Pediatric Drugs

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 323–341 | Cite as

Induction Therapy in Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipients

An Overview
Review Article

Abstract

Induction therapy to prevent the acute rejection of mismatched allografts with the ultimate aim of prolonging the life of the allograft has been the cornerstone of immunosuppression since the introduction of renal transplantation. Agents used for induction therapy have changed over time. Their role in transplantation is expanding to include corticosteroid avoidance and immunosuppression minimization.

This review provides an overview of induction therapies for renal transplantation including historic therapies such as total lymphoid irradiation and Minnesota antilymphocyte globulin, and current therapies with polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies and chemical agents, with special emphasis on children. Data from adult studies, and pediatric studies whenever available, are summarized. A brief summary of experimental therapies with fingolimod and belatacept is provided. Historically, induction therapies were targeted at T cells. The role of induction therapies targeted at B cells is emerging in select groups of patients that include highly sensitized recipients and those receiving transplants from blood group incompatible donors.

With the advent of newer maintenance immunosuppressive medications and with very low rates of acute rejection, induction protocols for renal transplantation need to be targeted so that excessive immunosuppression and infections are avoided. Several single-center and registry data analyses in children suggest that the addition of an interleukin (IL)-2 receptor antagonist may improve graft survival compared with no induction. The safety profile of IL-2 receptor antagonists is indistinguishable from that of placebo, with no apparent difference in the incidence of infection or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease. IL-2 receptor antagonists and polyclonal lymphocyte-depleting antibodies offer equivalent efficacy in standard-risk populations. However, in high-risk patients, acute rejection rates and graft outcomes may be improved with the use of lymphocyte-depleting agents such as Thymoglobulin®. However, cytomegalovirus infection and other infections may be more common with this therapy. Therefore, in patients at high risk of graft loss, Thymoglobulin® may be the preferred choice for induction therapy, while for all other patients, IL-2 receptor antagonists should be considered the first-line choice for induction therapy. Newer lymphocyte-depleting agents such as alemtuzumab may be better utilized in minimization regimens involving one or two oral maintenance immunosuppressive agents.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review

References

  1. 1.
    Grigoryev DN, Liu M, Cheadle C, et al. Genomic profiling of kidney ischemiareperfusion reveals expression of specific alloimmunity-associated genes: Linking “immune” and “nonimmune” injury events. Transplant Proc 2006; 38: 3333–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandrini S. Use of IL-2 receptor antagonists to reduce delayed graft function following renal transplantation: a review. Clin Transplant 2005; 19: 705–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shaffer D, Langone A, Nylander WA. A pilot protocol of a calcineurin-inhibitor free regimen for kidney transplant recipients of marginal donor kidneys or with delayed graft function. Clin Transplant 2003; 17Suppl. 9: 31–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ettenger RB. Children are different: the challenges of pediatric renal transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 1992; 20: 668–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ettenger RB. Age and the immune response in pediatric renal transplantation. Eur J Pediatr 1992; 151Suppl. 1: S7–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ettenger RB, Blifeld C, Prince H, et al. The pediatric nephrologist’s dilemma: growth after renal transplantation and its interaction with age as a possible immunologic variable. J Pediatr 1987; 111: 1022–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Najarian JS, Ferguson RM, Sutherland DE, et al. Fractionated total lymphoid irradiation as preparative immunosuppression in high risk renal transplantation: clinical and immunological studies. Ann Surg 1982; 196: 442–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levin B, Hoppe RT, Collins G, et al. Treatment of cadaveric renal transplant recipients with total lymphoid irradiation, antithymocyte globulin, and low-dose prednisone. Lancet 1985; II: 1321–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slavin S, Strober S, Fuks Z, et al. Immunosuppression and organ transplantation tolerance using total lymphoid irradiation. Diabetes 1980; 29Suppl. 1: 121–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myburgh JA, Smit JA, Stark JH, et al. Total lymphoid irradiation in kidney and liver transplantation in the baboon: prolonged graft survival and alterations in T cell subsets with low cumulative dose regimens. J Immunol 1984; 132: 1019–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Millan MT, Shizuru JA, Hoffmann P, et al. Mixed chimerism and immunosuppressive drug withdrawal after HLA-mismatched kidney and hematopoietic progenitor transplantation. Transplantation 2002; 73: 1386–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Field EH, Strober S. Tolerance, mixed chimerism and protection against graftversus-host disease after total lymphoid irradiation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001; 356: 739–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bourdage JS, Hamlin DM. Comparative polyclonal antithymocyte globulin and antilymphocyte/antilymphoblast globulin anti-CD antigen analysis by flow cytometry. Transplantation 1995; 59: 1194–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woodside KJ, Hu M, Gugliuzza KK, et al. T-lymphocyte apoptosis is increased by non-interleukin-2-dependent induction in human mixed lymphocyte cultures. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 1949–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Najarian JS, Simmons RL, Condie RM, et al. Seven years’ experience with antilymphoblast globulin for renal transplantation from cadaver donors. Ann Surg 1976; 184: 352–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutherland DE, Fryd DS, Strand MH, et al. Results of the Minnesota randomized prospective trial of cyclosporine versus azathioprine-antilymphocyte globulin for immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients. Am J Kidney Dis 1985; 5: 318–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson CP, Simmons RL, Sutherland DE, et al. A randomized trial comparing cyclosporine with antilymphoblast-globulin-azathioprine for renal allograft recipients: results at 2 1/2–6 years. Transplantation 1988; 45: 380–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kupin WL, Venkatachalam KK, Oh HK, et al. Sequential use of Minnesota antilymphoblast globulin and cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1985; 40: 601–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stratta RJ, D’Alessandro AM, Armbrust MJ, et al. Sequential antilymphocyte globulin/cyclosporine immunosuppression in cadaveric renal transplantation: effect of duration of ALG therapy. Transplantation 1989; 47: 96–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Almond PS, Matas AJ, Gillingham K, et al. Pediatric renal transplants: results with sequential immunosuppression. Transplantation 1992; 53: 46–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brennan DC, Flavin K, Lowell JA, et al. A randomized, double-blinded comparison of Thymoglobulin versus ATGAM for induction immunosuppressive therapy in adult renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999; 67: 1011–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hardinger KL, Schnitzler MA, Miller B, et al. Five-year follow-up of thymoglobulin versus ATGAM induction in adult renal transplantation. Transplantation 2004; 78: 136–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ault BH, Honaker MR, Osama Gaber A, et al. Short-term outcomes of thymoglobulin induction in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Pediatr Nephrol 2002; 17: 815–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khositseth S, Matas A, Cook ME, et al. Thymoglobulin versus ATGAM induction therapy in pediatric kidney transplant recipients: a single-center report. Transplantation 2005; 79: 958–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brophy PD, Thomas SE, McBryde KD, et al. Comparison of polyclonal induction agents in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2001; 5: 174–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Colleen Hastings M, Wyatt RJ, Lau KK, et al. Five years’ experience with thymoglobulin induction in a pediatric renal transplant population. Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10: 805–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chatenoud L, Ferran C, Legendre C, et al. In vivo cell activation following OKT3 administration: systemic cytokine release and modulation by corticosteroids. Transplantation 1990; 49: 697–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ettenger R, Marik J, Rosenthal JT. Sequential therapy in pediatric cadaveric renal transplantation: a critical analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992; 2(12 Suppl.): S304–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norman DJ, Kahana L, Stuart FP, et al. A randomized clinical trial of induction therapy with OKT3 in kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1993; 55: 44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldman M, Abramowicz D, De Pauw L, et al. Beneficial effects of prophylactic OKT3 in cadaver kidney transplantation: comparison with cyclosporin A in a single-center prospective randomized study. Transplant Proc 1991; 23: 1046–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Caillard S, Dharnidharka V, Agodoa L, et al. Post transplant lymphoproliferative disorders after renal transplantation in the United States in era of modern immunosuppression. Transplantation 2005; 80: 1233–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Benfield MR, Tejani A, Harmon WE, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of OKT3 mAbs induction compared with intravenous cyclosporine in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2005; 9: 282–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ettenger RB, Rosenthal JT, Marik JL, et al. Improved cadaveric renal transplant outcome in children. Pediatr Nephrol 1991; 5: 137–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bartosh SM, Aronson AJ, Swanson-Pewitt EE, et al. OKT3 induction in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Nephrol 1993; 7: 45–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    NAPRTCS [online]. Available from URL: http://web.emmes.com/study/ped/annlrept [Accessed 2007 Jun 27]
  36. 36.
    Di Filippo S. Anti-IL-2 receptor antibody vs. polyclonal anti-lymphocyte antibody as induction therapy in pediatric transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2005; 9: 373–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baudouin V, Crusiaux A, Haddad E, et al. Anaphylactic shock caused by immunoglobulin E sensitization after retreatment with the chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody basiliximab. Transplantation 2003; 76: 459–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nashan B, Moore R, Amlot P, et al. Randomized trial of basiliximab versus placebo for control of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients: CHIB 201 International Study Group. Lancet 1997; 350: 1193–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kovarik JM, Kahan BD, Rajagopalan PR, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationships for basiliximab in kidney transplantation: the US Simulect Renal Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1288–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thistlethwaite Jr JR, Nashan B, Hall M, et al. Reduced acute rejection and superior 1-year renal allograft survival with basiliximab in patients with diabetes mellitus: the Global Simulect Study Group. Transplantation 2000; 70: 784–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ponticelli C, Yussim A, Cambi V, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis plus triple therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2001; 72: 1261–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bumgardner GL, Hardie I, Johnson RW, et al. Results of 3-year phase III clinical trials with daclizumab prophylaxis for prevention of acute rejection after renal transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 72: 839–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nashan B, Light S, Hardie IR, et al. Reduction of acute renal allograft rejection by daclizumab: Daclizumab Double Therapy Study Group. Transplantation 1999; 67: 110–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haririan A, Morawski K, Sillix DH, et al. Induction therapy with basiliximab versus Thymoglobulin in African-American kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2005; 79: 716–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mourad G, Rostaing L, Legendre C, et al. Sequential protocols using basiliximab versus antithymocyte globulins in renal-transplant patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Transplantation 2004; 78(4): 584–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sollinger HW. A few memories from the beginning. Transplantation 2005; 80(2 Suppl.): S178–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lebranchu Y, Bridoux F, Buchler M, et al. Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab compared with antithymocyte globulin in renal transplant patients receiving MMF-containing triple therapy. Am J Transplant 2002; 2: 48–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Brennan DC, Daller JA, Lake KD, et al. Thymoglobulin Induction Study Group. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1967–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lin M, Ming A, Zhao M. Two-dose basiliximab compared with two-dose daclizumab in renal transplantation: a clinical study. Clin Transplant 2006; 20: 325–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Swiatecka-Urban A. Anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies for the prevention of rejection in pediatric renal transplant patients: current status. Pediatr Drugs 2003; 5: 699–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Garcia CD, Barros VR, Schneider L, et al. IL-2 antibody induction and the outcome of pediatric renal transplants. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 2914–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Garcia Meseguer C, Vila Lopez A, Luque de Pablos A, et al. Immunoprophylaxis with Simulect (basiliximab) in pediatric kidney transplant recipients: results from routine clinical practice at 5 kidney transplant units. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 1697–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ciancio G, Burke GW, Suzart K, et al. Effect of daclizumab, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric first renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 1944–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Benfield MR, Ping-Leung H. Comparative study of the safety, efficacy, and practice patterns of monoclonal antibodies in pediatric renal transplantation [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2002; 2(Suppl. 3): S192Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Smith JM, Stablein D, Singh A, et al. Decreased risk of renal allograft thrombosis associated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists: a report of the NAPRTCS. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 585–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Clark G, Walsh G, Deshpande P, et al. Improved efficacy of basiliximab over antilymphocyte globulin induction therapy in paediatric renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17: 1304–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hubsch H, Montane B, Abitbol C, et al. Recurrent focal glomerulosclerosis in pediatric renal allografts: the Miami experience. Pediatr Nephrol 2005; 20: 210–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Strehlau J, Pape L, Offner G, et al. Interleukin-2 receptor antibody-induced alterations of ciclosporin dose requirements in paediatric transplant recipients. Lancet 2000; 356: 1327–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Calne R, Moffat SD, Friend PJ, et al. Campath IH allows low-dose cyclosporine monotherapy in 31 cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1613–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Knechtle SJ, Pirsch JD, Fechner Jr HJ, et al. Campath-IH induction plus rapamycin monotherapy for renal transplantation: results of a pilot study. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 722–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Borrows R, Loucaidou M, Van Tromp J, et al. Steroid sparing with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 1845–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Flechner SM, Friend PJ, Brockmann J, et al. Alemtuzumab induction and sirolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil maintenance for CNI and steroid-free kidney transplant immunosuppression. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 3009–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. The use of Campath-1H as induction therapy in renal transplantation: preliminary results. Transplantation 2004; 78: 426–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tan HP, Kaczorowski DJ, Basu A, et al. Living donor renal transplantation using alemtuzumab induction and tacrolimus monotherapy. Am J Transplant 2006; 10: 2409–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Watson CJ, Bradley JA, Friend PJ, et al. Alemtuzumab (Campath IH) induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation: efficacy and safety at five years. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 1347–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Knechtle SJ, Fernandez LA, Pirsch JD, et al. Campath-1H in renal transplantation: the University of Wisconsin experience. Surgery 2004; 136: 754–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kaufman DB, Leventhal JR, Axelrod D, et al. Alemtuzumab induction and prednisone-free maintenance immunotherapy in kidney transplantation: comparison with basiliximab induction: long-term results. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 2539–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized trial of three renal transplant induction antibodies: early comparison of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid dosing, and newer immune-monitoring. Transplantation 2005; 80: 457–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vo AA, Lukovsky M, Toyoda M, et al. Efficacy and safety profile of subcutaneous Campath IH administration in cross match positive patients desensitized with intravenous immunoglobulin. Am J Transplant 2006; 6Suppl. 2: 291–2Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shapiro R, Ellis D, Tan HP, et al. Antilymphoid antibody preconditioning and tacrolimus monotherapy for pediatric kidney transplantation. J Pediatr 2006; 148: 813–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bartosh SM, Knechtle SJ, Sollinger HW. Campath-1H use in pediatric renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 1569–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    U.S. National Institutes of Health. Safety of a multitherapy regimen containing alemtuzumab in children and adolescents after kidney transplantation [online]. Available from URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/show/NCT00240994 [Accessed 2007 Jun 29]
  73. 73.
    Luo G, Falta EM, Elster EA. Steroid-free immunosuppression in organ transplantation. CurrDiab Rep 2005; 5: 305–10Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Birkeland SA. Steroid-free immunosuppression in renal transplantation. Lancet 1996; 348: 1105–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Birkeland SA. Steroid-free immunosuppression after kidney transplantation with antithymocyte globulin induction and cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy. Transplantation 1998; 66: 1207–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Birkeland SA. Steroid-free immunosuppression in renal transplantation: a long-term follow-up of 100 consecutive patients. Transplantation 2001; 71: 1089–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Laftavi MR, Lefrancois LN, Dagher F, et al. Steroid withdrawal is associated with more chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) following kidney transplantation [abstract no. 518]. Annual meeting of the American Transplant Congress; 2005 May 21–25; Seattle (WA)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Birkeland SA, Larsen KE, Rohr N. Pediatric renal transplantation without steroids. Pediatr Nephrol 1998; 12: 87–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sarwal MM, Vidhun JR, Alexander SR, et al. Continued superior outcomes with modification and lengthened follow-up of a steroid-avoidance pilot with extended daclizumab induction in pediatric renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003; 76(9): 1331–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Morris P. Kidney transplantation, principles and practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders, 1994Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Willetts IE, Trompeter RS. Experience with cyclosporine in pediatric renal renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2004; 36(2 Suppl.): 211S–5SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Shapiro R, Scantlebury VP, Jordan ML, et al. Pediatric renal transplantation under tacrolimus-based immunosuppression. Transplantation 1999; 67: 299–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Dharnidharka VR, Sullivan EK, Stablein DM, et al. Risk factors for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) in pediatric kidney transplantation: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). Transplantation 2001; 71: 1065–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Caillard S, Dharnidharka V, Agodoa L, et al. Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders after renal transplantation in the United States in era of modern immunosuppression. Transplantation 2005 Nov 15; 80(9): 1233–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dharnidharka VR, Ho PL, Stablein DM, et al. Mycophenolate, tacrolimus and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study. Pediatr Transplant 2002; 5: 396–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    First MR, Gerber DA, Hariharan S, et al. Post-transplant diabetes mellitus in kidney allograft recipients: incidence, risk factors, and management. Transplant 2002; 73: 379–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ciancio G, Lo Monte A, Buscemi G, et al. Use of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil as induction and maintenance in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Transpl Int 2000; 13Suppl. 1: S191–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Shapiro R, Scantlebury V, Jordan ML, et al. Post-transplant diabetes in pediatric recipients on tacrolimus [letter]. Transplantation 1999 Mar 15; 67(5): 771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Shapiro R, Scantlebury VP, Jordan ML, et al. Pediatric renal transplantation under tacrolimus-based immunosuppression. Transplantation 1999; 67: 299–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Jordan SC, Vo AA, Pang A, et al. Intravenous gammaglobulin (IVIG): a novel approach to improve transplant rates and outcomes in highly HLA-sensitized patients. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 459–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jordan SC, Tyan D, Czer L, et al. Immunomodulatory actions of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG): potential applications in solid organ transplant recipients. Pediatr Transplant 1998; 2: 92–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    O’Dwyer ME, Launder T, Rabkin JM, et al. Successful treatment of aggressive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder using rituximab. Leuk Lymphoma 2000; 39: 411–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Tyden G, Kumlien G, Genberg H, et al. ABO incompatible kidney transplantations without splenectomy, using antigen-specific immunoadsorption and rituximab. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 145–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Donauer J, Wilpert J, Geyer M, et al. ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation using antigen-specific immunoadsorption and rituximab: a single center experience. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13: 108–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sawada T, Fuchinoue S, Teraoka S. Successful Al -to-O ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation after a preconditioning regimen consisting of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody infusions, splenectomy, and double-filtration plasmapheresis. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1207–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Gloor JM, DeGoey SR, Pineda AA, et al. Overcoming a positive crossmatch in living-donor kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 1017–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sawada T, Fuchinoue S, Kawase T, et al. Preconditioning regimen consisting of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody infusions, splenectomy and DFPP-enabled non-responders to undergo ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 254–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sonnenday CJ, Warren DS, Cooper M, et al. Plasmapheresis, CMV hyperimmune globulin, and anti-CD20 allow ABO-incompatible renal transplantation without splenectomy. Am J Transplant 2004; 8: 1315–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Segev D, Simpkins CE, Warren DS, et al. ABO incompatible high-titer renal transplantation without splenectomy or anti-CD20 treatment. Am J Transplant 2005; 10: 2570–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Brinkmann V, Cyster JG, Hla T. FTY720: sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-1 in the control of lymphocyte egress and endothelial barrier function. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 1019–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Vincenti F, Larsen C, Durrbach A, et al. Costimulation blockade with belatacept in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 770–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Kunzendorf U, Ziegler E, Kabelitz D. FTY720: the first compound of a new promising class of immunosuppressive drugs. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 1677–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Tedesco-Silva H, Mourad G, Kahan BD, et al. FTY720, a novel immunomodulator: efficacy and safety results from the first phase 2A study in de novo renal transplantation. Transplantation 2005; 79: 1553–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Tedesco-Silva H, Pescovitz MD, Cibrik D, et al., for the FTY720 Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of FTY720 versus MMF in de novo renal transplantation. Transplantation 2006; 82: 1689–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Budde K, Schütz M, Glander P, et al. FTY720 (fingolimod) in renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 2006; 20Suppl. 17: 17–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Shapiro R, Basu A, Tan H, et al. Kidney transplantation under minimal immunosuppression after pretransplant lymphoid depletion with Thymoglobulin or Campath. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 200: 505–15; quiz A59-61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Bunnapradist S, Takemoto SK. Multivariate analysis of antibody induction therapy and their associated outcomes in deceased donor transplants. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 889–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Puliyanda DP, Stablein DM, Dharnidharka VR. Younger age and antibody induction increase the risk for infection in pediatric renal transplantation: a NAPRTCS report. Am J Transplant 2007; 3: 662–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NephrologyChildren’s National Medical CenterWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Nephrology and Transplant ImmunologyCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations