, Volume 72, Issue 5, pp 671–683

Induction Therapy in Renal Transplant Recipients

How Convincing is the Current Evidence?
Current Opinion


The goal of organ transplantation is to provide durable organ function while minimizing risks such as infection and cancer. Induction therapy in renal transplantation provides improved short- and long-term graft outcomes compared with placebo. Three agents are currently available and widely used in the US; rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG), basiliximab and alemtuzumab. These agents are all clinically effective in transplantation. In patients at high risk of rejection, graft outcomes are improved with the use of depleting agents, such as rATG or alemtuzumab, rather than basiliximab. Depleting agents are associated with more complications, such as infection and malignancy. The risk-benefit analysis for low-risk patients indicates that basiliximab may be the preferred agent in this population. Use of induction therapy, particularly with rATG, may not only allow for but also mandate reduction of maintenance immunosuppression.

The mechanisms by which induction agents lead to improved clinical outcomes have not been elucidated. rATG and alemtuzumab lead to prompt and durable lymphocyte depletion, but many other mechanisms contribute to their suppression of alloimmunity. For instance, rATG contains antibodies specific for multiple adhesion molecules and even human leukocyte antigen, while CD52 (the target of alemtuzumab) is present on many antigen-presenting cells as well as lymphocytes. The manner in which the immune system recovers after induction may also aid in establishment of immune tolerance, with proliferation of suppressor T lymphocytes seen with rATG use. The various contributions of these mechanisms in achieving the goal of allograft tolerance are currently being investigated. The currently available data are of generally low quality, based on many small and often retrospective studies. Definitions of ‘high risk’ vary between studies, as do induction and maintenance dosing regimens. Standardization of definitions and establishment of large, prospective, multicentre trials would lead to a better understanding of the currently available agents and their best use in renal transplantation induction therapy.


  1. 1.
    Ferguson R. Acute rejection episodes: best predictor of long-term primary cadaveric renal transplant survival. Clin Transplant 1994; 8 (3 Pt 2): 328–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cai J, Terasaki PI. Induction immunosuppression improves long-term graft and patient outcome in organ transplantation: an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing registry data. Transplantation 2010; 90(12): 1511–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hardinger KL. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction therapy in adult renal transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26(12): 1771–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Novartis. Simulect prescribing information. 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/product/pi/pdf/simulect.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 6]
  5. 5.
    Waldmann TA. Immunotherapy: past, present and future. Nat Med 2003; 9(3): 269–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    KDIGO. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009; 9 Suppl. 3: S1–155Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simpson D. T-cell depleting antibodies: new hope for induction of allograft tolerance in bone marrow transplantation? BioDrugs 2003; 17(3): 147–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hale DA. Biological effects of induction immunosuppression. Curr Opin Immunol 2004; 16(5): 565–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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(7): 1011–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardinger KL, Schnitzler MA, Miller B, et al. Five-year follow up of thymoglobulin versus ATGAM induction in adult renal transplantation. Transplantation 2004; 78(1): 136–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hardinger KL, Rhee S, Buchanan P, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded comparison of thymoglobulin versus atgam for induction immunosuppressive therapy: 10-year results. Transplantation 2008; 86(7): 947–52PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clatworthy MR, Watson CJ, Plotnek G, et al. B-cell-depleting induction therapy and acute cellular rejection. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(25): 2683–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mourad G, Garrigue V, Squifflet JP, et al. Induction versus noninduction in renal transplant recipients with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression. Transplantation 2001; 72(6): 1050–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charpentier B, Rostaing L, Berthoux F, et al. A three-arm study comparing immediate tacrolimus therapy with anti-thymocyte globulin induction therapy followed by tacrolimus or cyclosporine A in adult renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003; 75(6): 844–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patlolla V, Zhong X, Reed GW, et al. Efficacy of anti-IL-2 receptor antibodies compared to no induction and to antilymphocyte antibodies in renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2007; 7(7): 1832–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jindal RM, Das NP, Neff RT, et al. Outcomes in African-Americans vs. Caucasians using thymoglobulin or interleukin-2 receptor inhibitor induction: analysis of USRDS database. Am J Nephrol 2009; 29(6): 501–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Willoughby LM, Schnitzler MA, Brennan DC, et al. Early outcomes of thymoglobulin and basiliximab induction in kidney transplantation: application of statistical approaches to reduce bias in observational comparisons. Transplantation 2009; 87(10): 1520–9PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brennan DC, Daller JA, Lake KD, et al. Rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin versus basiliximab in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2006; 355(19): 1967–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brennan DC, Schnitzler MA. Long-term results of rabbit antithymocyte globulin and basiliximab induction. N Engl J Med 2008; 359(16): 1736–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noel C, Abramowicz D, Durand D, et al. Daclizumab versus antithymocyte globulin in high-immunological-risk renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20(6): 1385–92PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanaway MJ, Woodle ES, Mulgaonkar S, et al. Alemtuzumab induction in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(20): 1909–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Webster AC, Ruster LP, McGee R, et al. Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (1): CD003897Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hardinger KL, Brennan DC, Schnitzler MA. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin is more beneficial in standard kidney than in extended donor recipients. Transplantation 2009; 87(9): 1372–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Opelz G, Dohler B. Lymphomas after solid organ transplantation: a collaborative transplant study report. Am J Transplant 2004; 4(2): 222–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Funch DP, Walker AM, Schneider G, et al. Ganciclovir and acyclovir reduce the risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(12): 2894–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Calne R, Moffatt SD, Friend PJ, et al. Campath IH allows low-dose cyclosporine monotherapy in 31 cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1999; 68(10): 1613–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Watson CJ, Bradley JA, Friend PJ, et al. Alemtuzumab (CAMPATH 1H) induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation: efficacy and safety at five years. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(6): 1347–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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(4): 457–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized trial of thymoglobulin vs. alemtuzumab (with lower dose maintenance immunosuppression) vs. daclizumab in renal transplantation at 24 months of follow-up. Clin Transplant 2008; 22(2): 200–10Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaufman DB, Leventhal JR, Axelrod D, et al. Alemtuzumab induction and prednisone-free maintenance immuno-therapy in kidney transplantation: comparison with basiliximab induction. Long-term results. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(10): 2539–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sampaio MS, Kadiyala A, Gill J, et al. Alemtuzumab versus interleukin-2 receptor antibodies induction in living donor kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2009; 88(7): 904–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hurst FP, Altieri M, Nee R, et al. Poor outcomes in elderly kidney transplant recipients receiving alemtuzumab induction. Am J Nephrol 2011; 34(6): 534–41PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Farney AC, Doares W, Rogers J, et al. A randomized trial of alemtuzumab versus antithymocyte globulin induction in renal and pancreas transplantation. Transplantation 2009; 88(6): 810–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goggins WC, Pascual MA, Powelson JA, et al. A prospective, randomized, clinical trial of intraoperative versus postoperative thymoglobulin in adult cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003; 76(5): 798–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Troppmann C, Gillingham KJ, Benedetti E, et al. Delayed graft function, acute rejection, and outcome after cadaver renal transplantation: the multivariate analysis. Transplantation 1995; 59(7): 962–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cosio FG, Pelletier RP, Falkenhain ME, et al. Impact of acute rejection and early allograft function on renal allograft survival. Transplantation 1997; 63(11): 1611–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ojo AO, Wolfe RA, Held PJ, et al. Delayed graft function: risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival. Transplantation 1997; 63(7): 968–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, Humar A, et al. Immunologic and nonimmunologic factors: different risks for cadaver and living donor transplantation. Transplantation 2000; 69(1): 54–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Woodle ES, First MR, Pirsch J, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial comparing early (7 day) corticosteroid cessation versus long-term, low-dose corticosteroid therapy. Ann Surg 2008; 248(4): 564–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ekberg H, TedescoSilva H, Demirbas A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007; 357(25): 2562–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ekberg H, Grinyo J, Nashan B, et al. Cyclosporine sparing with mycophenolate mofetil, daclizumab and corticosteroids in renal allograft recipients: the CAESAR Study. Am J Transplant 2007; 7(3): 560–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Preville X, Flacher M, LeMauff B, et al. Mechanisms involved in antithymocyte globulin immunosuppressive activity in a nonhuman primate model. Transplantation 2001; 71(3): 460–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kirk AD, Hale DA, Mannon RB, et al. Results from a human renal allograft tolerance trial evaluating the humanized CD52-specific monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab (CAMPATH-1H). Transplantation 2003; 76(1): 120–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sener A, Tang AL, Farber DL. Memory T-cell predominance following T-cell depletional therapy derives from homeostatic expansion of naive T cells. Am J Transplant 2009; 9(11): 2615–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gurkan S, Luan Y, Dhillon N, et al. Immune reconstitution following rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Am J Transplant 2010; 10(9): 2132–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Klangsinsirikul P, Carter GI, Byrne JL, et al. Campath-1G causes rapid depletion of circulating host dendritic cells (DCs) before allogeneic transplantation but does not delay donor DC reconstitution. Blood 2002; 99(7): 2586–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ratzinger G, Reagan JL, Heller G, et al. Differential CD52 expression by distinct myeloid dendritic cell subsets: implications for alemtuzumab activity at the level of antigen presentation in allogeneic graft-host interactions in transplantation. Blood 2003; 101(4): 1422–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Esposito L, Kamar N, Tkaczuk J, et al. Long-term evolution of lymphocytes subsets after induction therapy based on continuous versus discontinuous administration of antithymocyte globulins in renal-transplant patients. Transplant Proc 2005; 37(2): 785–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brunkow ME, Jeffery EW, Hjerrild KA, et al. Disruption of a new forkhead/winged-helix protein, scurfin, results in the fatal lymphoproliferative disorder of the scurfy mouse. Nat Genet 2001; 27(1): 68–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wildin RS, Ramsdell F, Peake J, et al. X-linked neonatal diabetes mellitus, enteropathy and endocrinopathy syndrome is the human equivalent of mouse scurfy. Nat Genet 2001; 27(1): 18–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Louis S, Braudeau C, Giral M, et al. Contrasting CD25hiCD4+T cells/FOXP3 patterns in chronic rejection and operational drug-free tolerance. Transplantation 2006; 81(3): 398–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wang W, Li XB, Yang XY, et al. Forkhead box protein 3 mRNA expression in the peripheral blood of kidney-transplant recipients with acute rejection. Chin Med J 2011; 124(12): 1775–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bestard O, Cruzado JM, Rama I, et al. Presence of FoxP3+ regulatory T cells predicts outcome of subclinical rejection of renal allografts. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19(10): 2020–6PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bestard O, Cunetti L, Cruzado JM, et al. Intragraft regulatory T cells in protocol biopsies retain Foxp3 demethylation and are protective biomarkers for kidney graft outcome. Am J Transplant 2011; 11(10): 2162–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kollins D, Stoelcker B, Hoffmann U, et al. FOXP3+ regulatory T-cells in renal allografts: correlation with long-term graft function and acute rejection. Clin Nephrol 2011; 75(2): 91–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Feng X, Kajigaya S, Solomou EE, et al. Rabbit ATG but not horse ATG promotes expansion of functional CD4+ CD25highFOXP3+ regulatory T cells in vitro. Blood 2008; 111(7): 3675–83PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lopez M, Clarkson MR, Albin M, et al. A novel mechanism of action for anti-thymocyte globulin: induction of CD4+ CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17(10): 2844–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bluestone JA, Liu W, Yabu JM, et al. The effect of costimulatory and interleukin 2 receptor blockade on regulatory T cells in renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2008; 8(10): 2086–96PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vondran FW, Timrott K, Tross J, et al. Impact of basiliximab on regulatory T-cells early after kidney transplantation: down-regulation of CD25 by receptor modulation. Transpl Int 2009; 23(5): 514–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Newell KA, Asare A, Kirk AD, et al. Identification of a B cell signature associated with renal transplant tolerance in humans. J Clin Invest 2010; 120(6): 1836–47PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bloom D, Chang Z, Pauly K, et al. BAFF is increased in renal transplant patients following treatment with alemtuzumab. Am J Transplant 2009; 9(8): 1835–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Renal DivisionWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations