FIRST EXPERIENCE IN SYSTEMIC ADMINISTRATION OF EVEROLIMUS IN RENAL TRANSPLANTATION FROM EXPANDED CRITERIA DONORS IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Introduction. Kidney transplant (KTx) with reduced functional reserve is more sensitive to the toxic effects of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI). Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) approach with m-TOR inhibitors in case of KTx from expanded criteria donors (ECD) leads to decreasing levels of cyclosporine (CsA) in the blood. Despite the presence of international pilot studies we do not have yet clear recommendation as to combination of CsA and Everolimus. In this article, we presented 5-year results of the fi rst Russian experience of systematic administration of Everolimus as a basic IST in KTx from ECDs.

Materials and methods. The group of recipients (n = 41) having received bilateral kidney transplants from the same ECDs was analyzed. Comparison group (n = 19) received standard IST consisting of CsA, MMF and steroids. Study group included 22 recipients who received kidneys from the same ECDs and IST based on early (starting from the 90th day after transplantation) conversion from MMF to Everolimus – 1.5 mg/day (target concentration – 3–6 ng/mL). Simultaneously with the administration of Everolimus, dosing of Neoral dropped immediately by 50%, and then, in accordance with the target concentration (C0 30–50 ng/mL). Dosage of steroids in patients of the study group was gradually minimized.

Results. Both groups were comparable in terms of serum creatinine level and glomerular fi ltration rate (GFR) up to 3 months after transplantation. As a result of the introduction of a new IST scheme in the study group, serum creatinine level in 60 months after KTx was 149.27 ± 42.68 μmol/L, in the comparison group – 209.87 ± 39.56 μmol/L; р < 0.05. In the control group GFR reduced to 27.50 ± 7.39 mL/min/1.73 m2, in the study group it was 46.21 ± 15.17 mL/min/1.73 m2, p < 0.05.

Conclusion. Early administration of Everolimus is strongly recommended in all cases of ECD KTx. This approach helps minimize CNI nephrotoxicity, provides the prevention of chronic allograft nephropathy, enables the stable renal function, and contributes to the survival of renal transplant recipients.

1. Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CL et al. The Natural History of Chronic Allograft Nephropathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003; 349 (24): 2326–2333.

2. Naesens M, Kuypers DRJ, Sarwal M et al. Calcineurin Inhibitor Nephrotoxicity. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2009 Feb; 4 (2): 481–508.

3. Chapman JR. Chronic Calcineurin Inhibitor Nephrotoxicity – Lest We Forget. Am. J. Transplant. 2011; 11 (4): 693–697.

4. Nankivell BJ, Wavamunno MD, Borrows RJ et al. Mycophenolate Mofetil Is Associated with Altered Expression of Chronic Renal Transplant Histology. Am. J. Transplant. 2007; 7 (2): 366–376.

5. Holdaas H, Midtvedt K, Asberget A. A drug safety evaluation of everolimus in kidney transplantation. Expert Opin. Drug. Saf. 2012; 11 (6): 1013–1022.

6. Brazelton TR, Morris R. Molecular mechanisms of action of new xenobiotic immunosuppressive drugs: tacrolimus (FK506), sirolimus (rapamycin), mycophenolate mofetil and lefl unomide. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 1996; 8 (5): 710–720.

7. Grinyo JM, Bestard O, Torras J, Cruzado JM. Optimal immunosuppression to prevent chronic allograft dysfunction. Kidney Int. 2010; 78 (119): 66–70.

8. Brouard S, Renaudin K, Soulillou JP. Revisiting the natural history of IF/TA in renal transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2011; 11: 647–649.

9. Matas AJ. Chronic progressive calcineurin nephrotoxicity: an overstated concept. Am. J. Transplant. 2011; 11: 687–692.

10. Tedesco-Silva HJr, Vitko S, Pascual J et al. 12-month safety and effi cacy of everolimus with reduced exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transpl. Int. 2007; 20 (1): 27–36.

11. Tedesco-Silva HJr, Cibrikb D, Johnstonc T et al. Everolimus Plus Reduced-Exposure CsA versus Mycophenolic Acid Plus Standard-Exposure CsAin Renal Transplant Recipients. Am. J. Transplant. 2010; 10: 1401–1413.

12. Cibrik D, Tedesco-Silva JrH, Vathsala A et al. Randomized Trial of Everolimus- Facilitated Calcineurin Inhibitor Minimization Over 24 Months in Renal Transplantation. Transplantation. 2013; 95 (7): 933–942.

13. Kahan BD, Sheena G, Tejpal N et al. Synergistic interactions of cyclosporine and rapamycin to inhibit immune performances of normal human peripheral blood lymphocytes in vitro. Transplantation. 1991; 51 (1): 232–239.

14. Резник ОН, Багненко СФ, Мойсюк ЯГ и др. Трансплантация почек от возрастных доноров. Актуальность, первый опыт и перспективы. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2009; 1: 11–22. Reznik ON, Bagnenko SF, Mojsyuk YaG i dr. Transplantaciya pochek ot vozrastnyh donorov. Aktual’nost’, pervyj opyt i perspektivy. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennyh organov. 2009; 1: 11–22.

15. Cohen B, Smits JM, Haase B et al. Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 2005; 20: 34–38.

16. Meier-Kriesche H, Schold JD, Gaston RS et al. Kidneys from deceased donors: maximizing the value of a scarce resource. Am. J. Тransplant. 2005; 5: 1725–1730.

17. Nicholson MJ. Renal transplantation from non-heart-beating donors: Opportunities and Challenges. Transplantation Reviews. 2000; 14 (1): 1–17.

18. Arns W, Citterio F, Campistol JM. «Old-for-old» – new strategies for renal transplantation. Neprol. Dial. Transplant. 2007; 22: 336–341.

19. Carter JT, Chan S, Roberts JP. Expanded criteria donor kidney allocation: marked decrease in cold ischemia and delayed graft function at a single center. Am. J. Transplant. 2005; 5: 2745–2753.

20. Danovitch GM, Gaston RS et al. The report of a national conference on the wait list for kidney transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2003; 3 (7): 775–785.

21. Delmonico FL, Wynn JJ. Managing the enlarging waiting list. Am. J. Transplant. 2002; 2: 889–890.

22. Port F. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2003; 3 (14): 114–125.

23. Sung RS, Guidinger MK, Lake CD. Impact of the expanded criteria donor allocation system on the use of expanded criteria donor kidneys. Transplantation. 2005; 79 (9): 1257–1261.

24. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialisys, patients on dialisys waiting transplantation and recipients of a fi rst cadaveric transplant. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999; 341: 1725–1729.

25. Резник ОН, Тутин АП, Ульянкина ИВ. Минимизация иммуносупрессии при трансплантации почки. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2011; XIII (4): 66–75. Reznik ON, Tutin AP, Ul’yankina IV. Minimizaciya immunosupressii pri transplantacii pochki. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennyh organov. 2011; XIII (4): 66–75.

26. Martins PNA, Pratschke J, Pascher A et al. Age and immune response in organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2005; 79: 127–132.

27. Matas AJ, Lawson W, McHugh L et al. Employment patterns after successful kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 1996; 61: 729–733.

28. Meier-Kriesche HU, Ojo A, Hanson J et al. Exponentially insceased risk of infectious death in older transplant recipients. Kidney Int. 2001; 59: 1539.

29. Li YT, Danguilan RA, Cabanayan-Casasola CB et al. Everolimus with reduced-dose cyclosporine in de novo renal transplant recipients: Philippine experience. Transplantation Proceedings. 2008; 40: 2211–2213.

30. Luke PPW, Nguan CY, Horovitz D. Immunosupression without calcineurin inhibition: optimization of renal function in expanded criteria donor renal transplantation. Clin. Transplant. 2008; 10: 1–7.

31. Arns W, Citterio F, Campistol JM. «Old-for-old» – new strategies for renal transplantation. Neprol. Dial. Transplant. 2007; 22: 336–341.

32. Grinyo JM, Bestard O, Torras J, Cruzado JM. Optimal immunosuppression to prevent chronic allograft dysfunction. Kidney Int. 2010; 78 (119): 66–70.

33. Прокопенко ЕИ. Применение эверолимуса у de novo реципиентов почечного трансплантата. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2010; 2: 74–82. Prokopenko EI. Primenenie ehverolimusa u de novo recipientov pochechnogo transplantata. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennyh organov. 2010; 2: 74–82.

34. Fellstrom B. Cyclosporinenephrotoxicity. Transplantation Proceedings. 2004; 36: 220–223.

35. Giron F, Baez Y, Niño-Murcia A et al. Conversion Therapy to Everolimus in Renal Transplant Recipients: Results After One Year. Transplant. Proc. 2008; 40: 711–713.

36. Inza A, Balda S, Álvarez E et al. Conversion to Everolimus in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Decreased Renal Function. Transplant. Proc. 2009; 41: 2134–2136.

37. Pascual J. The use of everolimus in renal-transplant patients. International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease. 2009; 2: 9–21.

38. Mjornstedta L, Sørensenb SS, von zur Muhlenc B et al. Improved Renal Function after Early Conversion From a Calcineurin Inhibitor to Everolimus: a Randomized Trial in Kidney Transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2012; 12 (10): 2744–2753.

39. Pascual J et al. Everolimus (Certican) in renal transplantation: a review of clinical trial data, current usage, and future directions. Transplantation Reviews. 2006; 20: 1–18.

40. Pascual J, Srinivas TR, Chadban S et al. TRANSFORM: a novel study design to evaluate the effect of everolimus on long-term outcomes after kidney transplantation. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials. 2014; 6: 45–54.

41. Tu Y, Stepkowski SM, Chou TC, Kahan BD. The synergistic effects of cyclosporine, sirolimus, and brequinar on heart allograft survival in mice. Transplantation. 1995; 59: 177–183.

42. Morris RE. Rapamycins: antifungal, antitumor, antiproliferative, and immunosuppressive macrolides. Transplant. Rev. 1992; 6: 39–87.

43. Holdaas H, Midtvedt K, Asberget A. A drug safety evaluation of everolimus in kidney transplantation. Expert Opin. Drug. Saf. 2012; 11 (6): 1013–1022.

44. Vitko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W 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: 2521–2530.

45. Nashan B, Curtis 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; 78: 1332–1340.

46. Lorber MI, Mulgaonkar S, Butt KMH 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: 244–252.

47. Sagedal S, Nordal KP, Hartmann A et al. The impact of cytomegalovirus infection and disease on rejection episodes in renal allograft recipients. Am. J. Transplant. 2002; 2: 850–856.

48. Brennan DC, Legendre C, Patel D et al. Cytomegalovirus incidence between everolimus versus mycophenolate in de novo renal transplants: pooled analysis of three clinical trials. Am. J. Transplant. 2011; 11: 2453–2462.

49. Langer RM, Hene R, Vitko S et al. Everolimus plus early tacrolimus minimization: a phase III, randomized, openlabel, multicenter trial in renal transplantation. Transpl. Int. 2012; 25: 592–602.

50. Kovarik JM et al. Differential Pharmacokinetic Interaction of Tacrolimus and Cyclosporine on Everolimus. Transplant. Proc. 2006; 38: 3456–3458.

51. Schuurman H et al. SDZ RAD, A new rapamycin derivate: Synergism with Cyclosporine. Transplantation. 1997; 64 (1): 32–35.

52. Abramowicz D et al. Cyclosporine Withdrawal from a Mycophenolate Mofetil – Containing Immunosuppressive Regimen: Results of a Five-Year, Prospective, Randomized Study. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2005; 16: 2234–2240.