The Impact of Withdrawal of Maintenance Immunosuppression and Graft Nephrectomy on HLA Sensitization and Calculated Chance of Future Transplant.

BACKGROUND: The development of HLA antibodies towards a failing renal allograft is a barrier to retransplantation. This study aimed to compare the formation of HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in patients undergoing graft nephrectomy and in those with a failed graft left in situ who had maintenance immunosuppression (IS) stopped, and assess the relative impact of IS cessation and graft nephrectomy on future relative chance of transplant (R-CoT). METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of patients with failed grafts between 2005 and 2015 was performed. Samples were tested for DSA pre-IS wean, post-IS wean, and post-IS cessation. Nephrectomy patients additionally had samples tested for DSA before and after nephrectomy. Calculated reaction frequency (cRF) was determined at each timepoint and entered into the UK Organ Donation and Transplant R-CoT calculator. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included in the study: 24 with nephrectomy and 17 with a failed graft in situ. Patient demographics and duration of IS wean were similar between groups. There was a higher rate of blood transfusion (54% vs 24%) in nephrectomy patients. In patients whose graft remained in situ, cRF rose from 13% pre-IS wean to 40% post-IS wean and 62% after IS cessation. This equated to a reduction in mean R-CoT from 54% to 46% at 5 years. In patients undergoing nephrectomy mean cRF rose from 31% pre-IS wean to 69% post-IS wean and 89% post-IS cessation. Mean R-CoT fell from 54% to 42% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: A stepwise increase in cRF with reduced chance of transplant was observed in both groups as IS was withdrawn, with a similar pattern irrespective of graft nephrectomy. Calculated reaction frequency was higher in the nephrectomy group. The risks and benefits of stopping IS need to be carefully considered on an individual basis to maximize chance of future transplant.

Induction and maintenance treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Lupus nephritis accounts for ~1% of patients starting dialysis therapy. Treatment regimens combining cyclophosphamide with steroids preserve kidney function but have significant side effects. Newer immunosuppressive agents may have improved toxicity profiles. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE (1966 to April 2012), EMBASE (1988-2011), and the Cochrane Renal Group Specialised Register. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with biopsy-proven proliferative lupus nephritis (classes III, IV, V+III, and V+IV). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials. INTERVENTION: Immunosuppressive treatment regimens used for induction and maintenance therapy of lupus nephritis. OUTCOMES: Mortality, renal remission and relapse, doubling of creatinine level, proteinuria, incidence of end-stage kidney disease, ovarian failure, alopecia, leukopenia, infections, diarrhea, vomiting, malignancy, and bladder toxicity. RESULTS: 45 trials (2,559 participants) of induction therapy and 6 (514 participants) of maintenance therapy were included. In induction regimens comparing mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) with intravenous cyclophosphamide, there was no significant difference in mortality (7 studies, 710 patients; risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-1.98), incidence of end-stage kidney disease (3 studies, 231 patients; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.27-1.84), complete renal remission (6 studies, 686 patients; RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.99-1.95), and renal relapse (1 study, 140 patients; RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.39-2.44). MMF-treated patients had significantly lower risks of ovarian failure (2 studies, 498 patients; RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.80) and alopecia (2 studies, 522 patients; RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.86). In maintenance therapy comparing azathioprine with MMF, the risk of renal relapse was significantly higher (3 studies, 371 patients; RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.24-2.71). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity in interventions and definitions of remission and lack of long-term outcome reporting. CONCLUSIONS: MMF is as effective as cyclophosphamide in achieving remission in lupus nephritis, but is safer, with a lower risk of ovarian failure. MMF is more effective than azathioprine in maintenance therapy for preventing relapse, with no difference in clinically important side effects.

How to write a Cochrane systematic review.

The Cochrane Collaboration is a global network whose aim is to improve health-care decision making through systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions. Cochrane systematic reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within The Cochrane Library ( http://www.thecochranelibrary.com), and regularly updated as new evidence arises. Cochrane Reviews are undertaken by teams of volunteer authors, who have access to free training resources, reference texts and software for preparing and maintaining their review. Here we aim to describe the steps involved to undertake a new or update an existing Cochrane Review.