WITH INCREASED EFFICACY of initial immunosuppressive therapy the proportion of patients experiencing acute rejection has been substantially reduced. It is also evident that the events have been delayed in time. The incidence of acute rejection in clinical trials on new immunosuppressive drugs are often depicted using the life table technique. Following an initial period of time with a rising curve there are no more early episodes of acute rejection and the curve becomes flat. In control groups, the first period of time is usually about 4 months. With reduction of acute rejection the point in time when there are no more events is often delayed until about 6 months. One example is the pivotal trial on daclizumab. The two mentioned time periods have been called preadaptation and postadaptation, respectively. During preadaptation it is vital to give effective immunosuppression with multiple drugs, including induction, a calcineurin inhibitor, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine (Aza), and steroids. In postadaptation, it is just as important to minimize immunosuppression to reduce long-term toxicity. This may be achieved by selective withdrawal, using two instead of three maintenance drugs, and by keeping doses low. This article focuses on the question of whether all double combinations of immunosuppressive drugs are equally safe and, secondly, how to tailor immunosuppression to the individual patient’s needs. Factors negatively affecting graft and patient survival in postadaptation include chronic nephrotoxicity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes—all leading to cardiovascular disease and malignancy. The increased incidence of malignancy after renal transplantation is one sign of toxicity of immunosuppression. Invasive, life-threatening tumors occur in about 17% of transplant patients at 20 years. Nonmelanoma skin cancer occurs in 40% to 60% at 20 years. These findings support arguments to reduce immunosuppression during postadaptation. The major cause of graft loss after renal transplantation is patient death with a functioning graft, which occurs in 40% to 50% of patients. The major cause of death in these patients is cardiovascular disease, namely in about 50% of cases similar to the general population. However, renal transplant patients die from cardiovascular disease at younger ages than the general population. Consequently, the objective of long-term management should be to reduce the level of immunosuppression by selecting drugs that minimize risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Particularly patients with overt drug side effects, for example, risk factors such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, would benefit from drug modification. The various toxicity profiles of immunosuppressive drugs may be the instrument at hand. Recently, we performed a survey at the Transplant Unit in Malmo, Sweden, to investigate how many of our patients receive too much immunosuppressive therapy. Among 1500 kidney transplant patients 550 were surviving with functioning grafts more than 1 year after transplantation. More than half of them (57%) were receiving a triple-drug combination, including cyclosporine (CsA) or tacrolimus, MMF or Aza, and prednisone at a mean of 7 years after transplant. Reduction of their immunosuppression could be achieved by discontinuing one drug, leaving eight different doubledrug combinations. The major question was: do we have evidence that all of these combinations are equally safe? A great number of clinical trials have been reported in the literature with different designs to evaluate the safety of double-drug combinations. They may have been designed for avoidance, sparing, or withdrawal, mainly focusing on calcineurin inhibitors or steroids. Some trials are randomized and some involve only selected patients. Kasiske and coworkers recently published a meta-analysis of randomized trials on steroid or CsA withdrawal. They reported an increased risk of acute rejection (14%) and graft loss (38%) after steroid withdrawal. However, most of the patients in these trials were maintained on CsA monotherapy or CsA Aza after steroid withdrawal. Consequently, this latter double-drug combination should be marked as doubtful since it does not achieve a sufficient level of immunosuppression during the postadaptation period. Another double-drug combination, CsA MMF, was tested by Grinyo et al in a pilot study of 26 selected patients. No acute rejections were reported at 10 months after steroid withdrawal. Using the same double-drug combination for maintenance therapy, Vanrenterghem et al tested continued steroids vs steroid sparing (1/2 dose ini-
Read full abstract