–95.
15. Kolhe N., Mamode N., Van der Walt J., Pattison J. Re- gression of post-transplant Kaposi’s sarcoma using siro- limus // Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2006. Vol. 60 (11). P. 1509– 1512.
16. Kovaric J.M., Curtis J.J., Hricik D.E. et al. Differential pharmacokinetic interaction of tacrolimus and cyclo- sporine on everolimus // Transplant. Proc. 2006. Vol. 38 (10). P. 3456–3458.
17. Kovaric J.M., Kahan B.D., Kaplan B. et al. Longitudinal assessment of everolimus in de novo renal transplant re- cipients over the first post-transplant year: pharmacoki- netics, exposure-response relationships, and influence
18. on cyclosporine // Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2001. Vol. 69.
19. P. 48–56.
20. Kovaric J.M., Kalbag J., Figueiredo J. et al. Differential
21. influence of two cyclosporine formulations on everoli- mus pharmacokinetics: a clinically relevant pharmacoki- netic interaction // J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2002. Vol. 42. P. 95–99.
22. Krieger N.R., Becker B.N., Heisey D.M. et al. Chronic allograft nephropathy uniformly affects recipients of cadaveric, nonidentical living-related and living-unre- lated grafts // Transplantation. 2003. Vol. 75. P. 1677– 1682.
23. Lebbé C., Euvrard S., Barrou B. et al. Sirolimus conver- sion for patients with posttransplant Kaposi’s sarcoma // Am. J. Transplant. 2006. Vol. 6 (9). P. 2164–2168.
24. Lorber M.I., Mulgaonkar S., Butt K.M.H. et al. Everoli- mus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study // Transplanta- tion. 2005. Vol. 80. P. 244–252.
25. Lorber M.I., Ponticelli C., Whelchel J. et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus in kidney transplanta- tion using 12-month exposure, efficacy and safety data // Clin. Transplant. 2005. Vol. 19. P. 145–152.
26. Majewski M., Korecka M., Joergensen J. et al. Immu- nosuppressive TOR kinase inhibitor everolimus (RAD) suppresses growth of cells derived from posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder at allograft-protecting do- ses // Transplantation. 2003. Vol. 75. P. 1710–1717.
27. Majewski M., Korecka M., Kossev P. et al. The immuno- suppressive macrolide RAD inhibits growth of human Epstein-Barr virus-transformed B lymphocytes in vitro and in vivo: a potential approach to prevention and tre- atment of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2000. Vol. 97. P. 4285– 4290.
28. Majumder P.K., Febbo P.G., Bikoff R. et al. mTOR in- hibition reverses Akt-dependent prostate intraepithelial neoplasia through regulation of apoptotic and HIF-1- dependent pathways // Nat. Med. 2004. Vol. 10. P. 594– 601.
29. Meier-Kriesche H.U., Schold J.D., Kaplan B. Long- term renal allograft survival: have we made significant progress or is it time to rethink our analytic and thera- peutic strategies? // Am. J. Transplant. 2004. Vol. 4 (8). P. 1289–1295.
30. Morrissey P.E., Gohh R., Yango A. et al. Renal transplant survival from older donors: a single center experience // Arch. Surg. 2004. Vol. 139. P. 384–389.
31. Nankivell B.J., Borrows R.J., Fung C.L. et al. The natu- ral history of chronic allograft nephropathy // N. Engl. J. Med. 2003. Vol. 349. P. 2326–2333.
32. Nashan B. The role of Certican (everolimus, RAD) in the many pathways of chronic rejection // Transplant. Proc. 2001. Vol. 33. P. 3215–3220.
33. Nashan B., Curtis J.J., Ponticelli C. et al. Everolimus and reduced-exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal- transplant recipients: a three-year phase II, randomized, multicenter, open-label study // Transplantation. 2004. Vol. 78. P. 1332–1340.
34. Pascual J., Boletis I.N., Campistol J.M. Everolimus (Certican®) in renal transplantation: a review of trial data, current usage and future directions // Transplant. Rev. 2006. Vol. 20. P. 1–18.
35. Pascual J., Cambi V., Dissegna D. et al. Efficacy and safety of 2 doses of everolimus combined with reduced dose Neoral in de novo kidney transplant recipients: 24 month analysis // Am. J. Transplant. 2005. Vol. 5 (Suppl. 11). Р. A1010.
36. Pascual J., Marcen R., Ortuno J. Clinical experience with everolimus (Certican) in elderly recipients: the «old-for-old» concept // Transplantation. 2005. Vol. 79. P. S85–S88.
37. Ponticelli C. Reducing exposure to calcineurin inhibitors following renal transplantation: clinical experience with everolimus (Certican) // Transplantation. 2005. Vol. 79. P. S69–S71.
38. Racusen L.C., Solez K., Colvin R.B. Fibrosis and atrophy in the renal allograft: interim report and new directions // Am. J. Transplant. 2002. Vol. 2. P. 203–206.
39. Rapamune® Summary of Product Characteristics, 2007.
40. Schuurman H.J., Cotton S., Fuchs S. et al. SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivate: Synergism with cyclosporine //
41. Transplantation. 1997. Vol. 64. P. 32–35.
42. Schuurman J.J., Ringers J., Schuler W. et al. Oral effica-
43. cy of the macrolide immunosuppressant SDZ RAD and of cyclosporine microemulsion in cynomolgus monkey kidney transplantation // Transplantation. 2000. Vol. 69. P. 737–742.
44. Serkova N., Jacobsen W., Niemann C.U. et al. Siroli- mus, but not the structurally related RAD (everolimus), enhances the negative effects of cyclosporine on mito- chondrial metabolism in the rat brain // Br. J. Pharmacol. 2001. Vol. 133. P. 875–885.
45. Serkova N., Litt L., James T.L. et al. Evaluation of indivi- dual and combined neurotoxicity of the immunosuppres-
46. sants cyclosporine and sirolimus by in vitro multinuclear NMR spectroscopy // J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1999. Vol. 289. P. 800–806.
47. Serkova N., Litt L., Leibfritz D. et al. The novel immu- nosuppressant SDZ RAD protect rat brain slices from cyclosporine-induced reduction of high-energy phos- phates // Br. J. Pharmacol. 2000. Vol. 129. P. 485–492.
48. Smits J.M., Persijn G.G., van Houwelingen H.C. et al. Evaluation of the Eurotransplant Senior Program. The results of the first year // Am. J. Transplant. 2002. Vol. 2. P. 664–670.
49. Stallone G., Schena A., Infante B. et al. Sirolimus for Ka- posi’s sarcoma in renal-transplant recipients // N. Engl. J. Med. 2005. Vol. 352 (13). P. 1317–1323.
50. Tedesco-Silva H. Jr., Vitko S., Pascual J. et al. 2306 and 2307 study groups. 12-month safety and efficacy of ever- olimus with reduced exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal transplant recipients // Transpl. Int. 2007. Vol. 20 (1). P. 27–36.
51. Vitko S., Margreiter R., Weimar W. et al. Everolimus (Certican) 12-month safety and efficacy versus myco- phenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant recipients // Transplantation. 2004. Vol. 78. P. 1532–1540.
52. Vitko S., Margreiter R., Weimar W. et al. Three-year effi- cacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant pa- tients // Am. J. Transplant. 2005. Vol. 5. P. 2521–2530.
53. Vitko S., Tedesco H., Eris J. et al. Everolimus with opti- mized cyclosporine dosing in renal transplant recipients: 6-month safety and efficacy results of two randomized studies // Am. J. Transplant. 2004. Vol. 4. P. 626–635.
54. Wolfe R.A., Ashby V.B., Milford E.L. et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cada- veric transplant // N. Engl. J. Med. 1999. Vol. 341 (23). P. 1725–1730.
Review
For citations:
Prokopenko E.I. EVEROLIMUS IN DE NOVO RENAL TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2010;12(2):74-81. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2010-2-74-81
Views:
697
Email this article 