Clinical impact of replacing Minnesota antilymphocyte globulin with ATGAM.

In August 1992, we replaced Minnesota antilymphocyte globulin (MALG) with lymphocyte immune globulin, antithymocyte globulin (equine) (ATGAM) in our immunosuppression protocols. The clinical impression of increased graft rejection prompted our assessment of the effect of this change on patient and graft outcome. The initial study group consisted of 426 renal transplant recipients transplanted between October 1, 1987, and September 21, 1993. After exclusions, 388 transplant events, with a minimum 8-month follow-up, made up the final study cohort: 323 patients received MALG and 65 received ATGAM. Immunosuppression included intravenous methylprednisolone, oral prednisone, oral AZA, CsA in some cases, and intravenous MALG or ATGAM, 15 mg/kg/day, for 7 to 14 days. Acute rejection was treated with high dose intravenous steroids and steroid-resistant episodes were treated additionally with either MALG or OKT3. Statistical comparisons were stratified for multiple patient characteristics and treatment variations. There was a greater incidence of rejection in general, and a higher incidence of steroid-resistant episodes requiring subsequent antilymphocyte globulin therapy (P = 0.0073) in patients receiving ATGAM versus MALG. No difference was seen in the incidence of CMV infection or blood-borne sepsis. Lymphoma occurred in 3 MALG and 2 ATGAM recipients. MALG recipients were significantly less likely to experience rejection within the first 60 days after transplant (P = 0.0127 using unstratified data; P < 0.0001 when data were stratified for patient characteristics). The relative risk of acute rejection for posttransplant days 5, 7, 10, and 14 was consistently higher for ATGAM-treated patients. We conclude that MALG and ATGAM are not equivalent drugs, and that MALG is a more effective immunosuppressant, and is just as safe as ATGAM in our protocol environment.

Predictive performance of renal function estimate equations in renal allografts.

AIMS: Various mathematical models have been developed to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) incorporating variables such as age, gender, height, weight, serum creatinine, and body surface area (BSA). Because adjustments in drug dosing are often based on estimated values of renal function, it is important to define which, if any, of the available models, is appropriate for a specific patient population. A study was undertaken to determine the bias and precision of four mathematical models to estimate GFR in renal allograft recipients. METHODS: A retrospective review of 142 stable renal allograft patients, using iohexol clearance as a determinant of GFR, was performed. Renal allograft recipients followed in an outpatient clinic setting underwent iohexol clearance studies as part of clinical monitoring in the post-transplant period. Measured GFR values were compared with four mathematical models used to estimate GFR: the Cockcroft-Gault equation, the Jelliffe equation, the Walser equation, and the Mawer equation. Bias and precision were determined for each model as the mean squared error and the mean squared error, respectively. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 44 +/- 13 years, 92 were male, and 50 were female. The serum creatinine concentration was 176.8 +/- 88.4 mumol l-1 (mean +/- s.d.). The mean time post-transplant was 5.1 +/- 5.0 years and 38% of patients had insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus. The bias and precision results for the Jelliffe, Walser, Cockcroft-Gault, and Mawer models were: -3 and 414; -5 and 381; 16 and 688; and 23 and 1084, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Jelliffe and Walser equations gave the least biased and most precise estimations of GFR when compared with iohexol-derived measures in patients with renal allografts.

A randomized trial comparing cyclosporine induction with sequential therapy in renal transplant recipients.

Calcium antagonists may reduce the nephrotoxicity of cyclosporine (CsA), allowing CsA to be introduced immediately after renal transplantation and thereby obviating the need for sequential induction therapy with a monoclonal or polyclonal antibody. To test this hypothesis, in a pilot feasibility trial 100 cadaveric or one-haplotype-mismatched living-related renal transplant recipients were randomized to either (1) sequential therapy with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (ATGAM; Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI) 20 mg/kg/d for 7 to 14 days until renal function was established and CsA (Sandimmune; Sandoz, East Hanover, NJ) was started, or (2) CsA 8 mg/kg/d begun immediately before surgery with diltiazem (Cardizem; Marion Merrell Dow, Kansas City, MO) 60 mg sustained release twice daily. Acute rejection episodes during the first 90 days were not different with ATG versus CsA induction (42% v 28%; P = 0.142 by chi-square analysis). Graft failures (10% v 16%; P = 0.372) and the incidence of delayed graft function (28% v 34%; P = 0.516) were also similar with ATG compared with CsA. ATG caused lower platelet counts (138 +/- 59 x 10(3) v 197 +/- 75 x 10(3) at 7 days; P < 0.001) and lower white blood cell counts (9.6 +/- 4.6 x 10(3) v 12.3 +/- 4.9 x 10(3) at 7 days; P = 0.003). Diltiazem reduced the dose of CsA required to maintain target blood levels (479 +/- 189 mg/d v 576 +/- 178 mg/d at 14 days; P = 0.015). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in serum creatinine levels at days 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 28, 60, or 90. The results of this pilot feasibility trial suggest that prophylactic treatment with CsA and diltiazem may be equally effective and less toxic than ATG induction after renal transplantation.