Skip to main content

Treatment Strategies to Minimize or Prevent Chronic Allograft Dysfunction in Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipients

An Overview

Pediatric Drugs volume 11, pages 381–396 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Long-term allograft survival poses a major problem in pediatric renal transplantation, with allograft nephropathy being the principal cause of graft failure after the first post-transplant year. The mechanisms of nephron loss resulting in graft dysfunction are multiple, comprising both immunologic factors such as acute and chronic antibody- or T-cell-mediated rejection and non-immunologic components. The latter include peri-transplant injuries and renovascular lesions (renal artery stenosis, thrombosis) as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as arterial hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Another relevant issue leading to progressive nephron loss and declining kidney transplant function is acute and chronic nephrotoxicity induced by the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) Ciclosporin (cyclosporine microemulsion) and tacrolimus. Furthermore, the presence of an abnormal lower urinary tract as well as bacterial (recurrent pyelonephritis) and viral (cytomegalovirus [CMV], Polyomavirus [BK virus; BKV]) infections are crucial factors involved in the incidence of chronic allograft dysfunction and graft failure.

Renovascular lesions and lower urinary tract obstruction are typical indicators for surgical intervention. The aim of treatment in pediatric patients with renal failure secondary to a dysfunctional lower urinary tract is to create a sterile, continent, and nonrefluxive reservoir. Surgical techniques such as bladder augmentation and the introduction of intermittent catheterization and anticholinergic therapy have significantly improved graft outcome. Arterial hypertension, another factor responsible for graft function deterioration in pediatric renal transplant recipients, is controlled preferably by the use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists, which are known to possess nephroprotective properties in addition to their potent antihypertensive effects.

Although treatment of subclinical rejection with augmented immunosuppression has been associated with better graft survival, an increase of the immunosuppressive level to avoid subclinical rejection should be weighed against the risk of infection. The majority of viral infections affecting kidney allografts are caused by CMV and BKV. Antiviral CMV prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy with ganciclovir has been shown to have beneficial effects in the pediatric renal transplant population. Treatment of BKV-induced nephropathy is based on reduction of the immunosuppressant therapy, although specific antiviral agents such as cidofovir and leflunomide are known to inhibit BKV. However, cidofovir itself is nephrotoxic and should therefore be administered cautiously to pediatric renal transplant patients.

Since CNIs are likewise known for their nephrotoxic effects, especially with long-term use, alteration of the immunosuppressant regimen is necessary in case of deteriorating graft function due to CNI-induced histopathologic changes. Complete CNI avoidance seems inappropriate because, in this situation in pediatric renal transplant recipients, other relatively potent immunosuppressant agents such as lymphocyte-depleting antibodies, which are frequently accompanied by a higher incidence of infections, are needed for rejection prophylaxis. CNI withdrawal and switching of the immunosuppressant regimen from CNI therapy to sirolimus may be an option for some pediatric renal transplant patients with less advanced graft function deterioration. Nevertheless, potential adverse events such as aggravation of proteinuria, hyperlipidemia, myelosuppression, and hypergonadotropic hypogonadism have to be considered, and controlled studies are lacking. At present, an immunosuppressant maintenance therapy composed of low-dose tacrolimus or ciclosporin (CNI minimization) and mycophenolate mofetil with low-dose corticosteroids appears to be the most promising strategy to adopt in pediatric renal transplant recipients at low or normal immunologic risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Chapman JR, O’Connell PJ, Nankivell BJ. Chronic renal allograft dysfunction. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16(10): 3015–26

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. North American Pediatric Renal Trials and Collaborative Studies. NAPRTCS 2006 annual report [online]. Available from URL: http://web.emmes.com/study/ped/annlrept/annlrept2006.pdf [Accessed 2009 Sep 1]

  3. Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CL, et al. The natural history of chronic allograft nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(24): 2326–33

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC, et al. Banff’ 05 meeting report: differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy (‘CAN’). Am J Transplant 2007; 7(3): 518–26

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Poggio ED, Clemente M, Riley J, et al. Alloreactivity in renal transplant recipients with and without chronic allograft nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15(7): 1952–60

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Krieger NR, Becker BN, Heisey DM, et al. Chronic allograft nephropathy uniformly affects recipients of cadaveric, nonidentical living-related, and living-unrelated grafts. Transplantation 2003; 75(10): 1677–82

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Morrissey PE, Flynn ML, Lin S. Medication noncompliance and its implications in transplant recipients. Drugs 2007; 67(10): 1463–81

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Randhawa PS, Minervini MI, Lombardero M, et al. Biopsy of marginal donor kidneys: correlation of histologic findings with graft dysfunction. Transplantation 2000; 69(7): 1352–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gasser M, Waaga AM, Laskowski IA, et al. The influence of donor brain death on short and long-term outcome of solid organ allografts. Ann Transplant 2000; 5(4): 61–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Buscher R, Vester U, Wingen AM, et al. Pathomechanisms and the diagnosis of arterial hypertension in pediatric renal allograft recipients. Pediatr Nephrol 2004; 19(11): 1202–11

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fried LF, Orchard TJ, Kasiske BL. Effect of lipid reduction on the progression of renal disease: a meta-analysis. Kidney Int 2001; 59(1): 260–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hatch DA, Koyle MA, Baskin LS, et al. Kidney transplantation in children with urinary diversion or bladder augmentation. J Urol 2001; 165 (6 Pt 2): 2265–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. North American Pediatric Renal Trials and Collaborative Study. NAPRTCS 2004 annual report [online]. Available from URL: http://web.emmes.com/study/ped/annlrept/annlrept2004.pdf [Accessed 2008 Feb 1]

  14. Tönshoff B, Höcker B. Treatment strategies in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients with calcineurin inhibitor-induced nephrotoxicity. Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10(6): 721–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bunchman TE, Fryd DS, Sibley RK, et al. Manifestations of renal allograft rejection in small children receiving adult kidneys. Pediatr Nephrol 1990; 4(3): 255–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rush D. Protocol transplant biopsies: an underutilized tool in kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1(1): 138–43

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hymes LC, Greenbaum L, Amaral SG, et al. Surveillance renal transplant biopsies and subclinical rejection at three months post-transplant in pediatric recipients. Pediatr Transplant 2007; 11(5): 536–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shapiro R, Starzl TE. Protocol biopsies should not (yet) be the standard of care in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10(7): 766–7

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Birk PE, Rush DN. Protocol biopsies should be standard of care for pediatric renal allograft recipients! Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10(7): 760–5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rush D, Nickerson P, Gough J, et al. Beneficial effects of treatment of early subclinical rejection: a randomized study. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998; 9(11): 2129–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shishido S, Asanuma H, Nakai H, et al. The impact of repeated subclinical acute rejection on the progression of chronic allograft nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14(4): 1046–52

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kee TY, Chapman JR, O’Connell PJ, et al. Treatment of subclinical rejection diagnosed by protocol biopsy of kidney transplants. Transplantation 2006; 82(1): 36–42

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rush D, Arien D, Boucher A, et al. Lack of benefit of early protocol biopsies in renal transplant patients receiving TAC and MMF: a randomized study. Am J Transplant 2007; 7(11): 2538–45

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 713–23

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Seikku P, Krogerus L, Jalanko H, et al. Better renal function with enhanced immunosuppression and protocol biopsies after kidney transplantation in children. Pediatr Transplant 2005; 9(6): 754–62

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tönshoff B, Melk A. Immunosuppression in pediatric kidney transplantation. In: Geary DF, Schaefer F, editors. Comprehensive pediatric nephrology. Philadelphia (PA): Mosby Elsevier, 2008: 905–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Worthington JE, McEwen A, McWilliam LJ, et al. Association between C4d staining in renal transplant biopsies, production of donor-specific HLA antibodies, and graft outcome. Transplantation 2007; 83(4): 398–403

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. David-Neto E, Prado E, Beutel A, et al. C4d-positive chronic rejection: a frequent entity with a poor outcome. Transplantation 2007; 84(11): 1391–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Billing H, Rieger S, Ovens J, et al. Successful treatment of chronic antibody-mediated rejection with IVIG and rituximab in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2008; 86(9): 1214–21

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Feber J, Wong H, Geier P, et al. Complications of chronic kidney disease in children post-renal transplantation: a single center experience. Pediatr Transplant 2008 Feb; 12(1): 80–4

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. White CT, Schisler T, Er L, et al. CKD following kidney transplantation in children and adolescents. Am J Kidney Dis 2008; 51(6): 996–1004

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mitsnefes MM. Hypertension and end-organ damage in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2004; 8(4): 394–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Opelz G, Döhler B, Collaborative Transplant Study. Improved long-term outcomes after renal transplantation associated with blood pressure control. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(11): 2725–31

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Gherardi G, et al. Renoprotective properties of ACE-inhibition in non-diabetic nephropathies with non-nephrotic proteinuria. Lancet 1999; 354(9176): 359–64

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Giatras I, Lau J, Levey AS. Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the progression of nondiabetic renal disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibition and Progressive Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127(5): 337–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wühl E, Mehls O, Schaefer F, ESCAPE Trial Group. Antihypertensive and antiproteinuric efficacy of ramipril in children with chronic renal failure. Kidney Int 2004; 66(2): 768–76

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Reinberg Y, Gonzalez R, Fryd D, et al. The outcome of renal transplantation in children with posterior urethral valves. J Urol 1988; 140(6): 1491–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bryant JE, Joseph DB, Kohaut EC, et al. Renal transplantation in children with posterior urethral valves. J Urol 1991; 146(6): 1585–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Luke PP, Herz DB, Bellinger MF, et al. Long-term results of pediatric renal transplantation into a dysfunctional lower urinary tract. Transplantation 2003; 76(11): 1578–82

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rigamonti W, Capizzi A, Zacchello G, et al. Kidney transplantation into bladder augmentation or urinary diversion: long-term results. Transplantation 2005; 80(10): 1435–40

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nahas WC, Antonopoulos IM, Piovesan AC, et al. Comparison of renal transplantation outcomes in children with and without bladder dysfunction: a customized approach equals the difference. J Urol 2008; 179(2): 712–6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kamath NS, John GT, Neelakantan N, et al. Acute graft pyelonephritis following renal transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis 2006; 8(3): 140–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dunn SP, Vinocur CD, Hanevold C, et al. Pyelonephritis following pediatric renal transplant: increased incidence with vesicoureteral reflux. J Pediatr Surg 1987; 22(12): 1095–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Neuhaus TJ, Schwöbel M, Schlumpf R, et al. Pyelonephritis and vesicoureteral reflux after renal transplantation in young children. J Urol 1997; 157(4): 1400–3

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Dharnidharka VR, Agodoa LY, Abbott KC. Risk factors for hospitalization for bacterial or viral infection in renal transplant recipients: an analysis of USRDS data. Am J Transplant 2007; 7(3): 653–61

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dharnidharka VR, Agodoa LY, Abbott KC. Effects of urinary tract infection on outcomes after renal transplantation in children. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 2(1): 100–6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. John U, Everding AS, Kuwertz-Bröking E, et al. High prevalence of febrile urinary tract infections after paediatric renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21(11): 3269–74

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim SS, Hicks J, Goldstein SL. Adenovirus pyelonephritis in a pediatric renal transplant patient. Pediatr Nephrol 2003; 18(5): 457–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Keswani M, Moudgil A. Adenovirus-associated hemorrhagic cystitis in a pediatric renal transplant recipient. Pediatr Transplant 2007; 11(5): 568–71

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Helanterä I, Koskinen P, Finne P, et al. Persistent cytomegalovirus infection in kidney allografts is associated with inferior graft function and survival. Transpl Int 2006; 19(11): 893–900

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Il’inski IM, Rotova ID, Kurenkova LG, et al. Cytomegalovirus infection of allografted kidneys in children. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk 2006; (11): 46–9

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bock GH, Sullivan EK, Miller D, et al. Cytomegalovirus infections following renal transplantation-effects on antiviral prophylaxis: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study. Pediatr Nephrol 1997; 11(6): 665–71

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ginevri F, Losurdo G, Fontana I, et al. Acyclovir plus CMV immunoglobulin prophylaxis and early therapy with ganciclovir are effective and safe in CMV high-risk renal transplant pediatric recipients. Transpl Int 1998; 11Suppl. 1: S130–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Melgosa Hijosa M, García Meseguer C, Peña Garcia P, et al. Preemptive treatment with oral ganciclovir for pediatric renal transplantation. Clin Nephrol 2004; 61(4): 246–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Li L, Chaudhuri A, Weintraub LA, et al. Subclinical cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus viremia are associated with adverse outcomes in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2007; 11(2): 187–95

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hirsch HH, Steiger J. Polyomavirus BK. Lancet Infect Dis 2003; 3(10): 611–23

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hirsch HH, Drachenberg CB, Steiger J, et al. Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in renal transplantation: critical issues of screening and management. Adv Exp Med Biol 2006; 577: 160–73

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Acott PD. Polyoma virus in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10(7): 856–60

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hariharan S. BK virus nephritis after renal transplantation. Kidney Int 2006; 69(4): 655–62

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ahuja M, Cohen EP, Dayer AM, et al. Polyoma virus infection after renal transplantation: use of immunostaining as a guide to diagnosis. Transplantation 2001; 71(7): 896–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rajpoot DK, Gomez A, Tsang W, et al. Ureteric and urethral stenosis: a complication of BK virus infection in a pediatric renal transplant patient. Pediatr Transplant 2007; 11(4): 433–5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Herman J, Van Ranst M, Snoeck R, et al. Polyomavirus infection in pediatric renal transplant recipients: evaluation using a quantitative real-time PCR technique. Pediatr Transplant 2004; 8(5): 485–92

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Smith JM, McDonald RA, Finn LS, et al. Polyomavirus nephropathy in pediatric kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2004; 4(12): 2109–17

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Smith JM, Dharnidharka VR, Talley L, et al. BK virus nephropathy in pediatric renal transplant recipients: an analysis of the North American Pediatric Renal Trials and Collaborative Studies (NAPRTCS) registry. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 2(5): 1037–42

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Schmitz M, Brause M, Hetzel G, et al. Infection with Polyomavirus type BK after renal transplantation. Clin Nephrol 2003; 60(2): 125–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Trofe J, Hirsch HH, Ramos E. Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy: update of clinical management in kidney transplant patients. Transpl Infect Dis 2006; 8(2): 76–85

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Brennan DC, Agha I, Bohl DL, et al. Incidence of BK with tacrolimus versus cyclosporine and impact of preemptive immunosuppression reduction. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(3): 582–94

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Kadambi PV, Josephson MA, Williams J, et al. Treatment of refractory BK virus-associated nephropathy with cidofovir. Am J Transplant 2003; 3(2): 186–91

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Williams JW, Javaid B, Kadambi PV, et al. Leflunomide for Polyomavirus type BK nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2005; 352(11): 1157–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Vats A, Shapiro R, Singh Randhawa P, et al. Quantitative viral load monitoring and cidofovir therapy for the management of BK virus-associated nephropathy in children and adults. Transplantation 2003; 75(1): 105–12

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hirsch HH, Ramos E. Retransplantation after polyomavirus-associated nephropathy: just do it? Am J Transplant 2006; 6(1): 7–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Olyaei AJ, de Mattos AM, Bennett WM. Immunosuppressant-induced nephropathy: pathophysiology, incidence and management. Drug Saf 1999; 21(6): 471–88

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Filler G, Webb NJ, Milford DV, et al. Four-year data after pediatric renal transplantation: a randomized trial of tacrolimus vs cyclosporin microemulsion. Pediatr Transplant 2005; 9(4): 498–503

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Matl I, Viklickýy O, Voska L, et al. The effect of different immunosuppressive regimens on TGF-betal expression in kidney transplant patients. Transpl Int 2005; 18(6): 668–71

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Neu AM, Ho PL, Fine RN, et al. Tacrolimus vs cyclosporine A as primary immunosuppression in pediatric renal transplantation: a NAPRTCS study. Pediatr Transplant 2003; 7(3): 217–22

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Stoves J, Newstead CG, Baczkowski AJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial of immunosuppression conversion for the treatment of chronic allograft nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19(8): 2113–20

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Meier M, Nitschke M, Weidtmann B, et al. Slowing the progression of chronic allograft nephropathy by conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus: a randomized controlled trial. Transplantation 2006; 81(7): 1035–40

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Shihab FS, Waid TH, Conti DJ, et al. Conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus in patients at risk for chronic renal allograft failure: 60-month results of the CRAF Study. CRAF Study Group. Transplantation 2008; 85(9): 1261–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Vincenti F, Ramos E, Brattstrom C, et al. Multicenter trial exploring calcineurin inhibitors avoidance in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 71(9): 1282–7

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Groth CG, Bäckman L, Morales JM, et al. Sirolimus (rapamycin)-based therapy in human renal transplantation: similar efficacy and different toxicity compared with cyclosporine. Sirolimus European Renal Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1999; 67(7): 1036–42

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Kreis H, Cisterne JM, Land W, et al. Sirolimus in association with mycophenolate mofetil induction for the prevention of acute graft rejection in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 2000; 69(7): 1252–60

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Morales JM, Wramner L, Kreis H, et al. Sirolimus does not exhibit nephrotoxicity compared to cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients. Sirolimus European Renal Transplant Study Group. Am J Transplant 2002; 2(5): 436–42

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Flechner SM, Goldfarb D, Modlin C, et al. Kidney transplantation without calcineurin inhibitor drugs: a prospective, randomized trial of sirolimus versus cyclosporine. Transplantation 2002; 74(8): 1070–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Larson TS, Dean PG, Stegall MD, et al. Complete avoidance of calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation: a randomized trial comparing sirolimus and tacrolimus. Am J Transplant 2006; 6(3): 514–22

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Srinivas TR, Schold JD, Guerra G, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil/sirolimus compared to other common immunosuppressive regimens in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2007; 7(3): 586–94

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Harmon W, Meyers K, Ingelfinger J, et al. Safety and efficacy of a calcineurin inhibitor avoidance regimen in pediatric renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17(6): 1735–45

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Abramowicz D, Manas D, Lao M, et al. Cyclosporine withdrawal from a mycophenolate mofetil-containing immunosuppressive regimen in stable kidney transplant recipients: a randomized, controlled study. Cyclosporine Withdrawal Study Group. Transplantation 2002; 74(12): 1725–34

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Abramowicz D, Del Carmen Rial M, Vitko S, et al. Cyclosporine withdrawal from a mycophenolate mofetil-containing immunosuppressive regimen: results of a five-year, prospective, randomized study. Cyclosporine Withdrawal Study Group. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16(7): 2234–40

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Schnuelle P, van der Heide JH, Tegzess A, et al. Open randomized trial comparing early withdrawal of either cyclosporine or mycophenolate mofetil in stable renal transplant recipients initially treated with a triple drug regimen. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13(2): 536–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Smak Gregoor PJ, van Gelder T, van Besouw NM, et al. Randomized study on the conversion of treatment with cyclosporine to azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil followed by dose reduction. Transplantation 2000; 70(1): 143–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Dudley C, Pohanka E, Riad H, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil substitution for cyclosporine a in renal transplant recipients with chronic progressive allograft dysfunction: the “creeping creatinine” study. Mycophenolate Mofetil Creeping Creatinine Study Group. Transplantation 2005; 79(4): 466–75

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Tapia E, Franco M, Sánchez-Lozada LG, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil prevents arteriolopathy and renal injury in subtotal ablation despite persistent hypertension. Kidney Int 2003; 63(3): 994–1002

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Ferraris JR, Tambutti ML, Redal MA, et al. Conversion from azathioprine to mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplant recipients with chronic rejection. Transplantation 2000; 70(2): 297–301

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Filler G, Gellermann J, Zimmering M, et al. Effect of adding mycophenolate mofetil in paediatric renal transplant recipients with chronical cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Transpl Int 2000; 13(3): 201–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. David-Neto E, Araujo LM, Lemos FC, et al. Introduction of mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporin reduction in children with chronic transplant nephropathy. Pediatr Transplant 2001; 5(4): 302–9

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Ibáñez JP, Monteverde ML, Goldberg J, et al. Sirolimus in pediatric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2005; 37(2): 682–4

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Powell HR, Kara T, Jones CL. Early experience with conversion to sirolimus in a pediatric renal transplant population. Pediatr Nephrol 2007; 22(10): 1773–7

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Falger JC, Mueller T, Arbeiter K, et al. Conversion from calcineurin inhibitor to sirolimus in pediatric chronic allograft nephropathy. Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10(4): 474–8

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Vilalta R, Vila A, Nieto J, et al. Rapamycin use and rapid withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors in pediatric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2003; 35(2): 703–4

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Höcker B, Feneberg R, Köpf S, et al. SRL-based immunosuppression vs CNI minimization in pediatric renal transplant recipients with chronic CNI nephrotoxicity. Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10(5): 593–601

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Butani L. Investigation of pediatric renal transplant recipients with heavy proteinuria after sirolimus rescue. Transplantation 2004; 78(9): 1362–6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Höcker B, Knüppel T, Waldherr R, et al. Recurrence of proteinuria 10 years post-transplant in NPHS2-associated focal segmental glomerulosclerosis after conversion from cyclosporin A to sirolimus. Pediatr Nephrol 2006; 21(10): 1476–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Diekmann F, Budde K, Oppenheimer F, et al. Predictors of success in conversion from calcineurin inhibitor to sirolimus in chronic allograft dysfunction. Am J Transplant 2004; 4(11): 1869–75

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Huyghe E, Zairi A, Nohra J, et al. Gonadal impact of target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus) in male patients: an overview. Transpl Int 2007; 20(4): 305–11

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Ekberg H, Grinyó 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): 560–70

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Weir MR, Blahut S, Drachenburg C, et al. Late calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal as a strategy to prevent graft loss in patients with suboptimal kidney transplant function. Am J Nephrol 2004; 24(4): 379–86

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Frimat L, Cassuto-Viguier E, Charpentier B, et al. Impact of cyclosporine reduction with MMF: a randomized trial in chronic allograft dysfunction. The ‘reference’ study. Am J Transplant 2006; 6(11): 2725–34

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Benz K, Plank C, Griebel M, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil introduction stabilizes and subsequent cyclosporine A reduction slightly improves kidney function in pediatric renal transplant patients: a retrospective analysis. Pediatr Transplant 2006; 10(3): 331–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation: ELITE-Symphony study. N Engl J Med 2007; 357(25): 2562–75

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Oellerich M, Armstrong VW. Two-hour cyclosporine concentration determination: an appropriate tool to monitor neoral therapy? Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24: 40–6

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Levy GA. C2 monitoring strategy for optimising cyclosporin immunosuppression from the Neoral formulation. BioDrugs 2001; 15(5): 279–90

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Weber LT, Armstrong VW, Shipkova M, et al. Cyclosporin A absorption profiles in pediatric renal transplant recipients predict the risk of acute rejection. Ther Drug Monit 2004; 26(4): 415–24

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Weber LT, Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, et al. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for total and free mycophenolic acid in pediatric renal transplant recipients: a report of the German study group on mycophenolate mofetil therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13(3): 759–68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Van Gelder T, Meur YL, Shaw LM, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 2006; 28: 145–54

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Van Gelder T, Hilbrands LB, Vanrenterghem Y, et al. A randomized double-blind, multicenter plasma concentration controlled study of the safety and efficacy of oral mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68(2): 261–6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Weber LT, Hoecker B, Armstrong VW, et al. Validation of an abbreviated pharmacokinetic profile for the estimation of mycophenolic acid exposure in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2006; 28(5): 623–31

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Filler G, Mai I. Limited sampling strategy for mycophenolic acid area under the curve. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22(2): 169–73

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Aspeslet LJ, Yatscoff RW. Requirements for therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus, an immunosuppressive agent used in renal transplantation. Clin Ther 2000; 22Suppl. B: B86–92

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Package insert (European label) of Rapamune®, PAA004708 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rapamune.de/fachinfos.html [Accessed 2009Sep 15]

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Affiliations

  1. University Children’s Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 430, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Britta Höcker & Burkhard Tönshoff

Authors
  1. Britta Höcker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burkhard Tönshoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Britta Höcker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Höcker, B., Tönshoff, B. Treatment Strategies to Minimize or Prevent Chronic Allograft Dysfunction in Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipients. Pediatr-Drugs 11, 381–396 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/11316100-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11316100-000000000-00000

Keywords

  • Sirolimus
  • Mycophenolate Mofetil
  • Acute Rejection Episode
  • Pediatric Renal Transplant
  • Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipient