Advertisement

Surgery pp 1737-1746 | Cite as

Rejection

  • J. Richard Thistlethwaite
  • David Bruce

Abstract

The mammalian immune system is specialized for the discrimination between self and nonself. The appearance of new macromolecules (or antigens) normally signifies a threat, such as an infection or malignant tumor. In these settings, the prompt destruction of antigen-bearing cells is a valuable adaptation. Unfortunately, the same defense mechanisms are also efficiently invoked by the clinical transplantation of potentially lifesaving organs.

Keywords

Transplant Recipient Human Leukocyte Antigen Acute Rejection Renal Transplant Recipient Renal Allograft 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Calne RY WD, Thiru S, et al. Cyclosporin A in patients receiving renal allografts from cadaver donors. Lancet 1978;2:1323–1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fung JJ, Starzl TE. FK506 in solid organ transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 1995;17:592–595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 1983;309:809–815.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Randomised trial comparing tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporin in prevention of liver allograft rejection. European FK506 Multicentre Liver Study Group. Lancet 1994;344:423–428.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A comparison of tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression in liver transplantation. The U.S. Multicenter FK506 Liver Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1110–1115.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Two-year follow-up study of the efficacy and safety of FK 506 in kidney transplant patients. Japanese FK 506 Study Group. Transpllnt 1994;7(suppl 1):S247–S251.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laskow DA, Vincenti F, Neylan JF, Mendez R, Matas AJ. An open-label, concentration-ranging trial of FK506 in primary kidney transplantation: a report of the United States Multicenter FK506 Kidney Transplant Group. Transplantation 1996;62:900–905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Randomized, international study of cyclosporine microemulsion absorption profiling in renal transplantation with basiliximab immunoprophylaxis. Am J Transplant 2002;2:157–166.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Villamil F, Pollard S. C2 monitoring of cyclosporine in de novo liver transplant recipients: the clinician’s perspective. Liver Transpl 2004;10:577–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pape L, Ehrich JH, Offner G. Advantages of cyclosporin A using 2-h levels in pediatric kidney transplantation. Pediatr Nephrol 2004;19:1035–1038.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morton JM, Aboyoun CL, Malouf MA, Plit ML, Glanville AR. Enhanced clinical utility of de novo cyclosporine C2 monitoring after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2004;23:1035–1039.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomson AW. The immunosuppressive macrolides FK-506 and rapamycin. Immunol Lett 1991;29:105–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahan BD, Podbielski J, Napoli KL, Katz SM, Meier-Kriesche HU, Van Buren CT. Immunosuppressive effects and safety of a sirolimus/cyclosporine combination regimen for renal transplantation. Transplantation 1998;66:1040–1046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groth CG, Backman L, Morales JM, et al. Sirolimus (rapamycin)-based therapy in human renal transplantation: similar efficacy and different toxicity compared with cyclosporine. Sirolimus European Renal Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1999;67:1036–1042.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guilbeau JM. Delayed wound healing with sirolimus after liver transplant. Ann Pharmacother 2002;36:1391–1395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langer RM, Kahan BD. Incidence, therapy, and consequences of lymphocele after sirolimus-cyclosporine-prednisone immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2002;74:804–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nashan B, Curtis J, Ponticelli C, Mourad G, Jaffe J, Haas T. Everolimus and reduced-exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal-transplant recipients: a 3-year phase n, randomized, multicenter, open-label study. Transplantation 2004;78:1332–1340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sollinger HW, Belzer FO, Deierhoi MH, et al. RS-61443 (mycophenolate mofetil). A multicenter study for refractory kidney transplant rejection. Ann Surg 1992;216:513–518; discussion 8–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Lancet 1995;345:1321–1325.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation 1995;60:225–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. Transplantation 1996;61:1029–1037.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sollinger HW. Mycophenolates in transplantation. Clin Transplant 2004;18:485–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salvadori M, Holzer H, de Mattos A, et al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium is therapeutically equivalent to mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2004;4:231–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ratcliffe PJ, Dudley CR, Higgins RM, Firth JD, Smith B, Morris PJ. Randomised controlled trial of steroid withdrawal in renal transplant recipients receiving triple immunosuppression. Lancet 1996;348:643–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grewal HP, Thistlethwaite JR Jr, Loss GE, et al. Corticosteroid cessation 1 week following renal transplantation using tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil based immunosuppression. Transplant Proc 1998;30:1378–1379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wiland AM, Fink JC, Weir MR, et al. Should living-unrelated renal transplant recipients receive antibody induction? Results of a clinical experience trial. Transplantation 2004;77:422–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ter Meulen CG, van Riemsdijk I, Hene RJ, et al. Steroid-withdrawal at 3 days after renal transplantation with anti-IL-2 receptor alpha therapy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Am J Transplant 2004;4:803–810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pageaux GP, Calmus Y, Boillot O, et al. Steroid withdrawal at day 14 after liver transplantation: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Liver Transpl 2004;10:1454–1460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hocker B, John U, Plank C, et al. Successful withdrawal of steroids in pediatric renal transplant recipients receiving cyclosporine A and mycophenolate mofetil treatment: results after 4 years. Transplantation 2004;78:228–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaufman DB, Iii GW, Bruce DS, et al. Prospective, randomized, multi-center trial of antibody induction therapy in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003;3:855–864.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lebranchu Y, Bridoux F, Buchler M, et al. Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab compared with antithymocyte globulin in renal transplant patients receiving MMF-containing triple therapy. Am J Transplant 2002;2:48–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zuckermann AO, Grimm M, Czerny M, et al. Improved long-term results with thymoglobuline induction therapy after cardiac transplantation: a comparison of two different rabbit-antithymocyte globulines. Transplantation 2000;69:1890–1898.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    A randomized clinical trial of OKT3 monoclonal antibody for acute rejection of cadaveric renal transplants. Ortho Multicenter Transplant Study Group. N Engl J Med 1985;313:337–342.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tzakis AG, Kato T, Nishida S, et al. Alemtuzumab (Campath-1H) combined with tacrolimus in intestinal and multivisceral transplantation. Transplantation 2003;75:1512–1517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Calne R, Moffatt SD, Friend PJ, et al. Campath IH allows low-dose cyclosporine monotherapy in 31 cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1999;68:1613–1616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Friend PJ, Hale G, Waldmann H, et al. Campath-1M—prophylactic use after kidney transplantation. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Transplantation 1989;48:248–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abou-Jaoude MM, Ghantous I, Almawi WY. Comparison of daclizumab, an interleukin 2 receptor antibody, to anti-thymocyte globulin-Fresenius induction therapy in kidney transplantation. Mol Immunol 2003;39:1083–1088.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ault BH, Honaker MR, Osama Gaber A, et al. Short-term outcomes of Thymoglobulin induction in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Pediatr Nephrol 2002;17:815–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mourad G, Garrigue V, Squifflet JP, et al. Induction versus non-induction in renal transplant recipients with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression. Transplantation 2001;72:1050–1055.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hesse UJ, Troisi R, Jacobs B, et al. A single center’s clinical experience with quadruple immunosuppression including ATG or IL2 antibodies and mycophenolate mofetil in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants. Clin Transplant 2000;14(4 pt 1):340–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Palmer SM, Miralles AP, Lawrence CM, Gaynor JW, Davis RD, Tapson VF. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin decreases acute rejection after lung transplantation: results of a randomized, prospective study. Chest 1999;116:127–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thibaudin D, Alamartine E, de Filippis JP, Diab N, Laurent B, Berthoux F. Advantage of antithymocyte globulin induction in sensitized kidney recipients: a randomized prospective study comparing induction with and without antithymocyte globulin. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13:711–715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kovarik J, Wolf P, Cisterne JM, et al. Disposition of basiliximab, an interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in recipients of mismatched cadaver renal allografts. Transplantation 1997;64:1701–1705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Waldmann TA, O’Shea J. The use of antibodies against the IL-2 receptor in transplantation. Curr Opin Immunol 1998;10:507–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Millis JM, Cronin DC, Newell KA, et al. Tacrolimus treatment of steroid-resistant rejection provides economic advantages compared with OKT3 therapy. Transplant Proc 1997;29:1549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Woodle ES, Thistlethwaite JR, Gordon JH, et al. A multicenter trial of FK506 (tacrolimus) therapy in refractory acute renal allograft rejection. A report of the Tacrolimus Kidney Transplantation Rescue Study Group. Transplantation 1996;62:594–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Woodle ES, Cronin D, Newell KA, et al. Tacrolimus therapy for refractory acute renal allograft rejection: definition of the histologic response by protocol biopsies. Transplantation 1996;62:906–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shimizu T, Tokiwa M, Yamaguchi Y. A case of acute antidonor antibody-mediated humoral rejection after renal transplantation with specific consideration of serial graft biopsy histology. Clin Transplant 2002;16(suppl 8):62–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Crespo M, Pascual M, Tolkoff-Rubin N, et al. Acute humoral rejection in renal allograft recipients: I. Incidence, serology and clinical characteristics. Transplantation 2001;71:652–658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Aichberger C, Nussbaumer W, Rosmanith P, et al. Plasmapheresis for the treatment of acute vascular rejection in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1997;29:169–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Berglin E, Kjellstrom C, Mantovani V, Stelin G, Svalander C, Wiklund L. Plasmapheresis as a rescue therapy to resolve cardiac rejection with vasculitis and severe heart failure. A report of five cases. Transpl Int 1995;8:382–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Faye A, Van Den Abeele T, Peuchmaur M, Mathieu-Boue A, Vilmer E. Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders. Lancet 1998;352:1285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Aranda JM Jr, Scornik JC, Normann SJ, et al. Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab] therapy for acute cardiac humoral rejection: a case report. Transplantation 2002;73:907–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Garrett HE Jr, Groshart K, Duvall-Seaman D, Combs D, Suggs R. Treatment of humoral rejection with rituximab. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:1240–1242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Becker YT, Becker BN, Pirsch JD, Sollinger HW. Rituximab as treatment for refractory kidney transplant rejection. Am J Transplant 2004;4:996–1001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Solez K. International standardization of criteria for histologic diagnosis of chronic rejection in renal allografts. Clin Transplant 1994;8(3 pt 2):345–350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Matas AJ, Burke JF Jr, DeVault GA Jr, Monaco A, Pirsch JD. Chronic rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol 1994;4(8 suppl):S23–S29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tesi RJ, Elkhammas EA, Henry ML, Ferguson RM. OKT3 for primary therapy of the first rejection episode in kidney transplants. Transplantation 1993;55:1023–1029.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ashraf S, Parrott NR, Dyer P, Roberts I, Johnson RW. Clinical response and temporal patterns of acute cellular rejection: relationship to chronic transplant nephropathy. Transpl Int 1998;11(suppl 1):S5–S9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Klintmalm GB, Nery JR, Husberg BS, Gonwa TA, Tillery GW. Rejection in liver transplantation. Hepatology 1989;10:978–985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mor E, Gonwa TA, Husberg BS, Goldstein RM, Klintmalm GB. Late-onset acute rejection in orthotopic liver transplantation-associated risk factors and outcome. Transplantation 1992;54:821–824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dousset B, Conti F, Cherruau B, et al. Is acute rejection deleterious to long-term liver allograft function? J Hepatol 1998;29:660–668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Snover DC, Freese DK, Sharp HL, Bloomer JR, Najarian JS, Ascher NL. Liver allograft rejection. An analysis of the use of biopsy in determining outcome of rejection. Am J Surg Pathol 1987;11:1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    McDiarmid SV, Klintmalm GB, Busuttil RW. FK506 conversion for intractable rejection of the liver allograft. Transpl Int 1993;6:305–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Grimbert P, Baron C, Fruchaud G, et al. Long-term results of a prospective randomized study comparing two immunosuppressive regimens, one with and one without CsA, in low-risk renal transplant recipients. Transpl Int 2002;15:550–555.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tran HT, Acharya MK, McKay DB, et al. Avoidance of cyclo-sporine in renal transplantation: effects of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11:1903–1909.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stegall MD, Larson TS, Prieto M, et al. Kidney transplantation without calcineurin inhibitors using sirolimus. Transplant Proc 2003;35(3 suppl):125S–127S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schrama YC, Joles JA, van Tol A, Boer P, Koomans HA, Hene RJ. Conversion to mycophenolate mofetil in conjunction with stepwise withdrawal of cyclosporine in stable renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2000;69:376–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kotb M, Russell WC, Hathaway DK, Gaber LW, Gaber AO. The use of positive B cell flow cytometry crossmatch in predicting rejection among renal transplant recipients. Clin Transplant 1999;13(1 pt 2):83–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pelletier RP, Orosz CG, Adams PW, et al. Clinical and economic impact of flow cytometry crossmatching in primary cadaveric kidney and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 1997;63:1639–1645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Christiaans MH, Overhof R, ten Haaft A, Nieman F, van Hooff JP, van den Berg-Loonen EM. No advantage of flow cytometry crossmatch over complement-dependent cytotoxicity in immunologically well-documented renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1996;62:1341–1347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mahoney RJ, Norman DJ, Colombe BW, Garovoy MR, Leeber DA. Identification of high-and low-risk second kidney grafts. Transplantation 1996;61:1349–1355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Scornik JC, Brunson ME, Schaub B, Howard RJ, Pfaff WW. The crossmatch in renal transplantation. Evaluation of flow cytometry as a replacement for standard cytotoxicity. Transplantation 1994;57:621–625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ogura K, Terasaki PI, Johnson C, et al. The significance of a positive flow cytometry crossmatch test in primary kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1993;56:294–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ogura K, Terasaki PI, Koyama H, Chia J, Imagawa DK, Busuttil RW. High 1-month liver graft failure rates in flow cytometry crossmatch-positive recipients. Clin Transplant 1994;8(2 pt 1):111–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bishay ES, Cook DJ, Starling RC, et al. The clinical significance of flow cytometry crossmatching in heart transplantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;17:362–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chow FY, Polkinghorne K, Saunder A, Kerr PG, Atkins RC, Chadban SJ. Historical controlled trial of OKT3 versus basiliximab induction therapy in simultaneous pancreas-renal transplantation. Nephrology (Carlton) 2003;8:212–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mocarquer A, Pinto V, Buckel E, et al. of the Simulect Multi-center Study Group of Chile. Basiliximab: efficacy and tolerabil-ity in adults and children. Transplant Proc 2003;35:2518–2519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Martin Garcia D, Martin Gago J, Mendiluce A, et al. Tacrolimus-basiliximab versus cyclosporine-basiliximab in renal transplantation “de novo”: acute rejection and complications. Transplant Proc 2003;35:1694–1696.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kode R, Fa K, Chowdhury S, et al. Basiliximab plus low-dose cyclosporin versus OKT3 for induction immunosuppression following renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 2003;17:369–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sheashaa HA, Bakr MA, Ismail AM, Sobh MA, Ghoneim MA. Basiliximab reduces the incidence of acute cellular rejection in live-related-donor kidney transplantation: a three-year prospective randomized trial. J Nephrol 2003;16:393–398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lawen JG, Davies EA, Mourad G, et al. of the Simulect International Study Group. Randomized double-blind study of immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in combination with mycophe-nolate mofetil-containing triple therapy in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003;75:37–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Offner G, Broyer M, Niaudet P, et al. A multicenter, open-label, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic safety, and tolerability study of basiliximab (Simulect) in pediatric de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2002;74:961–966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Lebranchu Y, Bridoux F, Buchler M, et al. Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab compared with antithymocyte globulin in renal transplant patients receiving MMF-containing triple therapy. Am J Transplant 2002;2:48–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Neuhaus P, Clavien PA, Kittur D, et al. of the CHIC 304 International Liver Study Group. Improved treatment response with basiliximab immunoprophylaxis after liver transplantation: results from a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Liver Transpl 2002;8:132–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Calmus Y, Scheele JR, Gonzalez-Pinto I, et al. Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in combination with azathioprine-containing triple therapy in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2002;8:123–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Sollinger H, Kaplan B, Pescovitz MD, et al. Basiliximab versus antithymocyte globulin for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 2001;72:1915–1919.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ponticelli C, Yussim A, Cambi V, et al. of the Simulect Phase IV Study Group. A randomized, double-blind trial of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis plus triple therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2001;72:1261–1267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kahan BD, Rajagopalan PR, Hall M. Reduction of the occurrence of acute cellular rejection among renal allograft recipients treated with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2-receptor monoclonal antibody. United States Simulect Renal Study Group. Transplantation 1999;67:276–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Nashan B, Moore R, Amlot P, Schmidt AG, Abeywickrama K, Soulillou JP. Randomised trial of basiliximab versus placebo for control of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients. CHIB 201 International Study Group. Lancet 1997;350:1193–1198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Pescovitz MD, Bumgardner G, Gaston RS, et al. Pharmacokinetics of daclizumab and mycophenolate mofetil with cyclosporine and steroids in renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 2003;17:511–517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Abou-Jaoude MM, Ghantous I, Najm R, Afif C, Almawi WY. Daclizumab versus anti-thymocyte globulin-fresenius as induction therapy for low-risk kidney transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2003;35:2731–2732.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Heffron TG, Pillen T, Smallwood GA, Welch D, Oakley B, Romero R. Pediatric liver transplantation with daclizumab induction. Transplantation 2003;75:2040–2043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kuypers DR, Vanrenterghem YF. Monoclonal antibodies in renal transplantation: old and new. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19:297–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Stratta RJ, Alloway RR, Lo A, Hodge E. Two-dose daclizumab regimen in simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant recipients: primary endpoint analysis of a multicenter, randomized study. Transplantation 2003;75:1260–1266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ahsan N, Holman MJ, Jarowenko MV, Razzaque MS, Yang HC. Limited dose monoclonal IL-2R antibody induction protocol after primary kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2002;2:568–573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Stratta RJ, Alloway RR, Hodge E, Lo A; Pancreas Investigators Vital Outcomes Trial (PIVOT) Study Group. A multicenter, open-label, comparative trial of two daclizumab dosing strategies versus no antibody induction in simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation: 6-month interim analysis. Transplant Proc 2002;34:1903–1905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Brock MV, Borja MC, Ferber L, et al. Induction therapy in lung transplantation: a prospective, controlled clinical trial comparing OKT3, anti-thymocyte globulin, and daclizumab. J Heart Lung Transplant 2001;20:1282–1290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Bumgardner GL, Hardie I, Johnson RW, et al. of the Phase III Daclizumab Study Group. Results of 3-year phase HI clinical trials with daclizumab prophylaxis for prevention of acute rejection after renal transplantation. Transplantation 2001;72:839–845.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ekberg H, Backman L, Tufveson G, Tyden G, Nashan B, Vin-centi F. Daclizumab prevents acute rejection and improves patient survival post transplantation: 1 year pooled analysis. Transpl Int 2000;13:151–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Beniaminovitz A, Itescu S, Lietz K, et al. Prevention of rejection in cardiac transplantation by blockade of the interleukin-2 receptor with a monoclonal antibody. N Engl J Med 2000;342:613–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Nashan B, Light S, Hardie IR, Lin A, Johnson JR. Reduction of acute renal allograft rejection by daclizumab. Daclizumab Double Therapy Study Group. Transplantation 1999;67:110–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Vincenti F, Nashan B, Light S. Daclizumab: outcome of phase HI trials and mechanism of action. Double Therapy and the Triple Therapy Study Groups. Transplant Proc 1998;30:2155–2158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Tzakis AG, Tryphonopoulos P, Kato T, et al. Preliminary experience with alemtuzumab (Campath-IH) and low-dose tacrolimus immunosuppression in adult liver transplantation [erratum in Transplantation 2004;78:489]. Transplantation 2004;77:1209–1214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Kirk AD, Hale DA, Mannon RB, et al. Results from a human renal allograft tolerance trial evaluating the humanized CD52-specific monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab (CAMPATH-IH). Transplantation 2003;76:120–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Richard Thistlethwaite
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Bruce
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryThe University of Chicago Medical CenterChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Medical StaffThe University of Chicago Medical CenterChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Transplant SurgeryLifeLink Healthcare InstituteTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations