Impact of acute rejection therapy on infections and malignancies in renal transplant recipients
B Jamil, K Nicholls, GJ Becker, RG Walker - Transplantation, 1999 - journals.lww.com
B Jamil, K Nicholls, GJ Becker, RG Walker
Transplantation, 1999•journals.lww.comBackground. Infections and malignancies are important causes of mortality and morbidity in
renal allograft recipients. Their risk increases with increasing immunosuppression. Methods.
In an attempt to quantitate the increase in the risk of these complications in association with
antirejection therapy, we reviewed the records of all renal allograft recipients of our center
transplanted during the cyclosporin era. We sub-divided the patients into three groups
based on acute rejection episodes during the first 6 months posttransplant, and the …
renal allograft recipients. Their risk increases with increasing immunosuppression. Methods.
In an attempt to quantitate the increase in the risk of these complications in association with
antirejection therapy, we reviewed the records of all renal allograft recipients of our center
transplanted during the cyclosporin era. We sub-divided the patients into three groups
based on acute rejection episodes during the first 6 months posttransplant, and the …
Abstract
Background.
Infections and malignancies are important causes of mortality and morbidity in renal allograft recipients. Their risk increases with increasing immunosuppression.
Methods.
In an attempt to quantitate the increase in the risk of these complications in association with antirejection therapy, we reviewed the records of all renal allograft recipients of our center transplanted during the cyclosporin era. We sub-divided the patients into three groups based on acute rejection episodes during the first 6 months posttransplant, and the treatment for acute rejection: those who did not develop AR-group 1 (n= 168); those who had one or more episodes of acute rejection and were treated with high dose corticosteroids-group 2 (n= 169); those who in addition to corticosteroids required cytolytics (OKT 3) and/or other drugs-group 3 (n= 141).
Results.
52% patients in group 1, 71% patients in group 2 and 86% patients in group 3 had one or more episodes of infection during the first 6 months posttransplantation. Relative risk for group 2 and 3 were 1.56 (P= 0.0002) and 2.98 (P< 0.00001), respectively. Infection/patient rates at 6 months were 0.67, 1.23, and 2.79 in groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Groups 1 and 2 had a similar number of cases with squamous and basal cell carcinoma, however, there were few cases with these malignancies in group 3. No case of lymphoma was seen in group 1; there were four cases in group 2 and nine in group 3. There was no significant difference in patient survival in group 1 and 2, however, patients in group 3 had a reduced patient survival (1 vs. 3 P< 0.001, 2 vs. 3 P= 0.067). Graft survival was best in group 1 and worst in group 3 (1 vs. 2 P< 0.05; 1 vs. 3 P< 0.00001; 2 vs. 3 P< 0.01).
Conclusions.
In renal transplant recipients the risk of infections and lymphoma increases with increasing immunosuppression and hence mortality and morbidity associated with it. When adding a potent immunosuppressive agent to rescue a kidney one needs to consider the serious and at times fatal side effects given the modest beneficial effect on long-term outcome.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins