Impact of monocyte–macrophage inhibition by ibandronate on graft function and survival after kidney transplantation: a single-centre follow-up study over 15 years
- 162 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ibandronate administration on long-term graft function and graft survival after successful renal transplantation.
Seventy-two renal transplant recipients (36 patients each in the treatment and control group) were included and followed over a 15-year period. Data on graft function and death-censored transplant outcome were recorded at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years.
Death-censored Kaplan–Meier analysis showed significantly improved graft survival of the treatment group (p = 0.026), whereas Cox regression analysis showed that ibandronate was positively associated with improved transplant survival (p = 0.028, hazard ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.86). Although general linear modelling did not indicate that ibandronate had a significant effect on transplant function (calculated using the estimated glomerular filtration rate according to Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation) over the entire 15-year period (p = 0.650), there was a tendency towards improved graft function 1-year post-transplantion (p = 0.056).
Ibandronate treatment within the first year of transplantation resulted in a trend towards better graft function within the first few year post-transplant, and was associated with increased transplant survival at long-term follow-up.
KeywordsIbandronate Bisphosphonate Renal transplantation Long-term follow-up Macrophages Monocytes
Author contribution statement
FPT performed the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. WG designed the study and acquired the data. PP conceived the study and helped acquire the data. LCR conceived the study, and helped draft the manuscript. All of the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors have declared no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee at which the studies were conducted (IRB approval number 42/16) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was not required due to the retrospective nature of this study.
- 11.Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF 3rd, Feldman HI, Kusek JW, Eggers P, Van Lente F, Greene T, Coresh J, CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration). A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:604–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Loupy A, Vernerey D, Tinel C, Aubert O, van Huyen JPD, Rabant M, Verine J, Nochy D, Empana JP, Martinez F, Glotz D, Jouven X, Legendre C, Lefacheur C. Subclinical rejection phenotypes at 1 year post-transplant and outcome of kidney allografts. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26:1721–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.Garcia MR, Ledgerwood L, Yang Y, Xu J, Lal G, Burrell B, Ma G, Hashimoto D, Li Y, Boros P, Grisotto M, van Rooijen N, Matesanz R, Tacke F, Ginhoux F, Ding Y, Chen AH, Randolph G, Merad M, Bromberg JS, Ochando JC. Monocytic suppressive cells mediate cardiovascular transplantation tolerance in mice. J Clin Invest. 2010;120:2486–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Halloran PF, Chang J, Famulski K, Hidalgo LG, Salazar IDR, Merino Lopez M, Matas A, Picton M, de Freitas D, Bromberg J, Seron D, Sellarés J, Einecke G, Reeve J. Disappearance of T-cell-mediated rejection despite continued antibody-mediated rejection in late kidney transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26:1711–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Hricik DE, Nickerson P, Formica RN, Poggio ED, Rush D, Newell KA, Goebel J, Gibson IW, Fairchild RL, Riggs M, Spain K, Ikle D, Bridges ND, Heeger PS. CTOT-01 consortium. Multicenter validation of urinary CXCL9 as a risk-stratifying biomarker for kidney transplant injury. Am J Transpl. 2013;13:2634–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar