Current immunosuppressive treatment after kidney transplantation

Bibliography

• Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2009;9(Suppl 3):S1-155
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knight SR, Morris PJ. Steroid avoidance or withdrawal after renal transplantation increases the risk of acute rejection but decreases cardiovascular risk. A meta-analysis. Transplantation 2010;89:1-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual J, Galeano C, Royuela A, Zamora J. A systematic review on steroid withdrawal between 3 and 6 months after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2010;90:343-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner RW. In defence of steroids. Am J Transplantation 2005;5:2334-5
   Google Scholar
• Burdmann EA, Andoh TF, Yu L, Bennet WM. Cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Semin Nephrol 2003;23:465-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiff J, Cole E, Cantarovich M. Therapeutic monitoring of calcineurin inhibitors for the nephrologist. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007;2:374-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Multicenter Trial Group. Cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation: one-year follow-up of a multicenter trial. Lancet 1983;2:986-9
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Multicenter Trial Group. A randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 1983;309:809-15
   Google Scholar
• Cole E, Keown P, Landsberg D, Safety and tolerability of cyclosporine and CsA-ME during eighteen months of follow-up in stable renal transplant patients. Transplantation 1998;65:505-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keown P, Niese D. Cyclosporine microemulsion increases drug exposure and reduces acute rejection without incremental toxicity in de novo renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1998;54:938-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke JF, Pirsch JD, Ramos EL, Long-term efficacy and safety of cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 1994;331:358-63
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Myers BD, Ross J, Newton L, Cyclosporine-associated chronic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 1984;311:699-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopp JB, Klotman PE. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of cyclosporin nephrotoxicity. J Am Soc Nephrol 1990;1:162-79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hooff JP, Gelens M, Boots JM, Preservation of renal function and cardiovascular risk factors. Transpl Proc 2006;38:1987-91
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka H, Kuroda A, Marusawa H, Physicochemical properties of FK-506, a novel immunosuppressant isolated from streptomyces tsukubaensis. Transplant Proc 1987;19:S11-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho S, Clipstone N, Timmermann L, The mechanism of action of cyclosporine A and FK-506. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1996;80:S40-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lemahieu W, Maes B, Verbeke K, Cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein activity and assimilation of tacrolimus in transplant patients with persistent diarrhea. Am J Transpl 2005;5:1383-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gelder T, Hesselink DA. Dosing tacrolimus based on CYPA5 genotype: will it improve clinical outcome? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;87:640-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer BK, Montagnino G, del Castillo D, Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus compared with cyclosporine- microemulsion in renal transplantation: 2 year follow-up results. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20:968-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardinger KL, Bohl DL, Schnitzler MA, A randomized, prospective, pharmaco-economic trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in combination with thymoglobulin in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2005;80:41-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincenti F, Friman S, Scheuermann E, Results of an international, randomized trial comparing glucose metabolism disorders and outcome with cyclosporine versus tacrolimus. Am J Transplant 2007;7:1506-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2562-75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster AC, Woodroffe RC, Taylor RS, Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized trial data. BMJ 2005;331:810-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opelz G, Dohler B. Influence of immunosuppressive regimens on graft survival and secondary outcomes after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2009;87:795-802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alloway R, Steinberg S, Khalil K, Conversion of stable kidney transplant recipients from a twice daily Prograf-based regimen to a once daily modified release Tacrolimus-based regimen. Transplant Proc 2005;37:867-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alloway R, Steinberg S, Khalil K, Two years postconversion from a Prograf-based regimen to a once-daily tacrolimus extended-release formulation in stable kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2007;83:1648-51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer BK, Charpentier B, Backman L, Tacrolimus once daily (ADVAGRAF) versus twice daily (PROGRAF) in de novo renal transplantation: a randomized phase III study. Am J Transplant 2010;10:2632-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jonge H, Kuypers DR, Verbeke K, Vanrenterghem Y. Reduced CO concentrations and increased dose requirements in renal allograft recipients converted to the novel once-daily tacrolimus formulation. Transplantation 2010;90:523-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlodarczyk Z, Squifflet JP, Ostrowski M, Pharmacokinetics for once- versus twice-daily tacrolimus formulations in de novo kidney transplantation: a randomized, open-label trial. Am J Transplant 2009;9:2505-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papp K, Bissonnette R, Rosoph L, Efficacy of ISA247 in plaque psoriasis: a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. Lancet 2008;371:1337-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anglade E, Aspeslet LJ, Weiss SL. A new agent for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis: rationale and design of three LUMINATE (Lux Uveitis Multicenter Investigation of a New Approach to Treatment) trials of steroid-sparing voclosporin. Clin Ophthalmol 2008;2:693-702
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gregory CR, Kyles AE, Bernsteen L, Compared with cyclosporine, ISATX247 significantly prolongs renal-allograft survival in a nonhuman primate model. Transplantation 2004;78:681-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barten MJ, van Gelder T, Gummert JF, Novel assays of multiple lymphocyte functions in whole blood measure. New mechanisms of action of mycophenolate mofetil in vivo. Transplant Immunol 2002;10:1-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barten MJ, van Gelder T, Gummert JF, Pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate mofetil after heart transplantation: new mechanisms of action and correlations with histologic severity of graft rejection. Am J Transplant 2002;2:719-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris RE, Hoyt EG, Eugui EM, Prolongation of rat heart allograft survival by RS-61443. Surgical Forum 1989;40:337-8
   Google Scholar
• Morris RE, Hoyt EG, Murphy MP, Mycophenolic acid morpholinoethylester (RS-61443) is a new immunosuppressant that prevents and halts heart allograft rejection by selective inhibition of T- and B-cell purine synthesis. Transpl Proc 1990;22:1659-62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporine and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet 1995;345:1321-5
   Google Scholar
• The Tricontinental Mycohenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1996;61:1029-37
   Google Scholar
• Sollinger HW, for the US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1995;60:225-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halloran P, Mathew T, Tomlanovich S, Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: a pooled efficacy analysis of three randomized, double-blind, clinical studies in prevention of rejection. The International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplant Study Groups. Transplantation 1997;63:39-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VL, A prospective randomized trial of tacrolimus/prednisone versus tacrolimus/prednisone/mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999;67:411-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budde K, Curtis J, Knoll G, Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium can be safely administered in maintenance renal transplant patients: results of a 1-year study. Am J Transplant 2004;4:237-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvadori M, Holzer H, de Mattos A, Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium is therapeutically equivalent to mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2004;4:231-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore J, Middleton L, Cockwell P, Calcineurin inhibitor sparing with mycophenolate in kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transplantation 2009;87:591-605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinyo JM, Cruzado JM. Mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin-inhibitor reduction: recent progress. Am J Transplant 2009;9:2447-52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sehgal SN. Sirolimus: its discovery, biological properties, and mechanism of action. Transpl Proc 2003;35(Suppl 3A):7S-14S
   Google Scholar
• Kahan BD. Efficacy of sirolimus compared with azathioprine for reduction of acute renal allograft rejection: a randomised multicentre study. The Rapamune US Study Group. Lancet 2000;356:194-202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald AS. A worldwide, phase III, randomized, controlled, safety and efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary mismatched renal allografts. The Rapamune Global Study Group. Transplantation 2001;71:271-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podder H, Stepkowski SM, Napoli KL, Pharmacokinetic interactions augment toxicities of sirolimus/cyclosporine combinations. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001;12:1059-71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberbauer R, Kreis H, Johnson RW, Rapamune Maintenance Regimen Group. Long-term improvement in renal function with sirolimus after early cyclosporine withdrawal in renal transplant recipients: 2-year results of the Rapamune Maintenance Regimen Study. Transplantation 2003;76:364-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flechner SM, Goldfarb D, Modlin C, Kidney transplantation without calcineurin inhibitor drugs: a prospective, randomized trial of sirolimus versus cyclosporine. Transplantation 2002;74:1070-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Akker JM, Hene RJ, Hoitsma AJ. Inferior results with basis immunosuppression with sirolimus in kidney transplantation. Neth J Med 2007;65:23-8
   Google Scholar
• Gelens MA, Christiaans MH, van Heurn EL, High rejection rate during calcineurin inhibitor-free and early steroid withdrawal immunosuppression in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2006;82:1221-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebranchu Y, Thierry A, Toupance O, Efficacy on renal function of early conversion from cyclosporine to sirolimus 3 months after renal transplantation: concept study. Am J Transplant 2009;9:1115-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schena FP, Pascoe MD, Alberu J, Conversion from calcineurin inhibitors to sirolimus maintenance therapy in renal allograft recipients: 24-month efficacy and safety results from the CONVERT trial. Transplantation 2009;87:233-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuler W, Sedrani R, Cottens S, SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivative: pharmacological properties in vitro and in vivo. Transplantation 1997;64:36-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W, Three-year efficacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2005;5:2521-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorber MI, Mulgaonkar S, Butt KM, Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study. Transplantation 2005;80:244-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan L, Greenstein S, Hardy MA, Multicenter, randomized study of the use of everolimus with tacrolimus after renal transplantation demonstrates its effectiveness. Transplantation 2008;85:821-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Simone P, Metselaar HJ, Fischer L, Conversion from a calcineurin inhibitor to everolimus therapy in maintenance liver transplant recipients: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Liver Transpl 2009;15:1262-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales J, Fierro A, Benavente D, Conversion from a calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppressive regimen to everolimus in renal transplant recipients: effect on renal function and proteinuria. Transplantat Proc 2007;39:591-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT00154310
   Google Scholar
• Rostaing L, Kamar N. mTOR inhibitor/proliferation signal inhibitors: entering or leaving the field? J Nephrol 2010;23:133-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baboolal K. A phase III prospective, randomized study to evaluate concentration-controlled sirolimus (rapamune) with cyclosporine dose minimization or elimination at six months in de novo renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 2003;75:1404-8
   Google Scholar
• Nashan B, Curtis J, Ponticelli C, Everolimus and reduced-exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal-transplant recipients: a three-year phase II, randomized, multicenter, open-label study. Transplantation 2004;78:1332-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gurp E, Bustamante J, Franco A, Comparable renal function at 6 months with tacrolimus combined with fixed-dose sirolimus or MMF: results of a randomized multicenter trial in renal transplantation. J Transplant 2010. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Brennan DC, Daller JA, Lake KD, Rabbit antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1967-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohty M. Mechanisms of action of antithymocyte globulin: T-cell depletion and beyond. Leukemia 2007;21:1387-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gelder T, Warle M, Ter Meulen RG. Anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies in transplantation: what is the basis for choice? Drugs 2004;64:1737-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale G. The CD52 antigen and development of the CAMPATH antibodies. Cytotherapy 2001;3:137-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom DD, Hu HZ, Fechner JH, Knechtle SJ. T-lymphocyte alloresponses of campath-1H-treated kidney transplant patients. Transplantation 2006;81:81-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczech LA, Berlin JA, Aradhye S, Effect of anti-lymphocyte induction therapy on renal allograft survival: a meta-analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997;8:1771-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczech LA, Berlin JA, Feldman HI. The effect of antilymphocyte induction therapy on renal allograft survival. A meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. Anti-Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:817-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggins WC, Pascual MA, Powelson JA, A prospective, randomized, clinical trial of intraoperative versus postoperative thymoglobulin in adult cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003;76:798-802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster AC, Playford EG, Higgins G, Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for renal transplant recipients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Transplantation 2004;77:166-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster AC, Ruster LP, McGee R, Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;1:CD003897
   Google Scholar
• Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, A randomized trial of three renal transplant induction antibodies: early comparison of tacrolimus, mycophenolate and steroid dosing and newer immune-monitoring. Transplantation 2005;80:457-65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, A randomized trial of thymoglobulin vs. alemtuzumab (with lower dose maintenance immunosuppression) vs. daclizumab in renal transplantation at 24 months follow-up. Clin Transplant 2008;22:200-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peddi R, Hanaway M, Woodle S, Final 36 months results of a randomized trial comparing three induction agents (alemtuzumab, thymoglobulin and basiliximab) with tacrolimus, mycophenolate and rapid stroid withdrawal in renal transplantation. Presented at the American Transplant Congress; 1–5 May 2010, San Diego, USA
   Google Scholar
• LaMattina JC, Mezrich JD, Hofmann M, Alemtuzumab induction is associated with significant lower graft survival as compared to alternative contemporary induction regimens. Presented at the American Transplant Congress; 1–5 May 2010, San Diego, USA
   Google Scholar
• Sampaio MS, Kadiyala A, Gill J, Bunnapradist S. Alemtuzumab versus interleukin-2 receptor antibodies induction in living donor kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2009;88:904-10
   Google Scholar
• Meier-Kriesche H-U, Arndorfer JA, Kaplan B, Association of antibody induction with short-and long-term cause-specific mortality in renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13:769
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Durrbach A, Pestana JM, Pearson T, A phase III study of belatacept versus cyclosporine in kidney transplants from extended criteria donors (BENEFIT-EXT study). Am J Transplant 2010;10:547-57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincenti F, Charpentier B, Vanrenterghem Y, A phase III study of belatacept-based immunosuppression regimens versus cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients (BENEFIT study). Am J Transplant 2010;10:535-46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan B. Belatacept: the promises and challenges of belatacept and costimulatory blockade. Am J Transplant 2010;10:441-2
   Google Scholar
• FDA. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/CardiovascularandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM201859.pdf. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Belatacept (BMS-224818). FDA's cardiovascular and renal drugs advisory committee. Briefing document for March 2010 meeting; 25 January 2010
   Google Scholar
• Rostaing L, Massari P, Garcia VD, Switching from calcineurin inhibitor-based regimens to a belatacept-based regimen in renal transplant recipients: a randomized phase ii study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Genberg H, Hansson A, Wernerson A, Pharmacodynamics of rituximab in kidney allotransplantation. Am J Transplant 2006;6:2418-28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genberg H, Kumlien G, Wennberg L, ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation using antigen-specific immunoadsorption and rituximab: a 3-year follow-up. Transplantation 2008;85:1745-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyden G, Genberg H, Tollemar J, A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study of single-dose rituximab as induction in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2009;87:1325-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clatworthy MR, Watson CJE, Plotnek G, B-cell depleting induction therapy and acute cellular rejection. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2683-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00565331
   Google Scholar
• Rostaing L, Guilbeau-Frugier C, Kamar N. Rituximab for humoral rejection after kidney transplantation: an update. Transplantation 2009;87:1261
   Google Scholar
• Loupy A, Suberbielle-Boisel C, Zuber J, Combined posttransplant prophylactic IVIg/Anti-CD20/plasmapheresis in kidney recipients with preformed donor-specific antibodies: a pilot study. Transplantation 2010;89:1403-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vo AA, Peng A, Toyoda M, Use of intravenous immune globulin and rituximab for desensitization of highly HLA-sensitized patients awaiting kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2010;89:1095-102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everly MJ, Everly JJ, Susskind B, Bortezomib provides effective therapy for antibody- and cell-mediated acute rejection. Transplantation 2008;86:1754-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trivedi HL, Terasaki PI, Feroz A, Abrogation of anti-HLA antibodies via proteasome inhibition. Transplantation 2009;87:1555-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sberro-Soussan R, Zuber J, Suberbielle-Boissel C, Bortezomib as the sole post-renal transplantation desensitization agent does not decrease donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies. Am J Transplant 2010;10:681-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trivedi HL, Terasaki PI, Feroz A, Clonal deletion with bortezomib followed by low or no maintenance immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 2010;90:221-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuber J, Le Quintrec M, Sberro-Soussan R, New insights into postrenal transplant hemolytic uremic syndrome. Nat Rev Nephrol 2010. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Locke JE, Magro CM, Singer AL, The use of antibody to complement protein C5 for salvage treatment of severe antibody-mediated rejection. Am J Transplant 2009;9:231-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith JM, Stablein DM, Munoz R, Contributions of the transplant registry: the 2006 annual report of the North American Pediatric Renal Trials and Collaborative Studies (NAPRTCS). Pediatr Transplant 2007;11:366-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothoff JW, Offringa M, Van Eck-Smit BL, Severe bone disease and low bone mineral density after juvenile renal failure. Kidney Int 2003;63:266-75
   Google Scholar
• Hokken-Koelega AC, van Zaal MA, van Bergen W, Final height and its predictive factors after renal transplantation in childhood. Pediatr Res 1994;36:323-8
   Google Scholar
• Fine RN, Ho M, Tejani A. The contribution of renal transplantation to final adult height: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). Pediatr Nephrol 2001;16:951-6
   Google Scholar
• Foster BJ, Martz K, Gowrishankar M, Weight and height changes and factors associated with greater weight and height gains after pediatric renal transplantation: a NAPRTCS study. Transplantation 2010;89:1103-12
   Google Scholar
• Broyer M, Guest G, Gagnadoux MF. Growth rate in children receiving alternate-day corticosteroid treatment after kidney transplantation. J Pediatr 1992;120:721-5
   Google Scholar
• Jabs K, Sullivan EK, Avner ED, Harmon WE. Alternate-day steroid dosing improves growth without adversely affecting graft survival or long-term graft function. A report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study. Transplantation 1996;61:31-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grenda R, Watson A, Trompeter R, A randomized trial to assess the impact of early steroid withdrawal on growth in pediatric renal transplantation: the TWIST study. Am J Transplant 2010;10:828-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocker B, Weber LT, Feneberg R, Improved growth and cardiovascular risk after late steroid withdrawal: 2-year results of a prospective, randomised trial in paediatric renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:617-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarwal MM, Vidhun JR, Alexander SR, Continued superior outcomes with modification and lengthened follow-up of a steroid-avoidance pilot with extended daclizumab induction in pediatric renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003;76:1331-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cransberg K, Cornelissen M, Lilien M, Maintenance immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids in pediatric kidney transplantation: temporary benefit but not without risk. Transplantation 2007;83:1041-7
   Google Scholar
• Krischock L, Gullett A, Bockenhauer D, Calcineurin-inhibitor free immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids in paediatric renal transplantation improves renal allograft function without increasing acute rejection. Pediatr Transplant 2009;13:475-81
   Google Scholar
• Hocker B, Feneberg R, Kopf S, SRL-based immunosuppression vs. CNI minimization in pediatric renal transplant recipients with chronic CNI nephrotoxicity. Pediatr Transplant 2006;10:593-601
   Google Scholar
• Huyghe E, Zairi A, Nohra J, Gonadal impact of target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus) in male patients: an overview. Transpl Int 2007;20:305-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halloran PF. Immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplantation. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2715-29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar