Sequential quadruple immunosuppression including sirolimus in extended criteria and nonheartbeating donor kidney transplantation.

The aim was to evaluate feasibility and safety of calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression in high-risk donor kidney transplantation with sequential sirolimus introduction. Kidney transplant patients (n=76) with a donor aged >60 years, donor with acute renal failure, or a nonheartbeating donor were included. Immunosuppression consisted of antithymocyte globulin or basiliximab, mycophenolate mofetil, prednisone, and sequential introduction of sirolimus. One-year patient survival was 96.2% and 95.8%; graft survival was 94.2% and 91.7%; acute rejection rates were 21.2% and 12.4%; delayed graft function was 21.2% and 66.7%; and creatinine clearance was 58+/-20 mL/min and 56+/-21 mL/min for the brain-dead donor group and the nonheartbeating donor group, respectively. Most adverse events were infections, but also three lymphoceles, three urinary fistulas, three wound seromas. Sequential sirolimus introduction in high-risk donor kidney transplantation was found to lead to good patient and graft survival and incidence of acute rejection and delayed graft function.

Influence of sirolimus on proteinuria in de novo kidney transplantation with expanded criteria donors: comparison of two CNI-free protocols.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors to proteinuria is controversial. The aim was to analyse proteinuria in suboptimal kidney calcineurin inhibitor-(CNI) free de novo immunosuppression. METHODS: All patients from our centre with donors >60 years and CNI-free treatment were included (n = 108). Patients were divided into two groups: (i) SRL group: sirolimus (SRL) + prednisone + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) + antiCD25; (ii) MMF group: prednisone + MMF w/ or w/o antiCD25 (n = 75). Follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: Donors were slightly younger in the SRL group (68 vs 71 years; P < 0.05), receptor age (67 vs 65 years) was not significantly different. Patient survival in the MMF group was 88 vs 94% in the SRL group, however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. One-year graft survival censored for death was 83% in the MMF group and 94% in the SRL group. Acute rejection rate was 45% in the MMF and 15% in the SRL group (P < 0.01). The incidence of CNI introduction was higher in the MMF-group (35 vs 5; P < 0.05). The intention-to-treat analysis revealed significant differences of proteinuria [SRL vs MMF at 12 months: 461 (163-6988) vs 270 (53-3029) mg/day], which did not exist in the on-therapy (OT) analysis [SRL vs MMF at 12 months: 357 (199-1428) vs 279 (53-3029) mg/day]. New onset nephrotic range proteinuria seemed to occur slightly more frequently in SRL patients (3/33 vs 1/75; P = 0.049), however, all four cases occurred in a context of recurrent disease, or previous drug-independent damage or non-adherence. All of these patients were converted to CNI. CONCLUSION: SRL-based compared with MMF-based treatment in kidney transplantation with advanced age donors is associated with an acceptable outcome, however, with increased proteinuria in the intention-to-treat analysis. A large subgroup of the patients in the MMF group experienced acute rejection and required conversion to CNI.