Is mycophenolate mofetil less safe than azathioprine in elderly renal transplant recipients?

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is a potent immunosuppressive agent that has been shown to be superior to azathioprine in preventing early acute rejection in the general renal transplant population. However, it is uncertain whether these benefits also apply to older renal transplant recipients, who are known to be more susceptible to infectious complications and have considerably lower rates of rejection and immunological graft loss. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all elderly (> or =55 years old) renal transplant recipients who underwent renal transplantation at the Princess Alexandra Hospital (1994-2000) and received either MMF (n=60) or azathioprine (n=55) in combination with prednisolone and cyclosporin. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The azathioprine- and MMF-treated groups were well matched at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics, end-stage renal failure causes and transplant characteristics. Compared with the MMF cohort, azathioprine-treated patients experienced a shorter time to first rejection [hazard ratio (HR) 4.47, 95% CI 1.53-13.1, P<0.01]. However, azathioprine-treated patients were also less likely to develop opportunistic infections (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.41, P=0.001). No differences were observed between the two groups with respect to hospitalization rates, intensive care admissions, hematological complications, or posttransplant malignancies. Actuarial 2-year survival rates for the azathioprine- and MMF-treated patients were 100 and 87%, respectively (P<0.001). The principal cause of death in the MMF cohort was infection. Using a multivariate Cox regression analysis of patient survival, an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.01 (95% CI 0.001-0.08, P=0.001) was calculated in favor of azathioprine. Overall graft survival also tended to be better in patients receiving azathioprine (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.06-1.33, P=0.11), CONCLUSIONS: In elderly renal transplant recipients, the combination of MMF, cyclosporin, and prednisolone appears to result in a worse outcome compared with the less potent combination of azathioprine, cyclosporin, and prednisolone. Future prospective studies need to specifically evaluate the risk/benefit ratios of newer, more potent immunosuppressive protocols, such as MMF-based regimens, in this important and sizeable patient subgroup.

Frequency and severity of acute rejection in live- versus cadaveric-donor renal transplants.

BACKGROUND: Live donors are an increasingly important source of kidneys for transplantation in Australia. The aim of this study was to compare the rate and severity of rejection between patients receiving kidney transplants from live versus cadaveric donors. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all patients receiving live-donor (n=109) and cadaveric-donor (n=389) renal transplants at our institution between April 1, 1994, and March 31, 2000. Follow-up was completed on all patients until graft loss, death, or May 31, 2001. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the live-donor and cadaveric groups were similar, except for recipient age (mean+/-SD, 36.3+/-15.6 vs. 44.5+/-14.4 years, respectively; P<0.001); donor age (46.1+/-11.3 vs. 36.1+/-16.4 years, P<0.001); pretransplant dialysis duration (1.36+/-2.1 vs. 3.4+/-4.4 years, P<0.001); and the proportions of patients receiving first allografts (95% vs. 88%, respectively; P<0.05), antibody induction (8% vs. 20%, P<0.01), and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (60% vs. 37%, P<0.001). Acute rejection was observed in 48 (44%) live-donor and 108 (28%) cadaveric transplants (P=0.001). Cadaveric donor type was independently predictive of less acute rejection both on logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.73; P=0.001) and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analysis (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69; P<0.001). Patients receiving cadaveric-donor transplants were also significantly less likely to receive antibody therapy for rejection (univariate, 18% vs. 9%; P=0.006; multivariate AOR, 0.45; 95% CI, -0.25-0.82; P<0.01), independent of recipient age, gender, race, transplant number, human leukocyte antigen mismatch, sensitization, induction therapy, delayed graft function, MMF use, tacrolimus or cyclosporine A use, sirolimus-everolimus use, year of transplant, donor age, or dialysis duration. However, donor type did not independently influence graft survival, immunologic graft survival, or patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Live-donor kidney transplant recipients had a higher rate and severity of rejection and a shorter rejection-free period than cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Further consideration of the reasons for this difference and the use of alternative immunosuppressive strategies for live-donor transplants are recommended.

The effect of obesity on renal transplant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity has been associated with improved survival on dialysis, its effects on renal transplant outcomes remain unclear. Previous studies have reported conflicting findings and have been limited by the use of outdated patient data, univariate analyses, and liberal transplant selection criteria. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of obesity on renal transplant outcomes in a rigorously screened population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all patients transplanted at the Princess Alexandra Hospital from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 2000. Patients were rigorously screened for cardiovascular disease before acceptance for transplantation. The effects of obesity on renal transplant outcomes were assessed by logistic and multivariate Cox regressions. RESULTS: Of the 493 patients transplanted, 59 (12%) were obese (body mass index [BMI] 30 kg/m ). Obese patients were more likely to experience superficial wound breakdown (14% vs. 4%, P<0.01) and complete wound dehiscence (3% vs. 0%, P<0.01). Wound infections also tended to be more frequent in obese recipients (15% vs. 8%, P=0.11). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to operative duration, postoperative complications, hospitalization, delayed graft function, or acute rejection episodes. Five-year actuarial survival rates were comparable between the two groups with respect to graft survival (83% vs. 84%, P=NS) and patient survival (91% vs. 91%, P=NS). On multivariate analysis, BMI was an independent risk factor for wound breakdown (odds ratio 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34, P<0.001), but not for other posttransplant complications, hospitalization, graft loss, or patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: The only significant adverse effect of obesity on renal transplant outcomes was an increase in wound complications, which were generally of minor consequence. Provided that adequate care is taken to avoid transplanting patients with significant cardiovascular disease, obese recipients can achieve excellent long-term patient and graft survivals that are on par with their nonobese counterparts. Denying patients access to renal transplantation on the basis of obesity per se does not appear to be justified.