KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

REFERENCES

• National Institute of Health NIDDK/DKUHD. United States Renal Data System. USRDS 2006 Annual Data Report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007; 49 (Suppl 1): S1–S296.
   Google Scholar
• Meier-Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Kaplan B. Long-term renal allograft survival: have we made significant progress or is it time to rethink our analytic and therapeutic strategies? Am J Transplant. 2004; 4(8): 1289–95.
   Google Scholar
• Das KK, Lerner BH. Opportunities not taken: Successes and shortcomings in the Institute of Medicine's report on organ donation. Kidney Int. 2007; 71(8): 726–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tantravahi J, Womer KL, Kaplan B. Why hasn't eliminating acute rejection improved graft survival? Annu Rev Med. 2007; 58:369–85.
   Google Scholar
• Studer SM, Orens JB. Cadaveric donor selection and manage-ment. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2006; 27(5): 492-500. Lopez-Navidad A, Caballero F. Extended criteria for organ ac-ceptance. Strategies for achieving organ safety and for increas-ing organ pool. Clin Transplant. 2003; 17(4): 308–24.
   Google Scholar
• Lopez-Navidad A, Caballero F. Extended criteria for organ acceptance. Strategies for achieving organ safety and for increasing organ pool. Clin Transplant. 2003; 17(4): 308–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moers C, Leuvenink HG, Ploeg RJ. Non-heart beating organ donation: overview and future perspectives. Transpl Int. 2007 Jan 29.
   Google Scholar
• Squifflet JP.Why did it take so long to start a non-heart-beating donor programme in Belgium? Acta Chir Belg. 2006; 106(5): 485–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keizer KM, de Fijter JW, Haase-Kromwijk BJ, Weimar W. Non-heart-beating donor kidneys in the Netherlands: allocation and outcome of transplantation. Transplantation. 2005; 79(9): 1195–9. . Snoeijs MG,Wiermans B,Christiaans MH et al. Recipient hemo-dynamics during non-heart-beating donor kidney transplanta-tion are major predictors of primary nonfunction. Am J Trans-plant. 2007 Feb 27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snoeijs MG, Wiermans B, Christiaans MH et al. Recipient hemodynamics during non-heart-beating donor kidney transplantation are major predictors of primary nonfunction. Am J Transplant. 2007 Feb 27.
   Google Scholar
• Delmonico FL.What is the system failure? Kidney Int. 2006;69(6): 954–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddow G. Because you're worth it?" The taking and selling of transplantable organs.J Med Ethics. 2006; 32(6): 324–8.
   Google Scholar
• Appel JM. Wanted dead or alive? Kidney transplantation in in-mates awaiting execution. J Clin Ethics. 2005; 16(1): 58–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Klerk M, Keizer KM, Claas FH, Witvliet M, Haase-Kromwijk BJ, Weimar. The Dutch national living donor kidney exchange pro-gram. Am J Transplant. 2005; 5(9): 2302–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Klerk M, Witvliet MD, Haase-Kromwijk BJ, Claas FH, Weimar W. A highly efficient living donor kidney exchange program for both blood type and crossmatch incompatible donor-recipient combinations. Transplantation. 2006; 82(12): 1616-20. Steinberg D. The allocation of organs donated by altruistic strangers. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145(3): 197–203.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg D. The allocation of organs donated by altruistic strangers. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145(3): 197–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokkinos C, Nanidis T, Antcliffe D, Darzi AW, Tekkis P, Papalois V. Comparison of laparoscopic versus hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 2007; 83(1): 41–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasad GV, Garg AX. Need for a registry of living kidney donor outcomes. Transplantation. 2006; 82(10): 1383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fehrman-Ekholm I, Norden G, Lennerling A et al. Incidence of end-stage renal disease among live kidney donors. Transplanta-tion. 2006; 82(12): 1646–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemens KK, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Parikh CR et al. Psychosocial health of living kidney donors: a systematic review. Am J Trans-plant. 2006; 6(12): 2965–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabrizii V, Kovaric J, Bodingbauer M, Kramar R, HorE WH, Winkel-mayer WC. Long-term patient and graft survival in the euro-transplant senior program: a single-center experience. Trans-plantation. 2005; 80(5): 582–9.
   Google Scholar
• Giessing M, Budde K, Fritsche L et al. "Old-for-old" cadaveric renal transplantation: surgical findings, perioperative complica-tions and outcome. Eur Urol. 2003; 44(6): 701–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen B, Smits JM, Haase B, Persijn G, Vanrenterghem Y, Frei U. Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005; 20(1): 34–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly P, Kahan BD. Review: metabolism of immunosuppressant drugs. Curr Drug Metab. 2002; 3(3): 275–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuda S, Inui K. An up-date review on individualized dosage adjustment of calcineurin inhibitors in organ transplant patients. Pharmacol Ther. 2006; 112(1): 184–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaston RS. Current and evolving immunosuppressive regimens in kidney transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006; 47(4 Suppl 2): S3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samaniego M, Becker BN, Djamali A. Drug insight: maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol. 2006; 2(12): 688–99.
   Google Scholar
• Matas AJ, Kandaswamy R. The current role of calcineurin in-hibitors in posttransplant immunosuppression? Am J Transplant. 2006; 6(12): 2827–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CL, O'Connell PJ, Allen RD, Chap-man JR. The natural history of chronic allograft nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(24): 2326–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abramowicz D, Del Carmen Rial M, Vitko S et al. Cyclosporine withdrawal from a mycophenolate mofetil-containing immu-nosuppressive regimen: results of a five-year, prospective, ran-domized study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005; 16(7): 2234–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flechner SM, Ku rian SM, Solez K et al. De novo kidney transplan-tation without use of calcineurin inhibitors preserves renal structure and function at two years. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(11): 1776–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekberg H, Grinyo J, Nashan B et al. Cyclosporine Sparing with Mycophenolate Mofetil, Daclizumab and Corticosteroids in Renal Allograft Recipients: The CAESAR Study. Am J Transplant. 2007; 7(3): 560–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelens MA, Christiaans MH, van Heurn EL, van den Berg-Loonen EP, Peutz-Kootstra CJ, van Hooff JP. High rejection rate during calcineurin inhibitor-free and early steroid withdrawal immu-nosuppression in renal transplantation. Transplantation. 2006; 82(9): 1221–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuypers D, Evenepoel P, Maes B, Coosemans W, Pirenne J, Van-renterghem Y. The use of an anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody and mycophenolate mofetil enables the use of a low-dose tacrolimus and early withdrawal of steroids in renal transplant recipients. Clin Transplant. 2003; 17(3): 234–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivas TR, Schold JD, Guerra G, Eagan A, Bucci CM, Meier-Kri-esche HU. Mycophenolate mofetil/sirolimus compared to other common immunosuppressive regimens in kidney trans-plantation. Am /Transplant. 2007; 7(3): 586–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivas TR, Kaplan B, Schold JD, Meier-Kriesche HU. The impact of mycophenolate mofetil on long-term outcomes in kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2005; 80(2 Su ppl): 5211–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bullingham RE, Nicholls AJ, Kamm BR. Clinical pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998; 34(6): 429–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston A, He X, Holt DW. Bioequivalence of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil: a meta-analysis of three studies in stable renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2006; 82(11): 1413–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier-Kriesche HU. Mycophenolate mofetil-based immunosup-pressive minimization and withdrawal strategies in renal trans-plantation: possible risks and benefits. Curr Opin Nephrol Hy-pertens. 2006; 15 Suppl 1:S1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuypers D, Claes K, Evenepoel P, Maes B, Vanrenterghem Y. Clinical efficacy and toxicity profile of tacrolimus and myco-phenolic acid in relation to combined long-term pharmacokinet-ics in de novo renal allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004; 75(5): 434–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naito T, Shinno K, Maeda T et al. Effects of calcineurin inhibitors on pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolite during the maintenance period following renal transplantation. Biol Pharm Bull. 2006; 29(2): 275–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appel GB, Radhakrishnan J, Ginzler EM. Use of mycophenolate mofetil in autoimmune and renal diseases. Transplantation. 2005; 80(2 Suppl): S265–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole E, Landsberg D, Russell D et al. A pilot study of steroid-free immunosuppression in the prevention of acute rejection in renal a llograft recipients. Transplantation. 2001; 72(5): 845–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostaing L, Cantarovich D, Mourad G et al. Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and daclizumab induction in renal transplantation. Transplanta-tion. 2005; 79(7): 807–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanrenterghem Y, van Hooff JP, Squifflet JP et al. Minimization of immunosuppressive therapy after renal transplantation: re-sults of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant. 2005; 5(1): 87–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanrenterghem Y, Lebranchu Y, Hene R, Oppenheimer F, Ekberg H. Double-blind comparison of two corticosteroid regimens plus mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine for prevention of acute renal a llograft rejection. Transplantation. 2000; 70(9): 1352–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abramowicz D, Vanrenterghem Y, Squifflet JP et al. Efficacy and cardiovascular safety of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, and early steroid withdrawal in renal transplant recipients: a multicenter, prospective, pilot triaL. Clin Transplant. 2005; 19(4):475–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan BD. Sirolimus: a comprehensive review. Expert Opin Phar-macother. 2001; 2(11): 1903–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Trepanier DJ, Gallant H, Legatt DF, Yatscoff RW. Rapamycin: distribution, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic range investiga-tions: an update. Clin Biochem. 1998; 31(5): 345–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuypers DR. Benefit-risk assessment of sirolimus in renal trans-plantation. Drug Sat 2005; 28(2): 153–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreis H, Oberbauer R, Campistol JM et al. Long-term benefits with sirolimus-based therapy after early cyclosporine with-drawal. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004; 15(3): 809–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardinger KL. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction therapy in adult renal transplantation. Pharmacotherapy. 2006; 26(12): 1771–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster A, Pankhurst T, RinaLdi F, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Poly-clonal and monoclonal antibodies for treating acute rejection episodes in kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 19(2):CD004756. Review.
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez CB, Marino IR. The role of basiliximab induction therapy in organ transplantation. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2007; 7(1): 137–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiland AM, Philosophe B. Daclizumab induction in solid organ transplantation. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2004; 4(5): 729–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evenepoel P, Vanrenterghem Y. Death with functioning graft--a preventable cause of graft loss. Ann Transplant. 2001; 6(4): 17–20.
   Google Scholar
• Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Wolfe RA, Leichtman AB, Agodoa LY, Port FK. Long-term survival in renal transplant recipients with graft function. Kidney Int. 2000; 57(1): 307–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silkensen JR. Long-term complications in renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000; 11(3): 582–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parasuraman R, Yee J, Karthikeyan V, del Busto R. Infectious complications in renal transplant recipients. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2006; 13(3): 280–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson K, Alexander B. Strategies for the prevention of infection
   Google Scholar
• Marty FM, Rubin RH. The prevention of infection post-transplant:
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. United States Renal Data
   Google Scholar
• Ojo AO. Cardiovascular complications after renal transplantation and their prevention. Transplantation. 2006; 82(5): 603–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rigatto C, Parfrey P. Therapy insight: management of cardiovas-cular disease in the renal transplant recipient. Nat Clin Pract
   Google Scholar
• Morales JM, Dominguez-Gil B. Impact of tacrolimus and myco-phenolate mofetil combination on cardiovascular risk profile after kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006; 17(12
   Google Scholar
• Holdaas H, Fellstrom B, Jardine AG et al. Effect of fluvastatin on cardiac outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a multicentre,
   Google Scholar
• Holdaas H, Fellstrom B, Cole E et al. Long-term cardiac outcomes
   Google Scholar
• Penn I. Cancers in renal transplant recipients. Adv Ren Replace
   Google Scholar
• Penn I. Post-transplant malignancy: the role of immunosuppres-sion. Drug Saf 2000; 23(2): 101–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasiske BL, Snyder JJ, Gilbertson DT, Wang C et al. Cancer after kidney transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2004; 4(6): 905–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vajdic CM, McDonald SP, McCredie MR et al. Cancer incidence before and after kidney transplantation. JAMA. 2006; 296(23): 2823–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svoboda J, Kotloff R, Tsai DE et al. Management of patients with post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder: the role of rituxi-ma b. Transpl Int. 2006; 19(4): 259–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman JR, O'Connell PJ, Nankivell BJ et al. Chronic renal al-lograft dysfunction. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005; 16(10): 3015-26. Nankivell BJ, Chapman JR. Chronic allograft nephropathy: current concepts and future directions. Transplantation. 2006; 81(5): 643–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nankivell BJ, Chapman JR. Chronic allograft nephropathy: current concepts and future directions. Transplantation. 2006; 81(5): 643–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hariharan S. BK virus nephritis after renal transplantation. Kidney Int. 2006; 69(4): 655–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampen A, Christians U, Guengerich FP et al. Metabolism of the immunosuppressant tacrolimus in the small intestine: cyto-chrome P450, drug interactions, and interindividual variability. Drug Metab Dispos. 1995; 23: 1315–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamdem LK Streit F, Zanger UM et al. Contribution of CYP3A5 to the in vitro hepatic clearence of Tacrolimus. Clin Chemistry. 2005; 51: 1374–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anglicheau D, Verstuyft C, Lau rent-Puig P et al. Association of the multidrug resistance-1 gene single-nucleotide polymor-phisms with the tacrolimus dose requirements in renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003; 14(7): 1889–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuypers DR, Naessens M, Vermeire S, Vanrenterghem Y. The impact of uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A9 (UGT1A9) gene promoter region single-nucleotide polymor-phisms T-275A and C-2152T on early mycophenolic acid dose-interval exposure in de novo renal allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005; 78(4): 351–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naesens M, Kuypers DR, Verbeke K, Vanrenterghem Y. Multidrug resistance protein 2 genetic polymorphisms influence myco-phenolic acid exposure in renal allograft recipients. Transplanta-tion. 2006; 82(8): 1074–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isoniemi HM, Krogerus L, von Willebrand E, Taskinen E, Ahonen J, Häyry P. Histopathological findings in well-functioning, long-term renal a Rografts. Kidney Int. 1992; 41: 155–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson P, Jeffery J, Gough J, et al. Effect of increasing baseline immunosuppression on the prevalence of clinical and subclinical rejection, a pilot study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999; 10:1801-5. Nankivell B, Borrows R, Fung C, O'Connell Ph, Allen R, Chapman J. Natural history, risk factors, and impact of subclinical rejection in kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2004; 78: 242-249. Nankivell B, Fenton-Lee C, Kuypers D, et al. Effect of histological damage on long-term kidney transplant outcome. Transplanta-tion. 2001; 71:515–23.
   Google Scholar
• Nankivell B, Borrows R, Fung C, O’Connell Ph, Allen R, Chapman J. Natural history, risk factors, and impact of subclinical rejection in kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2004; 78: 242–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nankivell B, Fenton-Lee C, Kuypers D, et al. Effect of histological damage on long-term kidney transplant outcome. Transplantation. 2001; 71: 515–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield E, Sarwal M. Arraying the orchestration of allograft pathology. Am J Transplant. 2004; 4:853–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittke S, Haubitz M, Walden M et al. Detection of acute tubu-lointerstitial rejection by proteomic analysis of urinary samples in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2005; 5: 2479–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar