In a 24-month, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial, 715 de novo kidney transplant recipients were randomized at 10-14 weeks to convert to everolimus (n = 359) or remain on standard calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy (n = 356; 231 tacrolimus; 125 cyclosporine), all with mycophenolic acid and steroids. The primary endpoint, change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from randomization to month 12, was similar for everolimus versus CNI: mean (standard error) 0.3(1.5) mL/min/1.732 versus -1.5(1.5) mL/min/1.732 (p = 0.116). Biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) at month 12 was more frequent under everolimus versus CNI overall (9.7% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.014) and versus tacrolimus-treated patients (2.6%, p < 0.001) but similar to cyclosporine-treated patients (8.8%, p = 0.755). Reporting on de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSA) was limited but suggested more frequent anti-HLA Class I DSA under everolimus. Change in left ventricular mass index was similar. Discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent with everolimus (23.6%) versus CNI (8.4%). In conclusion, conversion to everolimus at 10-14 weeks posttransplant was associated with renal function similar to that with standard therapy overall. Rates of BPAR were low in all groups, but lower with tacrolimus than everolimus.
Lowering LDL cholesterol reduces the risk of developing atherosclerotic events in CKD, but the effects of such treatment on progression of kidney disease remain uncertain. Here, 6245 participants with CKD (not on dialysis) were randomly assigned to simvastatin (20 mg) plus ezetimibe (10 mg) daily or matching placebo. The main prespecified renal outcome was ESRD (defined as the initiation of maintenance dialysis or kidney transplantation). During 4.8 years of follow-up, allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe resulted in an average LDL cholesterol difference (SEM) of 0.96 (0.02) mmol/L compared with placebo. There was a nonsignificant 3% reduction in the incidence of ESRD (1057 [33.9%] cases with simvastatin plus ezetimibe versus 1084 [34.6%] cases with placebo; rate ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.89 to 1.05; P=0.41). Similarly, allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had no significant effect on the prespecified tertiary outcomes of ESRD or death (1477 [47.4%] events with treatment versus 1513 [48.3%] events with placebo; rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04; P=0.34) or ESRD or doubling of baseline creatinine (1189 [38.2%] events with treatment versus 1257 [40.2%] events with placebo; rate ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.01; P=0.09). Exploratory analyses also showed no significant effect on the rate of change in eGFR. Lowering LDL cholesterol by 1 mmol/L did not slow kidney disease progression within 5 years in a wide range of patients with CKD.
Background Patients showing high tacrolimus clearance eliminate the drug more rapidly, and in order to reach the same trough concentration they need higher daily doses compared to those with low clearance. The high clearance makes them more exposed to transient under-immunosuppression in case of a missed/delayed dose but the higher daily tacrolimus doses cause higher maximum concentrations (Cmax). Both are hypothesized to induce development of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) in the transplanted graft. We wanted to investigate the association between estimated tacrolimus clearance and development of IFTA in the renal transplant during the first year post-engraftment. Methods Data from all patients transplanted between 2009 and 2013 at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet were included in the analysis. Association between estimated tacrolimus clearance (daily tacrolimus dose [mg]/trough concentration [μg/L]) and development of IFTA, (defined as i+t ≤ 1 and ci+ct ≥ 2) in renal protocol biopsies from 6 weeks to 12 months post-transplantation was investigated. Results In total, 510 patients were treated with tacrolimus and had paired protocol biopsies (6 weeks + 12 months) after transplantation, were included in the analysis. Patients were divided in four groups according to their estimated tacrolimus clearance. There were no differences in biopsy scores between the groups at 6 weeks. The high clearance group developed significantly more IFTA from 6 weeks to 12 months compared to the low clearance group (50% vs 22%, P<0.007). Of the 233 patients without IFTA in the 6-week biopsies a 1-unit increase in tacrolimus clearance was associated with an odds ratio of 1.88 (95% CI; 1.12-3.27) for development of IFTA after adjusting for donor age and deceased donor. Conclusion High tacrolimus clearance was significantly associated with development of IFTA within the first year following renal transplantation. The effect may be explained by higher peak concentrations and/or more severe transient under-immunosuppressive episodes in these patients.
Risk factors of mortality in patients with haemodialysis (HD) have been identified in several studies, but few prognostic models have been developed with assessments of calibration and discrimination abilities. We used the database of the Assessment of Survival and Cardiovascular Events study to develop a prognostic model of mortality over 3-4 years.Five factors (age, albumin, C-reactive protein, history of cardiovascular disease and diabetes) were selected from experience and forced into the regression equation. In a 67% random try-out sample of patients, no further factors amongst 24 candidates added significance (P < 0.01) to mortality outcome as assessed by Cox regression modelling, and individual probabilities of death were estimated in the try-out and test samples. Calibration was explored by calculating the prognostic index with regression coefficients from the try-out sample to patients in the 33% test sample. Discrimination was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas.The strongest prognostic factor in the try-out sample was age, with small differences between the other four factors. Calibration in the test sample was good when the calculated number of deaths was multiplied by a constant of 1.33. The five-factor model discriminated reasonably well between deceased and surviving patients in both the try-out and test samples with an ROC area of about 0.73.A model consisting of five factors can be used to estimate and stratify the probability of death for individuals The model is most useful for long-term prognosis in an HD population with survival prospects of more than 1 year.
The impact of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG) thrombosis on mortality has been sparsely studied. This study investigated the association between AVF/AVG thrombosis and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.The data from 2439 patients with AVF or AVG undergoing maintenance haemodialysis (HD) included in the A Study to Evaluate the Use of Rosuvastatin in Subjects on Regular Hemodialysis: An Assessment of Survival and Cardiovascular Events trial (AURORA) were analysed using a time-dependent Cox model. The incidence of vascular access (VA) thrombosis was a pre-specified secondary outcome.During follow-up, 278 AVF and 94 AVG thromboses were documented. VA was restored at 22 ± 64 days after thrombosis (27 patients had no restoration with subsequent permanent central catheter). In multivariable survival analysis adjusted for potential confounders, the occurrence of AVF/AVG thrombosis was associated with increased early and late all-cause mortality, with a more pronounced association with early all-cause mortality {hazard ratio [HR] < 90 days 2.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83-3.97], P < 0.001; HR > 90 days 1.47 [1.20-1.80], P < 0.001}. In addition, the occurrence of AVF thrombosis was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality, whether VA was restored within 7 days [HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.02-1.75), P = 0.036] or later than 7 days [HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.29-2.53), P = 0.001].AVF/AVG thrombosis should be considered as a major clinical event since it is strongly associated with increased mortality in patients on maintenance HD, especially in the first 90 days after the event and when access restoration occurs >7 days after thrombosis. Clinicians should pay particular attention to the timing of VA restoration and the management of these patients during this high-risk period. The potential benefit of targeting overall patient risk with more aggressive treatment after AVF/AVG restoration should be further explored.