Individualized immunosuppression after renal transplantation in childhood

Pediatric renal transplantation (TX) has evolved greatly during the past few decades, and today TX is considered the standard care for children with end-stage renal disease. In Finland, 191 children had received renal transplants by October 2007, and 42% of them have already reached adulthood. Improvements in treatment of end-stage renal disease, surgical techniques, intensive care medicine, and in immunosuppressive therapy have paved the way to the current highly successful outcomes of pediatric transplantation. In children, the transplanted graft should last for decades, and normal growth and development should be guaranteed. These objectives set considerable requirements in optimizing and fine-tuning the post-operative therapy. Careful optimization of immunosuppressive therapy is crucial in protecting the graft against rejection, but also in protecting the patient against adverse effects of the medication. In the present study, the results of a retrospective investigation into individualized dosing of immunosuppresive medication, based on pharmacokinetic profiles, therapeutic drug monitoring, graft function and histology studies, and glucocorticoid biological activity determinations, are reported. Subgroups of a total of 178 patients, who received renal transplants in 1988 2006 were included in the study. The mean age at TX was 6.5 years, and approximately 26% of the patients were <2 years of age. The most common diagnosis leading to renal TX was congenital nephrosis of the Finnish type (NPHS1). Pediatric patients in Finland receive standard triple immunosuppression consisting of cyclosporine A (CsA), methylprednisolone (MP) and azathioprine (AZA) after renal TX. Optimal dosing of these agents is important to prevent rejections and preserve graft function in one hand, and to avoid the potentially serious adverse effects on the other hand. CsA has a narrow therapeutic window and individually variable pharmacokinetics. Therapeutic monitoring of CsA is, therefore, mandatory. Traditionally, CsA monitoring has been based on pre-dose trough levels (C0), but recent pharmacokinetic and clinical studies have revealed that the immunosuppressive effect may be related to diurnal CsA exposure and blood CsA concentration 0-4 hours after dosing. The two-hour post-dose concentration (C2) has proved a reliable surrogate marker of CsA exposure. Individual starting doses of CsA were analyzed in 65 patients. A recommended dose based on a pre-TX pharmacokinetic study was calculated for each patient by the pre-TX protocol. The predicted dose was clearly higher in the youngest children than in the older ones (22.9±10.4 and 10.5±5.1 mg/kg/d in patients <2 and >8 years of age, respectively). The actually administered oral doses of CsA were collected for three weeks after TX and compared to the pharmacokinetically predicted dose. After the TX, dosing of CsA was adjusted according to clinical parameters and blood CsA trough concentration. The pharmacokinetically predicted dose and patient age were the two significant parameters explaining post-TX doses of CsA. Accordingly, young children received significantly higher oral doses of CsA than the older ones. The correlation to the actually administered doses after TX was best in those patients, who had a predicted dose clearly higher or lower (> ±25%) than the average in their age-group. Due to the great individual variation in pharmacokinetics standardized dosing of CsA (based on body mass or surface area) may not be adequate. Pre-Tx profiles are helpful in determining suitable initial CsA doses. CsA monitoring based on trough and C2 concentrations was analyzed in 47 patients, who received renal transplants in 2001 2006. C0, C2 and experienced acute rejections were collected during the post-TX hospitalization, and also three months after TX when the first protocol core biopsy was obtained. The patients who remained rejection free had slightly higher C2 concentrations, especially very early after TX. However, after the first two weeks also the trough level was higher in the rejection-free patients than in those with acute rejections. Three months after TX the trough level was higher in patients with normal histology than in those with rejection changes in the routine biopsy. Monitoring of both the trough level and C2 may thus be warranted to guarantee sufficient peak concentration and baseline immunosuppression on one hand and to avoid over-exposure on the other hand. Controlling of rejection in the early months after transplantation is crucial as it may contribute to the development of long-term allograft nephropathy. Recently, it has become evident that immunoactivation fulfilling the histological criteria of acute rejection is possible in a well functioning graft with no clinical sings or laboratory perturbations. The influence of treatment of subclinical rejection, diagnosed in 3-month protocol biopsy, to graft function and histology 18 months after TX was analyzed in 22 patients and compared to 35 historical control patients. The incidence of subclinical rejection at three months was 43%, and the patients received a standard rejection treatment (a course of increased MP) and/or increased baseline immunosuppression, depending on the severity of rejection and graft function. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at 18 months was significantly better in the patients who were screened and treated for subclinical rejection in comparison to the historical patients (86.7±22.5 vs. 67.9±31.9 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively). The improvement was most remarkable in the youngest (<2 years) age group (94.1±11.0 vs. 67.9±26.8 ml/min/1.73m2). Histological findings of chronic allograft nephropathy were also more common in the historical patients in the 18-month protocol biopsy. All pediatric renal TX patients receive MP as a part of the baseline immunosuppression. Although the maintenance dose of MP is very low in the majority of the patients, the well-known steroid-related adverse affects are not uncommon. It has been shown in a previous study in Finnish pediatric TX patients that steroid exposure, measured as area under concentration-time curve (AUC), rather than the dose correlates with the adverse effects. In the present study, MP AUC was measured in sixteen stable maintenance patients, and a correlation with excess weight gain during 12 months after TX as well as with height deficit was found. A novel bioassay measuring the activation of glucocorticoid receptor dependent transcription cascade was also employed to assess the biological effect of MP. Glucocorticoid bioactivity was found to be related to the adverse effects, although the relationship was not as apparent as that with serum MP concentration. The findings in this study support individualized monitoring and adjustment of immunosuppression based on pharmacokinetics, graft function and histology. Pharmacokinetic profiles are helpful in estimating drug exposure and thus identifying the patients who might be at risk for excessive or insufficient immunosuppression. Individualized doses and monitoring of blood concentrations should definitely be employed with CsA, but possibly also with steroids. As an alternative to complete steroid withdrawal, individualized dosing based on drug exposure monitoring might help in avoiding the adverse effects. Early screening and treatment of subclinical immunoactivation is beneficial as it improves the prospects of good long-term graft function.