Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Transplant. Apr 18, 2021; 11(4): 99-113
Published online Apr 18, 2021. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v11.i4.99
Published online Apr 18, 2021. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v11.i4.99
Ref. | Cases included | Aim of the study | Results and conclusions | Modified Jadad score |
van Sandwijk et al[43], 2018 | 186 patients with follow up for about 2 yr | To compare ESW (day 3 post-transplant), triple therapy with low dose tacrolimus and standard tacrolimus dose triple therapy | All groups showed no statistically significant differences in patient survival, allograft survival, incidence of acute rejection and eGFR | 6 |
Steroid withdrawal group has better cardiovascular risk profile and lower rates of infection | ||||
Andrade-Sierra et al[44], 2016 | 71 patients with follow up for 12 mo | To compare the impact of ESW (day 5 post-operative) with maintenance steroid use. | One-year graft survival was comparable (87% versus 94% in controls) | 4 |
Steroid free group has higher eGFR and better blood pressure control with fewer anti-hypertensive drugs (8% versus 50%; P < 0.001). | ||||
Nagib et al[45], 2015 | 428 patients with follow up for 66 ± 41 mo | To investigate long term outcome of ESW (steroids used for three days only) in living donor kidney allograft recipients | Steroid avoidance in low immunological risk recipients was both safe and effective using basiliximab induction | 4 |
Long term follow-up showed decreased total cost with steroid-free protocol despite comparable immune suppressant cost, mostly secondary to lowering the burden of chronic comorbidities related to steroid use | ||||
Thierry et al[46], 2014 | 131 patients were followed for 30 mo | To evaluate the impact of SA in comparison to LSW | At the end of the study period, 32.4% of steroid avoidance patients and 51.7% of steroid withdrawal group were receiving oral steroids | 6 |
There were no significant differences in kidney functions, proteinuria, or documented rejection between both groups | ||||
Ponticelli et al[47], 2014 | 139 patients with follow up for 12 mo | Evaluating the short-term impact of LSW (3 mo post-transplantation) | Treatment failure was noted in 14.7% of steroid withdrawal group compared to 2.8% in the control group | 6 |
NODAT was reported in 13.2% of steroid withdrawal group compared to 1.9% in the control group | ||||
Krämer et al[48], 2012 | 421 patients with follow up for three years | The outcome of two different steroid-free regimens in comparison to the conventional triple immunosuppressive therapy | Despite the increased risk of early acute rejection with steroid-free protocols, the long-term patient and graft survival were comparable | 6 |
Steroid free regimens were associated with a better cardiovascular risk profile | ||||
Thierry et al[49], 2012 | 222 low risk, de novo kidney transplant recipients with follow up for 6 mo | Evaluation of the short-term outcome of SA after 500 mg methylprednisolone + IL-2 receptor antibody induction in comparison to conventional maintenance steroids | The short-term outcome in the form of patient survival, graft survival, the incidence of BPAR and GFR were similar in both groups. However, SA was associated with a lower incidence of CMV infection (12.5% versus 22.7%, P = 0.045) | 6 |
Gheith et al[50], 2011 | 100 patients with a median follow up of twelve months | Assessing the cost-benefit of ESW (3 d post-transplant) in living donor kidney allograft recipients | Despite the comparable immunosuppressant costs, steroid avoidance was associated with significantly lower total costs by the end of the first year after transplantation | 4 |
The higher costs associated with steroid use was attributed to the cost of management of steroid-related comorbidities | ||||
Sandrini et al[51], 2010 | 96 patients were followed for up to 4 yr | To compare the efficacy of ESW (day 5) versus later withdrawal after 6 mo of transplantation | Both strategies had comparable patient survival, graft survival, allograft function and percentage of successful withdrawal | 5 |
ESW was associated with less wound healing complications (4% vs 21%, P = 0.02). On the other hand, LSW was associated with a lower incidence of acute rejection at 12 mo (30% vs 48%, P < 0.04), and at 48 mo (33% vs 53%, P < 0.03) | ||||
Delgado et al[52], 2009 | 37 patients with follow up for five years | Evaluating ESW (7 d post-transplant) effect on the development of de novo donor-specific anti HLA antibodies (DSA) | ESW was not associated with increased risk of development of de novo DSA compared with conventional steroid maintenance protocol | 5 |
Sandrini et al[53], 2009 | 148 patients were followed for the first 15 d | To measure the impact of ESW on wound healing in comparison to maintenance steroids in patients receiving sirolimus therapy | ESW was associated with a significantly lower rate of wound healing complications (18.8% vs 45.6%, P < 0.0004) | 3 |
Woodle et al[11], 2008 | 386 patients with follow up for five years | To compare the outcome of ESW (7 d post-transplant) with low dose chronic corticosteroid therapy | ESW was associated with increased risk of BPAR mostly corticosteroid-sensitive Banff class 1A rejections. However, the five-year allograft survival and function were similar in both groups | 8 |
Steroid withdrawal was associated with better metabolic and cardiovascular risk profiles | ||||
Vincenti et al[54], 2008 | 337 patients with follow up for 12 mo | Comparing the safety and efficacy of total SA (n = 112), ESW (n = 115) and standard maintenance steroid regimen (n = 109) in first kidney allograft recipients | The median eGFR by the end of the first year was comparable between all groups | 6 |
The incidence of BPAR was significantly higher with both steroid-free and early withdrawal groups compared to patients maintained on steroids | ||||
Lipid profile, weight gain, and glycaemic control were better in steroid-free groups | ||||
Pelletier et al[55], 2006 | 120 recipients with follow up of minimum 1 yr after randomisation | To assess the impact of LSW compared to maintenance steroids | Patient and allograft survival, acute rejection rates and allograft function were similar in both groups | 5 |
Steroid withdrawal was associated with a significant improvement in bone density and total cholesterol levels | ||||
Rostaing et al[56], 2005 | 538 patients with follow up for six months | Short term outcome with a steroid-free protocol using Dac, Tac and MMF versus Tac, MMF, and corticosteroids regimen | Steroid free protocol was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of NODAT (5.4% vs 0.4%, P = 0.003), in addition to improvement of serum total cholesterol levels | 6 |
No clinically significant difference detected between the two groups in the term of acute rejection or serum creatinine levels at the end of the study | ||||
Laftavi et al[57], 2005 | 60 patients were followed up by protocol biopsies at 1, 6, and 12 mo | Short term outcome of ESW (7 d after transplantation) | ESW was associated with significant and accelerated allograft fibrosis as proved by protocol biopsy findings. However, this did not affect the renal functions measured by eGFR | 6 |
Vítko et al[58], 2005 | 451 low-risk recipients of first kidney allograft were followed up for 6 mo | Short term outcome of a steroid-free protocol using tacrolimus monotherapy after basiliximab induction (Bas/Tac) (n = 153), tacrolimus + MMF (Tac/MMF) (n = 151) or triple therapy of tacrolimus + MMF + steroids (n = 147) | Short term patient and graft survival at 6 mo post-transplantation were similar in all groups. However, the incidence of BPAR was higher in steroid-free groups [26.1% in (Bas/Tac) group, 30.5% in (Tac/MMF) group, and 8.2% in triple therapy group (P < 0.001)] | 6 |
The average creatinine clearance was higher in triple therapy group (65.3 ml/min), compared to Bas/Tac group (55.1 ml/min) and Tac/MMF group (59.4 ml/min) (P = 0.007) | ||||
Kumar et al[59], 2005 | 77 patients with follow up for 2 yr | Evaluating the impact of ESW (days 2-7) in comparison to low dose maintenance steroids | There were no statistically significant differences between both groups in all aspects (patient and allograft survival, acute rejection, metabolic profiles, and protocol biopsy findings) | 5 |
Vanrenterghem et al[60], 2005 | 833 recipients with follow up for 6 mo | Estimating the short-term outcome of either steroid or MMF withdrawal after 3 mo of transplantation in comparison to standard triple therapy | The next 3 mo after randomisation showed a similar incidence of BPAR | 5 |
Steroid withdrawal group had a better lipid profile (P < 0.001) | ||||
MMF withdrawal group had lower frequency of serious CMV infection (P = 0.024) and leukopenia (P = 0.0082) | ||||
Vincenti et al[61], 2003 | 83 recipients with follow up for 12 mo | Evaluating the impact of ESW (day 4 post-transplantation) in comparison to standard steroid therapy | Patient and allograft survival, the incidence of BPAR, graft function and rate of infections were similar in both groups | 5 |
Boots et al[62], 2002 | 62 patients with a median follow up for 2.7 yr | To compare the outcome of ESW (7 d post-transplant) versus LSW (3-6 mo post-transplant) | Both groups had a similar patient and graft survival with similar acute rejection episodes. However, the incidence of NODAT was significantly lower in early withdrawal group | 6 |
Sola et al[63], 2002 | 92 patients with follow up for 2 yr | Comparing the effect of LSW and maintenance steroids | There were no statistically significant differences between both groups in all aspects (patient and allograft survival, acute rejection, and metabolic profiles) | 2 |
Boletis et al[64], 2001 | 66 patients with follow up for 12 mo | Short term outcome of LSW (6 mo post-transplant) | Serum creatinine levels were comparable in both groups, and none of them has rejection episode during the follow-up period | 4 |
Serum triglycerides, cholesterol and mean arterial blood pressure levels were also similar in both groups | ||||
Vanrenterghem et al[65], 2000 | 248 patients with follow up for 12 mo | Evaluating the short-term outcome of steroid withdrawal (3 mo post-transplant) in comparison to maintenance steroids. | Despite the increased incidence of BPAR in steroid withdrawal group (23% versus 14%; P = 0.008), yet the mean serum creatinine levels were comparable in both groups by the end of 12 mo follow up | 6 |
Steroid withdrawal was associated with a better lipid profile, blood pressure measurements and bone densitometry measurements at 12 mo | ||||
Matl et al[66], 2000 | 88 patients with follow up for 12 months. | To estimate the safety of LSW compared to continuation on triple therapy. | The allograft function, acute rejection rate and biopsy findings were similar in both groups | 2 |
LSW was associated with a significantly lower serum cholesterol level. However, no significant changes were observed in serum triglycerides or blood pressure measurements | ||||
Ahsan et al[67], 1999 | 266 patients were followed up for one year | The effect of LSW vs continuation on low dose steroid (all patients were receiving cyclosporine and MMF) | LSW was associated with better control of hypertension and lower serum cholesterol level | 7 |
There is an increased risk of Acute rejection among steroid withdrawal group 30.8% vs 9.8% only within maintenance steroid group | ||||
The risk of rejection or treatment failure within the first-year post-transplantation was 39.6% in blacks versus 16% in nonblack (P < 0.001) | ||||
Steroid free immune suppression in paediatrics | ||||
Höcker et al[68], 2019 | 42 paediatric patients (aged 11.2 ± 3.8 yr) were followed for 15 mo | The effect of steroid withdrawal on the recipient’s blood pressure measured via ABPM | After 15 mo of follow up, there were no significant differences between both study groups in terms of allograft functions | 6 |
Steroid withdrawal was associated with better blood pressure readings as well as restoration of circadian blood pressure rhythm in 71.4% of cases versus 14.3% at baseline (P = 0.002) | ||||
Tönshoff et al[69], 2019 | 106 paediatric recipients with follow up for 12 mo | To estimate the short-term outcome of initiating everolimus with steroid elimination 5 mo post transplantation in comparison to conventional triple therapy | Patient and graft survival were 100% in both groups | 6 |
No statistically significant differences in the incidence of BPAR, proteinuria, and longitudinal growth | ||||
Webb et al[70], 2015 | 196 subjects with follow up for up to 2 yr | Evaluating the impact of ESW (at day 4 post-transplant) on the longitudinal growth | There was a significant and sustained growth improvement with ESW documented through the two years of follow up, especially in prepubertal children | 5 |
Patient and graft survival, the incidence of rejection and eGFR were comparable in both groups | ||||
Mericq et al[71], 2013 | 30 paediatric recipients were followed for 12 mo post-transplantation | Evaluating the effect of ESW on the longitudinal growth, body composition, and insulin sensitivity | Steroid withdrawal group showed better longitudinal growth, had lower trunk fat and improved lipid profile parameters compared to the control group | 6 |
Sarwal et al[72], 2012 | 130 paediatric cases with follow up for 3 yr | Evaluating the safety and efficacy of total SA in comparison to low dose maintenance steroids | Complete SA was associated with improved cholesterol levels (P = 0.034) and lower systolic blood pressure readings (P = 0.017) | 5 |
Recipients below the age of 5 years showed a significant linear growth catch up with the steroid-free protocol, while other age groups did not show a significant growth difference over the 3 years of follow up | ||||
Non-significant lower incidence of NODAT was recorded in steroid free group (1.7% versus 5.7%; P = 0.373) | ||||
Incident of BPAR, patient survival and graft outcome were comparable between both groups | ||||
Benfield et al[73], 2010 | 132 paediatric cases with data collected for up to 3 yr | Evaluating the outcome of LSW (6 mo post-transplantation) in comparison to low dose maintenance steroids | LSW resulted in a significant improvement of the Cushingoid facies compared to the control group | 6 |
The standardised height velocity was higher in the withdrawal group (P = 0.033) | ||||
The allograft survival rate at 3 yr was higher in the withdrawal group (98.6% vs 84.5%; P = 0.002) | ||||
Lipid profile, systolic and diastolic blood pressures showed no statistical differences between both groups | ||||
The study was terminated prematurely due to high incidence of PTLD | ||||
Grenda et al[74], 2010 | 196 paediatric recipients follow up data of the first 6 mo post-transplantation | Evaluating the short-term outcome of ESW (at day 4 post-transplant) | ESW significantly improved the growth, especially in prepubertal recipients | 6 |
Parameters of lipid and glucose metabolism were significantly better in the withdrawal group. However, they suffered a higher incidence of infection and anaemia (P < 0.05 for all mentioned comparisons) | ||||
Incident of BPAR, allograft function, patient and graft survival were similar for both groups | ||||
Höcker et al[75], 2010 | 42 paediatric patients with follow up for 2 yr after the withdrawal of steroids | Evaluating the effect of LSW (1 yr post-transplant) in comparison to maintenance steroids | LSW was associated with superior longitudinal growth (P < 0.001) | 6 |
Steroid withdrawal was associated with a significant decrease in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, better control of blood pressure, and improved lipid and carbohydrate metabolism | ||||
Patient survival, graft function and graft survival were not affected by steroid withdrawal |
- Citation: Aref A, Sharma A, Halawa A. Does steroid-free immunosuppression improve the outcome in kidney transplant recipients compared to conventional protocols? World J Transplant 2021; 11(4): 99-113
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3230/full/v11/i4/99.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v11.i4.99