RESUMO
The transplantation of kidneys after cancer excision (restored kidney transplantation, RKT) warrants further evaluation as a source of kidneys for transplantation. We determined whether larger cancers can be safely transplanted, the risks of adverse events from RKT, and whether RKT confers a survival advantage for patients waiting for transplantation. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 23 dialysis patients awaiting transplant underwent RKT at John Hunter Hospital, Australia between 2008 and 2015. Patients were >60 years old and accepted onto the National Organ Matching Service. This RKT Group was divided into donor renal cancers ≤30 mm and >30-≤50 mm. Adverse event profiles for RKT recipients were compared with 22 standard live donor recipients using logistic regression analyses. Recipient and transplant survivals for RKT were compared with 2050 controls from Australian New Zealand Dialysis Transplant Registry using Cox regression models. To increase statistical power for survival analyses, data from 25 RKT recipients from Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane were added, thus creating 48 RKT recipients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mortality, transplant failure nor AEs between the 2 cancer Groups. RKT increased the risks of Adverse event profiles (odds ratio: 6.48 [2.92-15.44]; P < 0.001). RKT reduced mortality risk by 30% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70 [0.36-1.07]; P = 0.299) compared with those continuing on the transplant list who may or may not be transplanted. RKT significantly reduced mortality risk for those remaining on dialysis (HR: 2.86 [1.43-5.72]; P = 0.003). Transplant survival for RKT was reduced compared with control deceased donor (HR: 0.42 [0.21-0.83]; P = 0.013) and live donor transplants (HR: 0.33 [0.02-0.86]; P =0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The use of larger carefully selected cancer-resected kidneys for transplantation appears safe and effective. RKT confers a possible survival advantage compared with waiting for transplantation, an increased survival compared with those remaining on dialysis but reduced transplant survival.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the bioequivalence of Cysporin, a generic cyclosporine A, compared with Neoral in stable renal transplant recipients. METHODS: Study design consisted of an open label, two-way crossover, randomized controlled trial of Cysporin versus Neoral in stable renal transplant recipients. In all, 33 patients were enrolled; 31 were randomized and 28 were evaluable. AUCs(0-12) were done on day 14 and 28; C(0) and C(2) were done on days 0, 7, 21 and 35. Dose conversion was 1:1. Outcome measures for serum cyclosporin A concentrations expressed as the mean+/-SD were AUC(0-12) (microg x hr/L), C(max) (microg/L), C(2) (microg/L), T(max) (hr) and T(1/2) (hr). Mean and 90% CI of the ratio Cysporin/Neoral of log-transformed data were calculated using a general linear model. RESULTS: The main pharmacokinetic features were: AUC(0-12): Cysporin 3495+/-1319, Neoral 3853+/-1378 (P<0.05); C(max): Cysporin 755+/-301, Neoral 881+/-368 (P<0.05); C(2): Cysporin 613+/-235, Neoral 672+/-255 (P>0.05); T(max): Cysporin 1.9+/-0.8, Neoral 1.4+/-0.6 (P<0.005); and T1/2: Cysporin 8.8+/-4.3, Neoral 8.7+/-6.2 (P>0.05). Estimated ratios of Cysporin/Neoral were: AUC 0.93 (90% CI 0.88-0.98; P<0.05); C(max) 0.88 (90% CI 0.80-0.97; P<0.05); and T(max) 1.32 (90% CI 1.14-1.53; P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Both the extent and rate of absorption of Cysporin are significantly less than those of Neoral. The 90% CI for the ratios of Cysporin/Neoral for AUC and C(max) lie within 0.80-1.25. Hence in this clinical context Cysporin is pharmacologically bioequivalent with Neoral. This study illustrates the importance of testing bioequivalence of generic cyclosporine A products in transplant recipients not healthy volunteers.