Drugs in R & D

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 55–60 | Cite as

Promising New Agents in the Prevention of Transplant Rejection

Leading Article

Abstract

Promising immunosuppressive drugs designed to prevent rejection have been developed recently. Two monoclonal antibodies directed against the interleukin-2 (IL-2) receptor, daclizumab and basiliximab, have been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of acute rejection without increasing adverse events. Sirolimus (rapamycin), an agent that inhibits T- and B-response at a later stage than cyclosporin, has been shown to be synergistic with cyclosporin in experimental and clinical studies. Ongoing clinical trials have reported that in renal transplantation high doses of sirolimus are as effective as cyclosporin. SDZ-RAD, a derivative of sirolimus, is also under investigation. FTY-720 another promising drug, prolonged the survival of allografts and synergised with cyclosporin and sirolimus in experimental models. Gusperimus (deoxyspergualin), which inhibits IL-1 synthesis, was useful in reversing early and late acute rejection in clinical trials. Antisense oligonucleotides which interfere with intercellular adhesion molecules which are important in rejection, gave encouraging results in primate renal allografts.

The availability of these new drugs will be able to further abate the risk of rejection in organ transplantation. However, caution is warranted with their use in order to avoid the risks of over immunosuppression. Today excellent results can be obtained with the available drugs. Newer immunosuppressive schedules should be designed, not only to reduce the risk of rejection, but also to obtain a better therapeutic index that allows a further improvement of the graft survival while minimising the comorbidity and drug-related toxicity.

Keywords

Rapamycin Acute Rejection Sirolimus Graft Survival Renal Allograft 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    European Multicentre Trial Group. Cyclosporin in cadaveric renal transplantation: one year follow-up a multicentre trial. Lancet 1983; II: 986–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canadian Multicenter Transplant Study Group. A randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 809–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ponticelli C, Civati G, Tarantino A, et al. Randomized study with cyclosporine in kidney transplantation: 10-year followup. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996; 7: 792–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pirsch JD, Miller J, Deierhoi MH, et al. A comparison of tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression after cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1997; 63: 977–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mayer AD, Dimitreski J, Squifflet JP, et al. Multicenter randomized trial comparing tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine in the prevention of renal allograft rejection: a report of the European Tacrolimus Multicenter Renal Study Group. Transplantation 1997; 64: 436–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, van Bree JB, et al. Improved dose linearity of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics from a microemulsion formula. Pharm Res 1994; 11: 301–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lodge JPA, Pollard SG. Neoral vs sandimmun: interim analysis of a randomized trial of efficacy and safety in preventing acute rejection in new renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 272–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halloran P, Mathew T, Tomlanovic S, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: a pooled efficacy of three randomized double-blind clinical studies in prevention of rejection. Transplantation 1997; 63: 39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taniguchi T, Minami Y. The IL-2/IL-2 receptor system: a current overview. Cell 1993; 73: 5–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soulillou JP, Cantarovich D, Le Mauff B, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-2 receptor (33 B 3.1) as compared with rabbit antihymocyte globulin for prophylaxis against rejection of renal allograft. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1175–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nashan B, Schwinzer R, Schlitt H, et al. Immunological effects of the anti-IL-2 receptor monoclonal antibody BT 563 in liver allografted patients. Transplant Immunol 1995; 3: 203–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kupiec-Weglinski JW, Diamantstein T, Tilney NL, et al. Therapy with monoclonal antibody to interleukin 2 receptor spares suppressor T cells and prevents or reverses acute allograft rejection in rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986; 83: 2624–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirkman RL, Shapiro ME, Carpenter CR, et al. A randomized prospective trial of anti-TAC monoclonal antibody in human renal transplantation. Transplantation 1991; 51: 107–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amlot PL. The clinical and experimental use of monoclonal antibodies to the IL-2 receptor. In: Chatenoud L, editor. Monoclonal antibodies in transplantation. Austin (TX): RG Landes, 1995: 53–98Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Queen C, Schneider WP, Selick HE, et al. A humanized antibody that binds to the interleukin 2 receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989; 86: 10029–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vincenti F, Kirkman R, Light S, et al. Interleukin-2 receptor blockade with daclizumab to prevent acute rejection in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 161–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vincenti F, Nashan B, Light S. Daclizumab: outcome of phase III trials and mechanism of action. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2155–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amlot PL, Rawlings E, Fernando ON, et al. Prolonged action of a chimeric interleukin-2 receptor (CD 25) monoclonal antibody used in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1995; 60: 748–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovarik JM, Rawlings E, Sweny P, et al. Prolonged immunosuppressive effect and minimal immunogenicity from chimeric (CD 25) monoclonal antibody SDZ CHI 621 in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 913–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nashan B, Moore R, Amlot PL, et al. Randomised trial of basiliximab versus placebo for control of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients. Lancet 1997; 350: 1193–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sehgal SN. Rapamune (Sirolimus, Rapamycine): an overview and mechanism of action. Ther Drug Monit 1995; 17: 660–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morice WG, Wiederrecht G, Brunn GJ, et al. Rapamycin inhibition of interleukin-2 dependent p33cdk2 and p34cdc2 kinase activation in T lymphocytes. J Biol Chem 1993; 268: 22737–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Halloran P. Molecular mechanisms of new immunosuppressants. Clin Transplant 1996; 10: 118–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morris RE. Rapamycin: antifungal, antitumor, antiproliferative, and immunosuppressive macrolides. Transplant Rev 1992; 6: 39–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kahan BD. The three fates of immunosuppression in the next millenium: selectivity, synergy, and specificity. Transpl Int 1996; 9: 527–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Granger DK, Cromwell JW, Chen SC, et al. Prolongation of renal allograft survival in a large animal model by oral rapamycin monotherapy. Transplantation 1994; 59: 340–5Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fluhler EN, Dijoseph JF, Armstrong J, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral rapamycin in rats receiving heterotopic heart to ear allografts. Pharmacol Res 1994; 11 Suppl. 10: S344–5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knight R, Ferraresso M, Serino F, et al. Low dose rapamycin potentiates the effects of subtherapeutic doses of cyclosporine to prolong renal allograft survival in the mongrel canine model. Transplantation 1993; 55: 947–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yakimets WJ, Lakey JRT, Yatscoff RW, et al. Prolongation of canine pancreatic islet allograft survival with combined rapamycin and cyclosporine therapy at low doses. Transplantation 1994; 56: 1293–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kahn B, Chang J, Sehgal S. Preclinical evaluation of a new potent immunosuppressive agent, rapamycin. Transplantation 1991; 52: 185–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diloseph JF, Mihatsch MJ, Sehgal SN. Renal effects of rapamycin in the spontaneously hypertensive rat. Transplant Int 1994; 7: 83–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sehgal SN, Camardo JS, Scarola JA, et al. Rapamicyn (sirolimus, rapamune). Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1995; 4: 482–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murgia MG, Jordan S, Kahan BD. The side effect profile of sirolimus: a phase I study in quiescent cyclosporineprednisone treated renal transplant patients. Kidney Int 1996; 49: 209–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kahan BD. Rapamycin: personal algorithms for use based on 250 treated renal allograft recipients. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2185–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kahan BD for the RAPAMUNE US Study Group. A phase III comparative efficacy trial of Rapamune in renal allograft recipients [abstract]. XVII Congress of the Transplantation Society: 1998 Jul 12–17; MontrealGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Backman L, Groth CG, Morales JM, et al. Rapamune (Rapamycin) versus cyclosporine in a triple-drug regimen for the prevention of acute renal allograft rejection: 1 year results of a randomized phase II trial [abstract]. XVII Congress of the Transplantation Society: 1998 Jul 12–17; MontrealGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sedrani R, Cottens S, Kallen J, et al. Chemical modification of Rapamycin: the discovery of SDZ RAD. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2192–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schuler W, Sedrani R, Cottens S, et al. SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivate: pharmacological properties in vitro and in vivo. Transplantation 1997; 64: 36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schuurman HJ, Cottens S, Fuchs S, et al. SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivate. Transplantation 1997; 64: 32–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Böhler T, Waiser J, Budde K, et al. The in vivo effect of rapamycin derivate SDZ RAD on lymphocyte proliferation. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2195–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Adachi K, Kohara T, Nakao N, et al. Design, synthesis and structure-activity relationship of 2-substituted-2-amino-1,3- propanediols: discovery of a novel immunosuppressant, FTY 720. Bioorg Chem Lett 1995; 5: 853–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hannun YA. The sphingomyelin cycle and the second messenger function of ceramide. J Biol Chem 1994; 269: 3125–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yanagawa Y, Sugahara K, Kataoka K, et al. FTY720, a novel immunosuppressant, induces sequestration of circulating mature lymphocytes by acceleration of lymphocyte homings in rats: II. FTY720 prolongs skin allograft survival by decreasing T cell infiltration into grafts but not cytokine production in vivo. J Immunol 1998; 160: 5493–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stepkowski SM, Wang M, Qu X, et al. Synergistic interaction of FTY 720 with cyclosporine or sirolimus to prolong heart allograft survival. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2214–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Xu M, Pirenne J, Antoniou S, et al. FTY 720 compares with FK 506 as rescue therapy in rat heterotopic cardiac transplantation. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2221–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morris RE. New small molecule immunosuppressants for transplantation: review of essential concepts. J Heart Lung Transplant 1993; 12: S275–86Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yuh DD, Morris RE. The immunopharmacology of immunosuppression by 15-deoxyspergualin. Transplantation 1993; 55: 578–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marchman W, Araneda D, De Masi R, et al. Prolongation of xenograft survival after combination therapy with 15-deoxyspergualin and total-lymphoid irradiation in the hamster-to-rat cardiac xenograft model. Transplantation 1992; 53: 30–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Okulo M, Tamara K, Kamata K, et al. 15-deoxyspergualin ‘rescue therapy’ for methylprednisolone-resistant rejection of renal transplants as compared with anti-T cell monoclonal antibody. Transplantation 1993; 55: 505–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Amada N, Okazaki H, Sato T, et al. Benefical effects of 15-deoxyspergualin on late acute rejection occurring more than three months after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2246–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dustin ML, Springer TA. Role of lymphocyte adhesion receptor in transient interactions and cell locomotion. Annu Rev Immunol 1991; 9: 27–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stepkowski SM, Wang M, Qu X, et al. ICAM-1 antisense oligonucleotide blocks kidney allograft rejection in monkey [abstract]. XVII Congress of the Transplantation Society: 1998 Jul 12–17; MontrealGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Glover JM, Leeds JM, Mant TGK, et al. Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic profile of an intercellular adhesion molecule- 1 antisense oligodeoxynucleotide (ISIS 2302). J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997; 282: 1173–80PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Divisione di Nefrologia e DialisiIRCCS Ospedale Maggiore di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations