Evolution of immunosuppression and continued importance of acute rejection in renal transplantation

被引:34
作者
Chan, L
Gaston, R
Hariharan, S
机构
[1] Univ Colorado, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Renal Med, Denver, CO 80262 USA
[2] Univ Alabama, Div Nephrol, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA
[3] Med Coll Wisconsin, Froedtert Mem Lutheran Hosp, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
关键词
kidney transplantation; immunosuppression;
D O I
10.1053/ajkd.2001.28921
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
As steady Improvement in short-term kidney graft survival and long-term outcomes prolongs the lives of transplant patients, responsibility for their care is shifting away from transplant specialists and into the hands of community nephrologists. Therefore, community nephrologists need to have a deeper understanding of immunosuppressive therapies than ever before. Pharmacologic immunosuppression has been continuously evolving over the past two decades. Azathioprine was introduced in the early 1960s. Introduction of cyclosporine (CsA) in 1983 revolutionized short-term outcomes after renal transplantation. The first monoclonal antibody immunosuppressant, OKT3, was introduced in 1986. The 1990s saw the introduction of a number of important new agents, including mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), tacrolimus, and a microemulsion CsA, as well as two new monoclonal antibodies. Combinations of these new agents, along with improving clinical care, have produced 1-year patient survival approaching 100% and graft survival exceeding 90%. The newest class of agents, the first of which is sirolimus, is called target of rapamycin (TOR) inhibitors and is used with CsA for maintenance therapy. Immunosuppressive drug therapy after kidney transplantation continues to evolve. There is a variety of pharmacologic combinations from which to choose, based on immunologic risk and side effect profiles. As new regimens are developed, ongoing communications between the transplant center and community nephrologists will be required to implement therapeutic changes and optimize patient care successfully. (C) 2001 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:S2 / S9
页数:8
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]   IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUG THERAPY IN CANINE RENAL AND SKIN HOMOGRAFTS [J].
ALEXANDRE, GPJ ;
MURRAY, JE ;
DAMMIN, GJ ;
NOLAN, B .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1963, 1 (04) :432-461
[2]   The pharmacokinetics of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in primary renal allograft recipients [J].
Barone, G ;
Chang, CT ;
Choc, MG ;
Klein, JB ;
Marsh, CL ;
Meligeni, JA ;
Min, DI ;
Pescovitz, MD ;
Pollak, R ;
Pruett, TL ;
Stinson, JB ;
Thompson, JS ;
Vasquez, E ;
Waid, T ;
Wombolt, DG ;
Wong, RL .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1996, 61 (06) :875-880
[3]   A randomized, double-blinded comparison of thymoglobulin versus Atgam for induction immunosuppressive therapy in adult renal transplant recipients [J].
Brennan, DC ;
Flavin, K ;
Lowell, JA ;
Howard, TK ;
Shenoy, S ;
Burgess, S ;
Dolan, S ;
Kano, JM ;
Mahon, M ;
Schnitzler, MA ;
Woodward, R ;
Irish, W ;
Singer, GG .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1999, 67 (07) :1011-1018
[4]   A STUDY OF EFFECTS OF DRUGS IN PROLONGING SURVIVAL OF HOMOLOGOUS RENAL TRANSPLANTS IN DOGS [J].
CALNE, RY ;
ALEXANDRE, GPJ ;
MURRAY, JE .
ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1962, 99 (03) :743-+
[5]  
CALNE RY, 1978, LANCET, V2, P1323
[6]  
Cho Y W, 1989, Clin Transpl, P325
[7]  
Cook D J, 1987, Clin Transpl, P277
[8]   Impact of acute rejection and early allograft function on renal allograft survival [J].
Cosio, FG ;
Pelletier, RP ;
Falkenhain, ME ;
Henry, ML ;
Elkhammas, EA ;
Davies, EA ;
Bumgardner, GL ;
Ferguson, RM .
TRANSPLANTATION, 1997, 63 (11) :1611-1615
[9]   Differences in bioavailability between oral cyclosporine formulations in maintenance renal transplant patients [J].
Curtis, JJ ;
Barbeito, R ;
Pirsch, J ;
Lewis, RM ;
Van Buren, DH ;
Choudhury, S .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES, 1999, 34 (05) :869-874
[10]  
DIETHELM AG, 1968, SURG GYNECOL OBSTETR, V126, P723