Mycophenolate mofetil, with cyclosporine and prednisone, reduces early rejection while allowing the use of less antilymphocytic agent induction and cyclosporine in renal recipients with delayed graft function.

Antilymphocytic agent induction (ALAI), with antithymocyte globulin or monoclonal antibody, is generally used in renal transplantation (TX) to spare renal allografts with poor initial function from the toxic effects of cyclosporine (CsA) and/or to augment immunosuppression (IS) in the patient at a high risk for early rejection. ALAI, unfortunately, increases the cost of TX and the risk to the patient, having been associated with many adverse side effects. An IS protocol, which results in a low incidence of early rejection while using less CsA and ALAI, is a worthwhile goal. We compare our experience with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), CsA, and prednisone (MMFCP; n = 62) to our azathioprine (AZA), CsA, and prednisone (AZACP; n = 50) triple-drug IS, with and without ALAI. The patient characteristics for age, race, first TX, cadaveric donor, pediatric recipient, and dialysis in the first post-op week (DGF) were not different for the MMFCP versus AZACP groups. There were more females in the MMFCP group (51.6% versus 30.0%, p = 0.022). We report that rejection-free survival at 6 months (RF6) was better in the MMFCP versus AZACP group (83.9% versus 60.0%, p = 0.005). Less ALAI and CsA were used in the MMFCP patients. At 1 year, actuarial graft survival was 91.9% in the MMFCP group and 81.9% in the AZACP group (p = 0.116). Actuarial 1-year patient survivals were not different in the two patient groups. In the sub-population of patients with DGF, the RF6 in the MMFCP (n = 13) group was 92.3% versus 57.1% in the AZACP (n = 14) group (p = 0.041). The reduction in early rejection episodes in the patients on MMFCP with DGF was accomplished while using half as much ALAI and lower CsA doses and levels. The African-American recipient sub-population on MMFCP also demonstrated an improvement in RF6 while using less ALAI and CsA (78.6% versus 48.0%, p = 0.022). We conclude that the use of MMF-based triple-drug IS results in fewer rejection episodes while allowing for lower CsA levels and less ALAI, even in patients with delayed graft function.

A randomized trial of sevelamer hydrochloride (RenaGel) with and without supplemental calcium. Strategies for the control of hyperphosphatemia and hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously shown sevelamer hydrochloride (RenaGel) to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of RenaGel alone and RenaGel with calcium, using the serum phosphorus concentration and intact parathyroid hormone (PTH) as the principal outcomes of interest. Calcium (900 mg elemental) was provided as a once-nightly dose on an empty stomach. 71 patients were randomized and included in the intent-to-treat population; 55 completed the 16-week study period (2 weeks washout, 12 weeks treatment, 2 weeks washout). 49% of subjects were taking vitamin D metabolites. RESULTS: Serum phosphorus and PTH rose significantly when patients stopped their phosphate binders during both washout periods. RenaGel and RenaGel with calcium were equally effective at reducing serum phosphorus (mean change -2.4 mg/dL vs. -2.3 mg/dL). RenaGel with calcium was associated with a small increase in serum calcium (mean change 0.3 mg/dL vs. 0.0 mg/dL in RenaGel group, P = 0.09) that was not statistically significant. During the treatment phase, the reduction in PTH tended to be greater in the RenaGel with calcium group (median change -67.0 vs. -22.5 pg/mL in RenaGel group, P = 0.07). Non-users of vitamin D metabolites treated with RenaGel with calcium experienced a significant decrease in PTH (median change -114.5 vs. -22 pg/mL in RenaGel group, P = 0.006). Adverse events were seen with equal frequency in both groups, being generally mild in intensity, and rarely attributable to the drugs. CONCLUSION: We conclude that RenaGel and RenaGel with calcium are similarly effective in the treatment of ESRD-related hyperphosphatemia. Provision of supplemental calcium or metabolites of vitamin D with RenaGel may enhance control of hyperparathyroidism.

Safety and tolerability of cyclosporine microemulsion versus cyclosporine: two-year data in primary renal allograft recipients: a report of the Neoral Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The new microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine (CsA-ME) is more bioavailable than cyclosporine (CsA) in de novo renal transplant patients. Therefore, it was of interest to compare the safety profile of each formulation in such patients. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 101 renal transplant recipients were randomized after transplantation to receive either CsA (n=50) or CsA-ME (n=51) capsules twice daily for 2 years. Of these patients, 54 (CsA, n=26; CsA-ME, n=28) completed 1 year of the study and entered the second-year, double-blind extension. Initial dose at the time of transplantation was 5 mg/kg b.i.d.; doses were titrated to target trough levels. METHODS: The mean (+/- SD) doses at the end of 2 years were 4.6 +/- 1.8 and 3.8 +/- 1.1 mg/kg per day for CsA- and CsA-ME-treated patients, respectively. The mean (+/- SD) CsA trough levels at end point were 187 +/- 63 and 210 +/- 95 ng/ml for CsA- and CsA-ME-treated patients, respectively. At least one adverse event was reported by 25/26 (96%) of CsA- and 27/28 (96%) of CsA-ME-treated patients. No patient discontinued the study because of adverse events. No deaths occurred during the study. Renal function, as measured by serum creatinine levels, and blood pressure were comparable over time in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in safety and tolerability between CsA- and CsA-ME-treated kidney recipients for 2 years after transplantation.

The pharmacokinetics of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in primary renal allograft recipients. The Neoral Study Group.

This study was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week comparison of the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of two cyclosporine (CsA) formulations, cyclosporine emulsion capsules and oral solution for microemulsion and cyclosporine, in the postoperative management of renal transplant patients. Of the 101 patients, aged 18 to 65, who entered the study, 89 were evaluable for pharmacokinetics. Initial dosage was 10 mg/kg per day, administered twice daily in two equal doses. Dosages were adjusted to achieve target CsA concentrations. The pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters (dose-normalized) of greatest interest were maximum blood concentration (C(max)/dose), time to reach maximum concentration (t(max), area under the blood concentration-vs.-time curve (AUC/dose), and trough blood concentrations (Co h/dose). The relative CsA bioavailabilty was found to be significantly enhanced with cyclosporine emulsion compared with cyclosporine with a 16% to 31% increase in AUC and a 32% to 42% increase in C(max). Intrapatient variability of PK parameters was significantly lower with cyclosporine emulsion than with cyclosporine for AUC, C(oh), t(max), and C(max) in many instances. This indicates a more consistent, rapid, and more complete total absorption of CsA. Despite higher CsA C(max) levels and AUCs with cyclosporine emulsion, safety and tolerability (detailed in a parallel report) were comparable to those of cyclosporine. The PK advantages of cyclosporine emulsion over cyclosporine are either independent of food conditions or possibly reflective of more consistent absorption of CsA with cyclosporine emulsion. The findings suggest that de novo use of cyclosporine emulsion may simplify and improve management of organ transplant recipients and that the PK advantages of cyclosporine emulsion may translate into clinical benefits.

The safety and tolerability of cyclosporine emulsion versus cyclosporine in a randomized, double-blind comparison in primary renal allograft recipients. The Neoral Study Group.

A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter pharmacokinetics study was conducted to compare the clinical safety and tolerability of cyclosporine capsules and oral solution for microemulsion and cyclosporine in 101 primary renal transplant recipients Cyclosporine emulsion has more complete absorption and improved bioavailability compared with cyclosporine, and dosing of both cyclosporine formulations was adjusted to achieve comparable whole-blood trough levels. Mean serum creatinine values were higher in the cyclosporine emulsion group at baseline, 8, and 12 weeks (P<0.05). The incidence of acute rejection was similar in both treatment groups although fewer patients required monoclonal antibody therapy in the cyclosporine group (31% vs. 82%, respectively). Despite the increased bioavailability of cyclosporine emulsion, no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed; the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of cyclosporine emulsion and cyclosporine were comparable.

Amlodipine versus atenolol in essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of amlodipine (2.5-10 mg) once daily was compared with atenolol (50-100 mg) once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. A total of 125 patients were randomly allocated at the end of a 4-week run-in placebo period to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The placebo group had small mean changes in supine and standing blood pressure compared with baseline. The mean blood pressure changes from baseline 24 hours postdose in the amlodipine group (mean daily dose 8.8 mg) were -12.8/-10.1 mm Hg for supine blood pressure and -11.5/-9.8 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (p < 0.001 compared with placebo), and for the atenolol group (mean daily dose 83.7 mg) the changes were -11.3/-11.7 mm Hg for supine blood pressure and -13.3/-12.3 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (p < 0.001 compared with placebo). There were no statistically significant blood pressure differences between active treatments. The responder rates for amlodipine, atenolol, and placebo were 61.1, 64.9, and 11.1%, respectively. The blood pressure values taken over the 24-hour period at final visit revealed that amlodipine and atenolol maintained the supine blood pressure < or = 140/90 mm Hg throughout the period of observation; the corresponding time-effect curve for the placebo group was clearly in the hypertensive range. Both amlodipine and atenolol were well tolerated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in patients with essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of amlodipine (2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg) once daily was compared with atenolol (50 mg to 100 mg) once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. One hundred and twenty-five patients were randomly allocated at the end of a 4-week run-in placebo period to 8 weeks' double-blind treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The mean changes from baseline in blood pressure 24 h postdose for amlodipine (mean daily dose 8.8 mg) were -12.8/-10.1 mm Hg for supine and -11.5/-9.8 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (P < .001). For atenolol (mean daily dose 83.7 mg) the changes were -11.3/-11.7 mm Hg for supine and -13.3/-12.3 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between treatments. The responder rates for amlodipine, atenolol, and placebo were 61.1%, 64.9%, and 11.1%, respectively. Determinations taken over the 24-h period at the final visit revealed that amlodipine and atenolol maintained the group mean supine blood pressure at or below 140/90 mm Hg throughout the period of observation; the corresponding time-effect curve for the placebo group was clearly in the hypertensive range. Heart rate was significantly lowered by atenolol only. Both amlodipine and atenolol were well-tolerated. Only one patient was withdrawn because of the development of peripheral edema, arthralgia, and fatigue after treatment with amlodipine. This study demonstrates that once-daily administration of amlodipine or atenolol to mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients was well-tolerated and provided adequate blood pressure control throughout the 24-h dosing interval.

Once-daily fosinopril in the treatment of hypertension.

This multicenter, dose-ranging study evaluated the antihypertensive effectiveness of once-daily administration of fosinopril sodium in 220 patients with supine diastolic blood pressure of 95-115 mm Hg. After a 4-week placebo period, patients were randomly assigned to double-blind therapy with either placebo or 10, 40, or 80 mg fosinopril once daily for 4 weeks. If treatment goals were not met, chlorthalidone 25 mg/day was added for weeks 5 to 8. Thereafter, patients could enter the long-term, open-label phase and receive 10-80 mg/day fosinopril plus chlorthalidone, if needed. After 4 weeks of monotherapy, the average decreases in supine diastolic blood pressure were 9% (10 mg), 11.5% (40 mg), and 12.5% (80 mg) compared with 6% in the placebo group. After 8 weeks, the average decreases, with or without diuretic therapy, were 12.5-18.2%, compared with 10.8% with placebo. Blood pressure continued to be well controlled, and the patients showed no evidence of tachyphylaxis or tolerance through 12-15 months of treatment. Fosinopril was well tolerated. During the short-term phase, no patient withdrew because of adverse events possibly related to fosinopril; during the long-term phase, nine of 148 patients (6.1%) withdrew for that reason. In patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, once-daily fosinopril (40 and 80 mg) provided significant antihypertensive effects with or without diuretic therapy. The 10 mg dose was effective in some patients and may be considered a starting dose.

Effect of doxazosin monotherapy on blood pressure and plasma lipids in patients with essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of doxazosin (DOX) for the treatment of hypertension was investigated. A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel design was employed. A 4-week placebo runin period was followed by a 9-week double-blind period during which patients were randomly assigned to placebo or 2, 4, or 8 mg doxazosin. Blood pressures (BP) and heart rates (HR) were measured 24 hours postdose. The mean changes in standing BP (mmHg) were -6.2/-6.9 (2-mg regimen), -5.7/-5.8 (4-mg regimen), -8.5/-7.7 (8-mg regimen) for DOX patients and 0.7/-2.9 for placebo patients. The mean changes in supine BP (mmHg) were -3.2/-4.7 (2-mg regimen), -4.0/-5.1 (4-mg regimen), -4.6/-5.6 (8-mg regimen) for DOX patients and -0.5/-3.3 for placebo patients. There was no evidence of a dose-response relationship for DOX; however, DOX serum levels were linearly related to the dose. Responder rate for the combined DOX patients was 38% (32/84) and for the placebo patients 27% (8/30). HR (24 hours postdose) was not modified by DOX. Patients in the 8-mg regimen had a significantly higher gain in mean body weight (+ 1.3 +/- 0.3 kg; P less than 0.05) compared to the 2-mg regimen, 4-mg regimen, and placebo groups. Plasma norepinephrine was not significantly modified by DOX. DOX had a favorable effect on plasma lipids. DOX lowered LDL cholesterol (P less than 0.05), total cholesterol, and apoprotein B and increased HDL/(LDL + VLDL) ratio (0.05 less than or equal to P less than 0.1) compared to placebo. Dropout rate and treatment-related side effects were equally distributed among the DOX and placebo groups. No patients had the dose of medication reduced because of side effects. Three DOX patients were withdrawn because of postural dizziness.

A randomized placebo-controlled comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in mild to moderate systemic hypertension.

Amlodipine, a new long-acting dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, was compared with placebo and atenolol in 125 patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension [supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90-114 mm Hg]. Patients received placebo for 4 weeks, followed by a random allocation to an 8-week double-blind, once-daily treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The changes in 24-h post-dose blood pressure (BP) from baseline to final visit for amlodipine (mean daily dose 8.8 mg, range 5-10 mg) were -12.8 +/- 2.0/ -10.1 +/- 1.2 mm Hg in supine BP and -11.5 +/- 2.3/-9.8 +/- 1.1 mm Hg in standing BP (p less than 0.001); for atenolol (mean daily dose 83.7 mg, range 50-100 mg), the changes from baseline were -11.3 +/- 2.3/-11.7 +/- 1.3 mm Hg in supine BP and -13.3 +/- 3.1/-12.3 +/- 1.5 mm Hg in standing BP (p less than 0.001); for placebo, the changes from baseline were -0.9 +/- 2.8/-3.5 +/- 0.9 mm Hg in supine BP and -1.6 +/- -2.6/-4.0 +/- 1.0 mm Hg in standing BP. In the study, goal response was defined as a supine DBP of less than 90 mm Hg or its decrease by greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg. The response rates were similar for atenolol (65%) and amlodipine (61%). Both active therapies were significantly more effective than placebo. Heart rate was significantly lowered by atenolol only.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Acute renal failure with hypocreatininemia in Guillain-Barré syndrome.

A 68-year-old woman with Guillain-Barré syndrome had profoundly depressed serum creatinine concentration and 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion despite maintenance of her weight by hyperalimentation. Because of hypocreatininemia, the development of aminoglycoside-induced acute renal failure was initially missed. A retrospective study of seven patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who were treated with hyperalimentation to maintain nutritional status showed a significant decrease in serum creatinine concentration but no significant decline in weight or blood urea nitrogen level. Because the serum creatinine is decreased in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome, caution must be exercised in using serum creatinine determination as an estimate of glomerular filtration rate.

Histologic correlation of transplant rejection diagnosed by computer-assisted sulfur colloid scan.

Sulfur colloid scanning has been suggested as a means of early detection of renal transplant rejection. Visual interpretation of increased uptake by the allograft as opposed to surrounding pelvic structures was taken to signify rejection. In an attempt to increase the accuracy of these scans we programmed a computer to do differential counts between graft and surrounding pelvis and to then calculate a ratio. Hopefully this mathematical determination of increased uptake would be more accurate. These scans were compared with simultaneously obtained biopsy material. Unfortunately, the false negative and false positive rates were too high to make sulfur colloid useful in predicting graft rejection. Finally, our data showed that an early positive scan did not predict long-term outcome as had been suggested by others.

Unusual vascular findings in transplanted kidneys.

Of 189 unsuccessful renal transplant cases, eight were selected for retrospective analysis because they had been classified histologically as "chronic rejection with marked vascular changes" even though they had been removed less than 60 days after transplantation. Review of these cases revealed that only one of the eight transplants had postoperative function and that this transplant had only marginal functions. All eight kidneys had intimal damage that was unlike the usual lesions of rejection. Five kidneys showed evidence of thrombosis with recanalization, and five had what appeared to be a double layer of the intima. The findings in eight cases suggest that severe intimal damage occurred within 60 days of implantation and may not represent the usual rejection processes; it may reflect, in part, damage to the intima prior to or during implantation.

Radiation therapy for renal transplant rejection reactions.

Forty-four renal transplant patients were given radiation therapy for severe rejection phenomena. The 29 patients who had only one course of irradiation had a 52.3% successful function rate. Fifteen patients received from two to four courses of irradiation with an ultimate 60% rate of sustained function. Fifty patients who received only steroid and other medical management but no irradiation had a 60% rate of successful renal function. In the irradiation group, no patient whose creatinine level did not respond to radiation therapy maintained a functioning kidney. The data indicate that the overall successful function rate is maintained by radiation therapy in patients who show severe allograft rejection phenomena.