
==== Front
Asian Biomed (Res Rev News)
Asian Biomed (Res Rev News)
abm
abm
Asian Biomedicine: Research, Reviews and News
1905-7415
1875-855X
Sciendo

39175954
abm-2024-0015
10.2478/abm-2024-0015
Review
A review of landmark studies on maintenance immunosuppressive regimens in kidney transplantation
Udomkarnjananun Suwasin suwasin.u@gmail.com

Schagen Maaike R.
Hesselink Dennis A.
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Excellence Center for Solid Organ Transplantation, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Renal Immunology and Transplantation Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Center of Excellence on Translational Research in Inflammation and Immunology (CETRII), Department of Microbiology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam 3000, The Netherlands
Suwasin Udomkarnjananun, Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
28 6 2024
6 2024
18 3 92108
© 2024 Suwasin Udomkarnjananun et al., published by Sciendo
2024
Suwasin Udomkarnjananun et al., published by Sciendo
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract

Immunosuppressive medications play a pivotal role in kidney transplantation, and the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), including cyclosporine A (CsA) and tacrolimus (TAC), are considered as the backbone of maintenance immunosuppressive regimens. Since the introduction of CNIs in kidney transplantation, the incidence of acute rejection has decreased, and allograft survival has improved significantly. However, CNI nephrotoxicity has been a major concern, believed to heavily impact long-term allograft survival and function. To address this concern, several CNI-sparing regimens were developed and studied in randomized, controlled, clinical trials, aiming to reduce CNI exposure and preserve long-term allograft function. However, more recent information has revealed that CNI nephrotoxicity is not the primary cause of late allograft failure, and its histopathology is neither specific nor pathognomonic. In this review, we discuss the historical development of maintenance immunosuppressive regimens in kidney transplantation, covering the early era of transplantation, the CNI-sparing era, and the current era where the alloimmune response, rather than CNI nephrotoxicity, appears to be the major contributor to late allograft failure. Our goal is to provide a chronological overview of the development of maintenance immunosuppressive regimens and summarize the most recent information for clinicians caring for kidney transplant recipients (KTRs).

Keywords

calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity
clinical trials
immunosuppression
kidney transplantation
maintenance regimen
National Research Council of Thailand (Grant for New Researcher)N42A661041 Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund of Chulalongkorn UniversityGA66/084 The writing of this paper was supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (Grant for New Researcher), Grant/Award Number: N42A661041 and Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund of Chulalongkorn University (GA66/084).
==== Body
pmcSince the first successful kidney transplantation in 1954, kidney transplantation has become the standard treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), offering significant benefits in terms of both patient survival and quality of life when compared with dialysis [1, 2]. The progress in kidney transplantation has been greatly facilitated by advances in various aspects of the procedure, including pre-transplant evaluation of donor and recipient, surgical techniques, tissue typing and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching, and post-transplant care [3, 4]. However, the most impactful advance in kidney and other forms of solid organ transplantation has been the development of immunosuppression [5, 6]. The introduction of the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) cyclosporine A (CsA) and later, tacrolimus (TAC), along with mycophenolic acid (MPA), has significantly reduced the acute allograft rejection rate to <15% and has improved kidney allograft survival to over 95% at 1 year after transplantation [6]. Nevertheless, the use of CNIs in earlier eras, when higher pre-dose concentrations (C0) were targeted, was limited by their nephrotoxic effects [7], [8], [9], [10].

In this review article, we aim to provide a brief historical perspective and an update on the landmark randomized, controlled, clinical trials (RCTs) that have significantly influenced our clinical approach to maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation.

The era of CNI and MPA

The concept of rejection in organ transplantation is grounded in the understanding of alloantigen recognition and sensitization [11]. Non-self HLA antigens on the allograft are primarily recognized by the recipient's T cells and subsequently by B cells, leading to T cell-mediated rejection and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), respectively [12]. Immunosuppressive medications have been utilized since the early era of solid organ transplantation to prevent transplant rejection. However, their use necessitates a delicate balance with the risk of adverse effects, notably infections, malignancies, and cardiovascular complications [13].

In the 1960s, azathioprine (AZA) and corticosteroids made up the standard immunosuppressive regimen for the prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation [14]. However, allograft survival was poor, and the acute rejection rate was as high as 60% in the first year after transplantation [2, 14]. In 1983, 2 landmark RCTs regarding the use of CsA in kidney transplantation were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet [15, 16]. A study conducted by the Canadian Multicentre Transplant Study Group compared kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who received AZA vs. CsA, both in combination with prednisolone as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. The study found that the CsA group (n = 103) had significantly better allograft survival at 1 year compared with the AZA group (n = 107), with rates of 80% and 60%, respectively [15]. Similarly, results from the European Multicentre Trial Group demonstrated superior 1-year kidney allograft survival in KTR treated with CsA monotherapy (n = 117) compared with those who received AZA and prednisolone (n = 115), with survival rates of 72% and 55%, respectively [16]. These 2 RCTs were pivotal in integrating CsA into the standard maintenance immunosuppressive regimen following kidney transplantation.

Initially, CsA was prescribed in a fixed dose regimen of 5 mg/kg/d, which resulted in nephrotoxicity and poor kidney allograft function. Subsequent RCTs explored the use of reduced-dose CsA in combination with AZA and prednisolone. This approach aimed to mitigate the dose-dependent nephrotoxicity of CsA, while maintaining overall immunosuppressive efficacy. Notably, when administered at a lower dose of 2 mg/kg/d, as part of a triple therapeutic regimen, this protocol significantly improved kidney allograft function [17]. Conversely, KTR who received higher-dose CsA monotherapy experienced more adverse effects, particularly nephrotoxicity and gum hypertrophy [17]. As a result, the triple immunosuppressive regimen consisting of CsA, AZA, and prednisolone became the standard in the late 1980s. Around the same period, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of CsA gained significant attention, marking CsA as the first immunosuppressive drug in solid organ transplantation to demonstrate a concentration–effect relationship [14, 18]. A higher concentration of CsA in the blood (initially in plasma, later whole blood) was demonstrated to be associated with a lower incidence of acute rejection but an increased likelihood of developing nephrotoxicity [19], [20], [21], [22]. The target concentration of CsA, determined using either the pre-dose (C0) or 2-h post-dose concentration (C2), serves as a surrogate for the total exposure measured by the area-under the concentration vs. time curve (AUC) [14, 18, 23]. Evidence indicates that utilizing C2, as opposed to C0, serves as a superior surrogate single concentration timepoint correlated with AUC. Comparative studies have shown that C2 is a more accurate predictor of kidney allograft loss [24], kidney function [25], [26], [27], and allograft rejection [27], [28], [29], [30], as extensively reviewed in dedicated articles on TDM [30], [31], [32], [33].

Not long after the incorporation of CsA into the standard AZA and corticosteroid immunosuppressive regimen for KTR, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a prodrug of MPA, demonstrated additional advantages when added to CsA-based regimens. A study, conducted by the European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group, revealed that the addition of MMF to the CsA/prednisolone regimen resulted in a remarkable 60%–70% reduction in acute rejection episodes compared with a placebo [34]. This efficacy of MMF was further validated in another RCT that compared MMF with AZA in KTR who were receiving CsA and prednisolone. The MMF group exhibited a 16% lower incidence of either biopsy-proven rejection or treatment failure within 6 months compared with the AZA group [35]. Importantly, a pooled analysis of 3 phase III multi-center RCTs (the 3 pivotal trials) conducted in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia, showed that the use of MMF compared with AZA, in the regimen containing CsA and corticosteroids, significantly reduced the incidence of acute rejection and resulted in better allograft function at 12 months [36]. It is worth noting that in another RCT, conducted in a more modern era, the use of a microemulsion form of CsA rather than the oil-based CsA, did not show a difference in terms of acute rejection and allograft survival when comparing MMF to AZA [37, 38]. The microemulsion form of CsA has more consistent exposure of CsA than the CsA form used in the older RCTs (including the 3 pivotal studies). A meta-analysis has confirmed the superiority of MPA over AZA in terms of graft survival and prevention of acute rejection [39]. As a result, MPA has replaced AZA and has become the primary antimetabolite used in the maintenance regimen of kidney transplantation in conjunction with CsA [40].

While CsA offered significant benefits in organ transplantation, the introduction of TAC (FK506), a second CNI, marked a further enhancement in kidney transplant outcomes. Initially, TAC was employed as a salvage therapy for refractory liver allograft rejection [41]. Subsequent trials, assessing various therapeutic concentration ranges, established that a C0 of 5–15 ng/mL was associated with optimal efficacy and minimal toxicity for TAC [42]. In head-to-head RCTs comparing this concentration range of TAC to CsA, TAC demonstrated a substantial reduction in the incidence of acute rejection and corticosteroid-resistant rejection amongst KTR [43, 44]. A meta-analysis further supported the superiority of TAC over CsA in terms of preventing acute rejection and improving kidney allograft survival [45]. Additional benefits of TAC compared with CsA include a reduced occurrence of severe hypertension, hyperuricemia, hypercholesterolemia, hirsutism, and gum hypertrophy [46], [47], [48], [50]. As a result, the standard maintenance immunosuppression regimen transitioned to TAC, MPA, and corticosteroids at the beginning of the 21st century.

Concern of CNI nephrotoxicity

Despite significant improvements in acute rejection rates and short-term (i.e., 1-year) allograft survival with the TAC, MPA, and corticosteroids regimen, long-term allograft survival has seen minimal improvement [51, 52]. Various proposed mechanisms contribute to these persistently poor long-term outcomes, with nephrotoxicity linked to TAC and CsA being a significant factor. Animal studies have clearly demonstrated that exposure of nephrons to CNIs results in dose-dependent constriction of afferent arterioles and acute tubular injury, leading to renal dysfunction [53]. These mechanisms involve decreased prostaglandin and nitric oxide production, as well as activation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems [8, 9]. Additionally, CNIs can cause endothelial injury and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), either through vasoconstriction-related ischemia or the direct activation of pro-thrombotic factors [9, 54]. Furthermore, CNI nephrotoxicity also manifests as chronic and irreversible damage to kidney structures, including glomeruli (causing focal segmental or global glomerulosclerosis), tubulo-interstitium (characterized by interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy; IFTA), and vessels (resulting in medial arteriolar hyalinosis) [8, 9]. These chronic changes are believed to be one of the leading causes of long-term allograft failure [9].

Notably, a landmark study published in 2003 that analyzed 10-year surveillance biopsy results of 120 KTR, comprising 961 biopsy specimens, revealed that the prevalence of CNI nephrotoxicity was 100% at 10 years post kidney transplantation [7]. The authors concluded that CNI nephrotoxicity was a significant contributor to chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN, historically defined as chronic IFTA, vascular occlusive changes, and glomerulosclerosis), and suggested that CNIs were unsuitable for long-term immunosuppression due to these adverse effects [7]. While these statements have faced subsequent debates as will be discussed below, the transplant community has invested significant efforts in reducing the use of CNIs or minimizing their usage as much as possible to mitigate these long-term consequences, marking the beginning of the “CNI-sparing regimen” era in the early decades of the 21st century.

CNI-sparing regimens

The CNI-sparing regimens can be categorized into 4 main groups: CNI avoidance, CNI withdrawal, CNI conversion, and CNI minimization (Figure 1) [55], [56], [57]. CNI avoidance entails not including any CNIs from the time of transplantation. CNI withdrawal involves discontinuing CNIs from the maintenance regimen at specific time points, either early (<6 months) or late (≥6 months) after kidney transplantation. CNI conversion follows a similar strategy to CNI withdrawal, but instead of discontinuing CNIs, it substitutes them with another anti-metabolite, such as a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) or MPA, or converting to belatacept. Finally, CNI minimization uses CNIs throughout the post-transplant period but at a reduced dose to achieve a lower target therapeutic concentration (i.e., C0 <10 ng/mL) compared with the originally recommended concentrations in earlier eras (C0 10–15 ng/mL). Numerous RCTs have explored the efficacy and safety of these CNI-sparing regimens, as extensively reviewed elsewhere [55, 56], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62].

Figure 1. Concept of CNI-sparing strategy. The “early period” denotes interventions applied within 4–6 months after transplantation, while the “late period” refers to interventional timing after that. CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; MPA, mycophenolic acid; mTORi, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor.

Diagram showing four strategies: CNI avoidance, CNI withdrawal, CNI conversion, and CNI minimization, each with drug combination options like MPA, mTORi, and corticosteroids. The diagram outlines four strategies related to Calcineurin Inhibitor (CNI) use in clinical treatment. Each strategy is accompanied by drug combination options and timing notes: 1. **CNI Avoidance**: This strategy starts with avoiding CNI from the beginning ("De novo"). Treatment options listed are: - MPA + Corticosteroid - mTORi + Corticosteroid - mTORi + MPA + Corticosteroid - Belatacept + MPA + Corticosteroid 2. **CNI Withdrawal**: In this case, CNI is used initially and withdrawn either early or late. The accompanying drug therapies are: - MPA + Corticosteroid - mTORi + Corticosteroid 3. **CNI Conversion**: Conversion from CNI to another therapy either early or late. Drug options here are: - mTORi + MPA + Corticosteroid 4. **CNI Minimization**: CNI is reduced either from the beginning, early, or late in the treatment process. Drug therapies include: - Reduced CNI + MPA + Corticosteroid - Reduced CNI + mTORi + Corticosteroid

Examples of RCTs investigating various immunosuppressive regimens are presented in Table 1. These RCTs are provided for illustrative purposes and do not represent all available RCTs in the corresponding categories [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Several meta-analyses have been conducted to compare the benefits of these strategies with the standard CNI dose plus MPA regimen [57], [79], [80], [81], [82]. The most comprehensive and up-to-date meta-analysis of all CNI-sparing strategies was performed by Sawinski et al. [57]. The authors found that the use of CNI avoidance (mTORi combined with MPA regimen) significantly increased the risk of graft loss with a relative risk (RR) of 3.40 compared with the standard TAC and MPA regimen. CNI withdrawal, followed by only MPA or mTORi maintenance, was associated with an increased risk of acute rejection (RR 3.17 and RR 1.71, respectively). However, the use of CNI conversion to mTORi demonstrated a significant improvement in kidney allograft function without increasing the risk of acute rejection or graft loss, similar to the effect of using a reduced dose of CNI combined with mTORi or MPA compared with the standard CNI dose. Additionally, when a reduced CNI dose was combined with MPA, the risk of acute rejection was significantly decreased (RR 0.80), along with the risk of graft loss (RR 0.71), compared with the standard dose CNI with MPA regimen. From this meta-analysis, the CNI-sparing regimens that appear to have a sufficient level of evidence supporting demonstrable benefits are CNI-to-mTORi conversion and the CNI minimization strategy. Among the “no CNI regimen” strategies, including avoidance, withdrawal, and conversion, it is important to emphasize that the CNI conversion and withdrawal strategy can be influenced by large variations in the timing of intervention. This timing can range from early (within 4–6 months after transplantation) to late (after 4–6 months after transplantation). Such variation may lead to different conclusions between studies. For instance, studies with early intervention might encounter higher rates of acute rejection due to allo-sensitization after CNI removal, whereas studies with late intervention might be more likely to achieve successful conversion or withdrawal due to T cell exhaustion after a longer period post-transplantation [83, 84].

Table 1. Example of key randomized controlled trials in maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation and an overview of their outcomes.

The table compares different approaches to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) management in kidney transplantation: CNI Avoidance: Increased risk of rejection, some studies show better GFR, and a higher risk of graft loss. CNI Withdrawal: Increased rejection risk, some studies show improved GFR and lower viral infection rates. CNI Conversion: Better GFR and lower viral infection rates; some show higher rejection and lower cancer rates. CNI Minimization: Better GFR and some studies show lower viral infection rates. Limitations: Population differences, variable outcomes, treatment protocols, follow-up duration, and control groups differ across studies. CNI avoidance	CNI withdrawal	CNI conversion	CNI minimization	
• ELITE-Symphony [85]

• ORION [72]

• BENEFIT [103]

• SPEISSER [65]

	• CAESAR [66]

• ORION [72]

• Creeping Creatinine Study [64]

• Rapamune Maintenance Regimen Study [63]

	• CONVERT [88]

• CONCEPT [68]

• SMART [70]

• Spare the Nephron Study [74]

• ZEUS [75]

• HERAKLES [77]

• ASCERTAIN [73]

• ELEVATE [78]

	• CAESAR [66]

• ELITE-Symphony [85]

• OPTICEPT [67]

• A2309 Study [71]

• EVEREST [69]

• ASSEST [76]

• TRANSFORM [95]

	
○ Increased risk of rejection [72, 85, 103]

○ Some showed better GFR [103]

○ Some showed increased risk of graft loss [85] (non-belatacept study)

	○ Increased risk of rejection [66, 72]

○ Some showed better GFR and lower viral infection rate [63, 64]

	○ Better GFR [68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 88]

○ Lower viral infection rate [70, 74, 77, 78, 88]

○ Some showed higher rejection rate and lower cancer rate [68, 75, 78, 88]

	○ Better GFR [67, 85]

○ Some showed lower viral infection rate [66, 71, 95]

	
Limitations in interpretation ❖ The included populations are different among studies, mostly low-to-moderate risk patients.

❖ Different tissue typing, organ allocation system, preformed anti-HLA detection.

❖ Dynamic change of outcomes: Banff classification, eGFR estimation.

❖ Different patient care: target C0 concentration, induction regimen and dose.

❖ Lacking of de novo anti-HLA detection protocol.

❖ Different follow-up duration, time of intervention (conversion and withdrawal).

❖ Different “standard” control group.

	
C0, pre-dose concentration; CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; HLA, human leukocyte antigen

An overview of outcomes from RCTs and meta-analyses is presented in Table 1. However, these comparisons are limited by several factors, primarily stemming from the high heterogeneity between studies. These CNI-sparing studies were conducted between 2000 and 2018, a period marked by continuous and significant changes in the field of kidney transplantation. These changes encompassed advancements in tissue typing methods, modifications in organ allocation procedures, the detection of preformed and de novo antibodies against HLA, and variations in the definition of “standard” groups in different studies. Importantly, outcome measurements also varied from one study to another, with differences in approaches such as the utilization of the Banff classification and the estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), which also underwent changes over time. It is crucial to recognize the differences in study design and the implications of each study. In the following section, notable landmark RCTs for the current maintenance immunosuppressive medication regimens are discussed to provide insight into the distinctions between each regimen and their respective advantages and disadvantages. The PubMed database was searched using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) with “kidney transplantation” and “immunosuppression therapy.” Studies were selected based on their high impact on the transplant community and guidelines, starting from the Efficacy Limiting Toxicity Elimination (ELITE)-Symphony study, which significantly contributed to the current standard maintenance regimen. A summary of these RCTs is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of modern randomized controlled trials in maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation.

The table summarizes modern randomized controlled trials in kidney transplantation, focusing on different immunosuppressive strategies. Key points include: Studies: ELITE-Symphony, FREEDOM, CONVERT, BENEFIT. Immunosuppressive Protocols: ELITE-Symphony (2007): Examined de novo CNI minimization with varying levels of Tacrolimus (TAC), cyclosporine A (CSA), and Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in a study of 1,645 patients. FREEDOM (2008/2012): Compared steroid-free and steroid withdrawal protocols in 337 patients with CSA + basiliximab-based regimens. CONVERT (2009): Examined late conversion from CSA to sirolimus (SRL) in a study of 830 patients, assessing the effect on GFR and graft survival. BENEFIT (2010/2016): Focused on belatacept-based regimens, comparing intensive vs. less-intensive belatacept, showing better patient and graft survival. Findings: ELITE-Symphony: TAC had better GFR and graft survival, but higher diabetes rates. FREEDOM: Steroid withdrawal was associated with no major differences in graft function. CONVERT: SRL conversion led to higher GFR but also higher rejection rates. BENEFIT: Belatacept showed better long-term outcomes compared to CNI, especially in secondary analyses. This provides an overview of how different strategies affect outcomes like GFR, rejection rates, and long-term survival in kidney transplant patients. Study (year)	KTR included	Type of study	Comparison and target C0 (ng/mL)	Allograft function (mean eGFR, mL/min)	Acute rejection (%)	Patient and graft survival	Other findings	
ELITE-Symphony (NEJM 2007) [85]	1,645	De novo CNI minimization

De novo CNI avoidance

	CsA (relatively higher C0) (150–300 for 3 months then 100–200)

CsA (100–200) + daclizumab

TAC (3–7) + daclizumab

SRL (4–8) + daclizumab

(Base: MMF + steroid)

	TAC was associated with best allograft function.

(57, 59, 65, 57)

	TAC was associated with lowest allograft rejection.

(30, 27, 15, 40)

	TAC was associated with best allograft survival. Patient survivals were not different.	TAC was associated with lowest treatment failure rate.	
FREEDOM (AJT 2008) [112]	337	De novo steroid avoidance

Early steroid withdrawal

	Steroid free

Steroid withdrawal on D8

Standard steroid (Base: Basiliximab + CsA + MPS)

(target C2 CsA 1,500–2,000 ng/mL during month 1, 1,300–1,700 ng/mL during month 2, 1,100–1,500 ng/mL during month 3, 900–1,300 ng/mL during months 4–6 and 800–1,000 ng/mL thereafter)

	Allograft functions were similar.

(56, 55, 59)

	Steroid-free regimen was associated with the highest incidence of acute rejection, followed by steroid-withdrawal, and standard steroid.

(32, 26, 15)

	Allograft and patient survival were similar.	Steroid-free group used less anti-hyperglycemic medication.

Number of KTR diagnosed with diabetes at month 12 was similar between groups.

	
CONVERT (Transplantation 2009) [88]

830

Late CNI conversion

CNI continuation (CsA C0 50–250 or TAC C0 4–10)

CNI conversion to SRL (6–120 months) (C0 8–20)

(Base: AZA or MMF + steroids)

		Overall allograft functions were similar.

(61, 64)

	Acute rejections were similar.

(1.5, 3.1)

	Allograft and patient survival were similar.	Patients with baseline GFR >40 mL/min had significantly higher GFR after SRL conversion.

SRL conversion patients with baseline UPCR >1.0 had a higher percentage of UPCR >1.0 at 24 months.

	
BENEFIT (NEJM 2016) [103]	666	De novo CNI avoidance	More intensive belatacept

Less intensive belatacept

CsA (150–300 the first month and 100–250 thereafter)

(Base: Basiliximab + MMF + glucocorticoids)

	Belatacept groups were associated with better allograft function.

(70, 72, 45)

	Belatacept groups were associated with higher acute rejections.

(24, 18, 11)

	The composite of patient and graft survival was better in belatacept group (patient but not graft survival reached significant level in secondary analysis).	De novo DSA was significantly lower in belatacept groups.

PTLD occurred mainly in EBV negative KTR with more intensive belatacept.

	
HARMONY (Lancet 2016) [113]	587	Early steroid withdrawal	Basiliximab + standard steroid

Basiliximab + steroid withdrawal on D8

ATG + steroid withdrawal on D8

(Base: advagraf + MMF)

(Advagraf target C0 7–12 ng/mL within the first month, 6–10 ng/mL during months 2 and 3, and 3–8 ng/mL during months 4–12)

	Allograft functions were similar.

(46, 47, 50)

	Acute rejections were similar.

(11, 11, 10)

	Allograft and patient survival were similar.	Incidence of PTDM and osteoporosis were lower in steroid-withdrawal groups.

Anemia was more frequent in steroid-withdrawal groups.

	
TRANSFORM (JASN 2018) [95]	2,226	De novo CNI minimization	EVL (C0 3–8) + minimized TAC (C0 4–7 ng/mL during months 0–2, 2–5 ng/mL during months 3–6, 2–4 ng/mL thereafter) or CsA (C0 100–150 ng/mL, 50–100 ng/mL, and 25–50 ng/mL, respectively)

MPA + TAC (C0 8–12 ng/mL during months 0–2, 6–10 ng/mL during months 3–6, and 5–8 ng/mL thereafter) or CsA (C0 200–300 ng/mL, 150–200 ng/mL, and 100–200 ng/mL, respectively)

(Base: Basiliximab or ATG + prednisolone)

	Allograft functions were similar.

(53, 54)

	Acute rejections were similar.

(12, 9)

	Allograft and patient survival were similar.	Discontinuation of study drug was more frequent in the EVL group.

Infections occurred less frequently in the EVL group, mainly CMV and BKV.

	
ATHENA (Kidney Int 2019) [98]	655	De novo EVL vs. MPA in modern CNI exposure	EVL (C0 3–8) + TAC (C0 4–8 until the end of months 2 and 3–5 thereafter)

EVL (C0 3–8) + CsA (C0 75–125 until the end of month 2 and 50–100 thereafter)

MPA + TAC (C0 4–8 until the end of month 2 and 3–5 thereafter)

(Base: Basiliximab + prednisolone)

	Noninferiority was not shown in primary analysis (eGFR margin = 7 mL/min/1.73 m2).

(63, 61, 68)

	Acute rejections were similar between TAC groups, but was higher in CsA group.

(7, 5, 19)

	Allograft and patient survival were similar.	Drug discontinuation was more frequent in EVL groups.

Post hoc analysis showed noninferiority if eGFR margin set at 9 mL/min/1.73 m2.

Infections were less frequent in EVL groups, mainly CMV and BKV.

	
Significant findings are presented in bold.

ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin; AZA, azathioprine; BENEFIT, Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-line Immunosuppression Trial; BKV, BK virus; C0, pre-dose concentration; C2, two hours-post-dose concentration; CMV, cytomegalovirus; CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; CONVERT, the Sirolimus Renal Conversion Trial; CsA, cyclosporine A; DSA, donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibody; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ELITE, Efficacy Limiting Toxicity Elimination; EVL, everolimus; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; KTR, kidney transplant recipient; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MPA, mycophenolic acid; MPS, mycophenolate sodium; PTDM, post-transplant diabetes mellitus; PTLD, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder; SRL, sirolimus; TAC, tacrolimus; TRANSFORM, Transplant Efficacy and Safety Outcomes with an Everolimus-based regimen; UPCR, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio.

Selected clinical trials of current maintenance immunosuppression

ELITE-Symphony study

In the current era, the pivotal RCT that holds significant importance in the realm of maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplantation is the ELITE-Symphony study [85]. This study served as the catalyst for establishing TAC (with the current therapeutic target C0), MPA, and corticosteroids as the standard immunosuppressive regimen. The study encompassed 1,645 KTR from 15 countries, excluding those with a panel reactive antibody (PRA) >20% and a cold ischemic time (CIT) surpassing 30 h. KTR were randomized into 4 groups: the standard-dose CsA group (C0 100–200 ng/mL), low-dose CsA group (C0 50–100 ng/mL), low-dose TAC group (C0 3–7 ng/mL), and low-dose sirolimus (SRL) group (C0 4–8 ng/mL). The term “low-dose,” as employed in this study, was relative to the immunosuppressant dosages utilized during that period. For instance, low-dose TAC aimed at a target C0 of 3–7 ng/mL compared with the standard C0 of 10–15 ng/mL at that time. Each group received MMF (2 g/d) and prednisolone as part of the combined immunosuppressive therapy. Daclizumab was administered as the induction therapy in all groups, except for the high-dose CsA group, which did not receive any induction.

At the 12-month mark, the low-dose TAC group demonstrated superiority over the other groups in terms of the primary outcome, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), as well as secondary outcomes, including measured GFR, lower rejection rates, improved allograft survival, and reduced treatment failure. The advantages of enhanced allograft function and allograft survival persisted for at least 3 years in the subsequent extension follow-up study [86]. It is worth noting that, although the protocol specified a target C0 range of 3–7 ng/mL for TAC, the actual observed C0 in the study fell within the range of 5–10 ng/mL [87]. Consequently, CNI minimization, characterized by low-dose TAC, has since become the standard immunosuppressive regimen in kidney transplantation.

CONVERT study

Simultaneously with the minimization strategy in the ELITE-Symphony study, the Sirolimus Renal Conversion Trial (CONVERT) investigated the CNI-conversion strategy as a means to mitigate the long-term adverse effects of CNIs [88]. In this RCT, 830 KTR within 6–120 months post-transplantation were recruited from 11 transplant centers. They were randomized to either continue with CNI (CsA C0 50–250 ng/mL or TAC C0 4–10 ng/mL) along with MMF or AZA and corticosteroids, or to undergo a CNI-to-SRL conversion (target SRL C0 of 8–20 ng/mL).

The authors observed that among KTR with a baseline eGFR >40 mL/min (calculated using the Nankivell formula) and a baseline urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR) of ≤0.11, who underwent conversion to SRL, the mean eGFR was significantly higher than in the CNI-continuation group at both 12 months and 24 months after conversion. There were no significant differences in acute rejection rates, allograft survival, or patient survival between the 2 groups. However, a higher percentage of KTR in the SRL conversion group had to discontinue the treatment compared with the CNI-continuation group (15.7% vs. 9.5%) due to intolerable adverse effects of SRL including anemia, peripheral edema, fever, skin rash, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. Enrollment of KTR with a baseline eGFR of 20–40 mL/min was halted by the Drug Safety Monitoring Board due to a significantly higher number of KTR in the SRL conversion group experiencing acute rejection, graft loss, or mortality compared with the CNI-continuation group.

The results from the CONVERT study were consistent with previous observational studies, which found that lower baseline proteinuria was predictive of successful responders (those with stable or improved kidney allograft function) amongst KTR undergoing CNI-to-SRL conversion [89]. Consequently, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group recommended the replacement of CNI with mTORi in KTR experiencing CNI nephrotoxicity, provided their eGFR >40 mL/min/1.73 m2 and their UPCR is <500 mg/g creatinine [90].

TRANSFORM study

After a decade of utilizing low-dose TAC (C0 5–10 ng/mL) in combination with an MPA/corticosteroids regimen, there has been a growing trend towards using even lower doses of CNIs (a TAC C0 <5 ng/mL) in conjunction with mTORi, to further mitigate the adverse effects of CNI nephrotoxicity [55, 58, 80]. Evidence has indicated that replacing MPA with mTORi provides additional benefits, including a reduced incidence of post-transplant malignancies, particularly skin cancer and Kaposi's sarcoma, as well as a decreased risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and BK virus (BKV) infections [91], [92], [93], [94]. The Transplant Efficacy and Safety Outcomes with an Everolimus-based regimen (TRANSFORM) study is the largest RCT ever conducted in kidney transplantation, involving 2,226 KTR from 186 transplant centers [95]. The primary outcome aimed to compare the composite of biopsy-proven acute rejection and eGFR <50 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 12 months between KTR randomized to either the standard CNI with MPA group or the de novo CNI minimization with everolimus (EVL) group. The standard CNI with MPA group targeted C0 TAC at 5–8 ng/mL or CsA at 200–300 ng/mL, while the CNI minimization group aimed for C0 TAC at 2–4 ng/mL or CsA at 25–50 ng/mL combined with EVL at a C0 of 3–8 ng/mL during the maintenance period. Both groups received basiliximab as an induction therapy. The EVL group was found to be non-inferior to the MPA group for the primary endpoint at 12 months post-transplantation. There were no differences in terms of de novo donor-specific anti-HLA antibody (DSA) development, although this was assessed locally by available centers. However, the EVL group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of CMV and BKV infections compared with the MPA group. The discontinuation rate was higher in the EVL group. In a 2-year follow-up study, EVL continued to be non-inferior to the MPA group [96]. This represents the first study to demonstrate the non-inferiority of de novo mTORi use, which allows for further reduction of CNI exposure compared with the current standard CNI dose with MPA. However, the long-term outcomes, particularly concerning DSA and ABMR, remain to be determined. In elderly KTR, who are less likely to reject their kidney allografts but are more likely to have infectious complications after transplantation, the Open Label Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Standard Immunosuppression with TAC and MMF with a Low Exposure TAC Regimen in Combination with EVL in De novo Renal Transplantation in Elderly Patients (OPTIMIZE) trial is currently running in the Netherlands to investigate the use of CNI-minimization in this specific population [97].

ATHENA study

During approximately the same period as the TRANSFORM study, another group of investigators designed the ATHENA study with the aim of evaluating the efficacy of reduced-dose TAC (TAC C0 3–5 ng/mL) in combination with EVL (C0 3–8 ng/mL, identical to the EVL group in the TRANSFORM study) vs. reduced-dose TAC (C0 3–5 ng/mL) in combination with MPA [98]. The ATHENA study sought to employ lower C0 levels of TAC in the MPA group compared with the TRANSFORM study (i.e., comparing the regimen containing EVL vs. MPA with similar reduced-dose TAC). The primary outcome of the ATHENA study was the eGFR at 12 months post-transplantation.

A total of 665 KTR from 27 centers were included in the ATHENA study. Although the study protocol stipulated that the TAC C0 should fall between 3 ng/mL and 5 ng/mL, the actual results revealed that both the EVL and MPA groups had significantly higher TAC C0 than the planned maximum throughout the study. At month 12 of the study, the TAC C0 for the EVL group averaged 6.0 ± 2.2 ng/mL, while in the MPA group, it was 5.9 ± 2.1 ng/mL. The prespecified non-inferiority margin for eGFR, set at 7 mL/min/1.73 m2, was not statistically achieved. However, a post hoc non-inferiority margin of 9 mL/min/1.73 m2 demonstrated non-inferiority between the EVL and the MPA groups. The authors discussed that the failure to show non-inferiority with the prespecified margin might have been due to insufficient differences between the treatment groups or that the TAC exposure in the groups was too high. Nevertheless, the EVL group was associated with a lower incidence of CMV and BKV infections, reaffirming the benefits of using mTORi, as also demonstrated in the TRANSFORM study [95]. Neither the ATHENA study nor the TRANSFORM study performed TDM of MPA, limiting the assessment of concentration-dependent efficacy and toxicity in the MPA group [99].

Belatacept study

Alongside the CNI minimization and CNI conversion strategies discussed earlier, CNI avoidance using belatacept has been extensively studied with impressive results [100]. Belatacept is a fusion protein comprising the Fc fragment of IgG1 and the extracellular domain of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) [101]. Its primary function is to inhibit the costimulatory signal between CD80/86 and CD28 in the T cell activation process. The Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-line Immunosuppression Trial (BENEFIT) randomized 666 de novo KTR, excluding those with PRA >50% and a CIT >24 h, into 1 of 3 groups [102]. The first and second groups received either more intensive or less intensive belatacept in combination with MMF and glucocorticoids. The more intensive group was administered 11 doses of 10 mg/kg of belatacept intravenously in the first 6 months, followed by 5 mg/kg every 4 weeks, while the less intensive belatacept group received 6 doses of 10 mg/kg in the first 3 months, followed by 5 mg/kg every 4 weeks thereafter. The third group served as the standard comparator at the time of the study's design, involving CsA aiming for a C0 of 100–250 ng/mL and MMF/corticosteroids during the maintenance phase. The BENEFIT study is a modern RCT with one of the longest follow-up times of an immunosuppression regimen ever reported, with results spanning up to 7 years after transplantation [103]. At 7 years, both more intensive and less intensive belatacept regimens exhibited a 43% reduction in the risk of death or graft loss. Additionally, eGFR in the belatacept groups was significantly superior to that in the CsA group throughout the study period. KTR receiving belatacept also developed significantly fewer de novo DSA than those on CsA. While the rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection were higher in the belatacept groups, these rejections were considered manageable and did not adversely affect the long-term outcomes of the recipients. Importantly, the incidence of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) was found to be high among KTR with negative Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology who received belatacept. This led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to contraindicate the use of belatacept for recipients with negative EBV serology [101]. It is worth emphasizing that the comparator in the BENEFIT study was CsA, which is not a standard CNI in the current era.

One RCT investigated the efficacy of de novo belatacept (n = 104) compared with TAC (n = 105) in an early steroid withdrawal regimen, with both groups receiving anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and MPA [104]. The 2-year outcomes revealed comparable patient and allograft survival. Similar to the BENEFIT study, KTR with belatacept also had a higher incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection compared with the TAC group (25% vs. 7%), although the eGFR in the belatacept group was significantly better than in the TAC group. In another smaller RCT, KTR receiving de novo belatacept (n = 20) were compared with those receiving TAC (n = 20) in the context of basiliximab induction and an MMF/prednisolone maintenance regimen. The study revealed that the belatacept group had a significantly higher incidence of acute T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR), which was also more severe compared with the TAC group. This resulted in a trend toward a higher graft loss rate at 1-year in the belatacept group (P = 0.08) [105]. Although patient survival did not differ between the groups, this pilot study confirmed that belatacept may lead to a higher incidence of acute TCMR when compared with a TAC-based maintenance regimen.

Currently, belatacept is employed as an alternative to CNIs, particularly in cases where CNIs are contraindicated, such as in individuals who have experienced CNI-associated TMA or posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) [106]. However, the requirement for intravenous infusion and the associated infusion-related reactions have hindered its widespread use. Another strategy involving belatacept use is late conversion (after 6 months) from TAC to mitigate the risk of TCMR in the early period after transplantation while preserving graft function. This strategy has shown that kidney allograft function improves after belatacept conversion without an increased risk of rejection [107], [108], [109]. Additionally, belatacept conversion might benefit patients with ABMR, as indicated in case series and cohorts that have demonstrated stabilization of allograft function in KTR with ABMR [110, 111]. However, an RCT is required to investigate this strategy further.

Steroid withdrawal studies

Two landmark trials have investigated steroid withdrawal regimens in kidney transplantation. The FREEDOM study involved 337 KTR from 40 sites and randomized them into 3 groups: the steroid-free group, the early steroid withdrawal group (withdrawal after 7 d post-transplantation), and the standard steroid regimen, in which prednisolone was tapered to 5–10 mg/d after 2 months [112]. All KTR received basiliximab, CsA, and MPA. At 1-year post-transplantation, there was no difference in terms of eGFR, death, or graft loss between the early steroid withdrawal group and the standard steroid group, despite the increased incidence of acute rejection (26.1% in the steroid withdrawal group vs.14.7% in the standard steroid group). However, the composite of acute rejection, death, or graft loss was significantly higher in the steroid-free group compared with the standard steroid group (36% vs. 19%). The steroid withdrawal group exhibited a lower incidence of increased body mass index (BMI), required fewer lipid-lowering medications, and had lower triglyceride levels compared with the standard steroid group.

Another recent RCT exploring steroid withdrawal in kidney transplantation was the HARMONY trial [113]. A total of 587 KTR from 21 transplant centers were included in 1 of 3 groups: the standard group (basiliximab, TAC, MPA, prednisolone tapered to 2.5–5.0 mg/d after 3 months), the basiliximab with steroid withdrawal group (same as the standard group but with prednisolone stopped after 7 d), and the ATG with steroid withdrawal group (similar to the other steroid withdrawal group but using ATG instead of basiliximab). The included KTR were considered to have a low-to-moderate immunological risk, and those with PRA >30% were excluded. There was no difference in the primary endpoint of biopsy-proven acute rejection at 12 months. However, the steroid withdrawal groups showed benefits in terms of a lower incidence of post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) compared with the standard group. The steroid withdrawal groups also had a lower incidence of osteoporosis.

Based on the results from these steroid withdrawal RCTs, it is recommended that if a steroid withdrawal regimen is planned, it should be initiated within the first week after transplantation to decrease the metabolic adverse effects while maintaining an adequate level of immunosuppression [90]. Previous studies have shown that steroid withdrawal regimens are associated with a higher incidence of recurrent glomerular diseases, particularly IgA nephropathy [114], [115], [116], while other studies did not demonstrate an increased risk of recurrent glomerular disease [117, 118]. However, this information is limited by the retrospective design of these studies, resulting in mixed differences in the timing of steroid withdrawal (early vs. late) and the effects of other immunosuppressive medications used in the regimens during different eras. Additionally, the risk of recurrent IgA nephropathy does not depend solely on the steroid regimen but rather on other factors including age, time to ESRD, and dialysis vintage [119]. Therefore, the risk of recurrent IgA nephropathy in KTR with steroid withdrawal regimens may indeed exist. However, the extent of this burden in the current immunosuppression scheme necessitates further RCTs specifically examining this outcome with a sufficient follow-up period.

Looking back at CNI nephrotoxicity: Is it really a cause of great loss?

Nephrotoxicity arising from CNIs is one of the most concerning complications after kidney transplantation, and it is widely believed that CNI nephrotoxicity plays a significant role in allograft failure [7, 9, 10]. CNI nephrotoxicity is also a significant contributor to chronic kidney disease in the native kidneys following non-kidney solid organ transplantation [120], [121], [122]. This has prompted extensive efforts to reduce CNI exposure, as mentioned above. However, there is evidence suggesting that the association between CNI nephrotoxicity and negative outcomes may not be as clear-cut as initially perceived.

First, there are no histological lesions that are pathognomonic or specific for chronic CNI nephrotoxicity. In studies investigating chronic lesions in kidney allograft biopsies, none of the Banff categories was found exclusively in KTR who received CNIs but absent in those on non-CNI regimens [123, 124]. These chronic lesions include tubular atrophy, interstitial fibrosis, vascular fibrous intimal thickening, or arteriolar hyalinosis (either intimal or medial). Allograft biopsies from KTR who have never received CNIs also exhibited these histological lesions, albeit at a lower incidence than in KTR who had received CNIs [124]. This indicates that CNIs might contribute to the development of chronicity lesions through various pathways, but that they lack specificity.

Second, while CNI nephrotoxicity was long considered a significant factor in allograft loss, the reality appears different. In a study that followed 1,317 KTR for a mean follow-up of 50 ± 32 months, 153 grafts (12%) were lost due to graft failure after censoring for death [125]. Among these graft failures, only 1 case of kidney allograft was attributed to CNI nephrotoxicity, while the majority of grafts within the IFTA category were lost due to conditions such as polyomavirus nephropathy, recurrent pyelonephritis, TCMR, ABMR, and poor allograft quality [125]. Infections in kidney allografts and the baseline pathology of the donor kidney can lead to IFTA in subsequent biopsies [126, 127]. Another study conducted a survival analysis after for-cause allograft biopsies, and demonstrated that kidney allografts diagnosed with CNI nephrotoxicity did not exhibit inferior allograft survival when compared with allografts with other diagnoses [128].

Arguably, the most significant evidence diminishing the importance of CNI nephrotoxicity with regard to long-term outcomes is the increasing recognition of ABMR and DSA as the leading cause of graft failure [129], [130], [131]. In contrast to earlier studies when the possibility to diagnose ABMR and the DSA detection were limited, contemporary studies with well-defined criteria for the diagnosis of ABMR have identified it as the primary cause of long-term allograft loss [131, 132]. Chronic ABMR and TCMR contribute to allograft IFTA, arteriolosclerosis, and arteriosclerosis [133], [134], [135], [136]. Furthermore, investigations into gene expression and molecular phenotypes of allograft biopsies have unveiled that the extent of inflammation in areas of IFTA or within the scarred regions of the allograft, sharing molecular phenotypes with acute rejection, has a substantial impact on long-term outcomes and graft loss [137, 138]. Conversely, allografts displaying only phenotypic features of CNI nephrotoxicity (e.g., arteriolar hyalinosis or the ah score in Banff classification) in the absence of inflammation were not associated with decreased allograft survival, as shown in the Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function (DeKAF) study [132].

It is undeniable that chronic CNI nephrotoxicity exists. It may be related to multiple factors, including the imbalance between intra-allograft and systemic CNI exposure and clearance [139, 140]. However, the concept of the major causes of long-term allograft loss has shifted away from CNI nephrotoxicity to chronic unopposed inflammation in kidney allografts, either in the form of chronic ABMR or TCMR, with immunosuppressive medication non-adherence being an important risk factor [141], [142], [143]. The process of developing IFTA and arteriolosclerosis in kidney allografts is complex and not fully understood [10], potentially involving multifactorial causes. However, only a very small proportion of graft loss is attributed to IFTA without inflammation, as observed in CNI nephrotoxicity [132]. Clinicians should be aware that when late kidney allograft dysfunction presents with a histological picture of IFTA or arteriolosclerosis, chronic immune-mediated injury should be ruled out first before considering a CNI-sparing regimen. Gene expression profiles of allograft biopsy samples might aid in determining the nature of IFTA, whether inflammation is present or not [137]. Reflecting on the landmark study from 2003 [7], which highlighted a 100% prevalence of CNI nephrotoxicity at 10 years and served as a catalyst for the initiation of CNI-sparing regimens, many debates have emerged in the contemporary era. Significantly, chronic CNI nephrotoxicity lacks specific histological lesions, and attributing allograft function decline solely to CNI nephrotoxicity remains inconclusive, primarily due to the absence of DSA testing.

Perspective and conclusion

Numerous contemporary RCTs have been conducted to offer various options for maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation, beyond the conventional TAC/MPA/corticosteroid regimen. The initial goal of reducing CNIs to the lowest possible exposure to prevent allograft loss from CNI nephrotoxicity has gradually evolved. This transformation is driven by current evidence, which does not strongly support the notion that chronic CNI nephrotoxicity is the primary cause of graft loss [142, 143]. Instead, alternative explanations, particularly chronic inflammation resulting from unopposed immune processes, play a significant role in shaping the long-term outcomes of allografts.

As a result, the standard regimen of TAC/MPA/corticosteroids remains the cornerstone of immunosuppression for kidney transplantation, as it has consistently demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of reducing allograft rejection and improving allograft survival [144]. Nonetheless, CNI-sparing strategies still hold value, particularly for KTR with low-to-moderate immunological risk but a heightened risk for viral infections or malignancies. KTR who cannot tolerate CNIs, such as those with a history of CNI-induced TMA, are also potential candidates for CNI-sparing regimens. Most modern CNI-sparing strategies, like CNI minimization in the TRANSFORM study, have exhibited excellent and comparable short-term outcomes when compared with the standard regimen. However, comprehensive long-term data, especially information regarding the development of de novo DSA and chronic ABMR and/or TCMR, are still needed to determine whether these alternative strategies are equivalent to or possibly superior to the standard regimen. TDM of TAC, mTORi, and MPA is also crucial for enhancing efficacy and minimizing adverse effects of immunosuppressive medications [145]. Moreover, clinicians should stay updated on the latest developments of novel immunosuppressants for treating rejection, which may eventually replace current maintenance regimens in the future [146, 147].

In conclusion, CNI nephrotoxicity is not a major contribution to graft loss and the standard TAC with MPA regimen remains the preferred choice. CNI-sparing approaches are considered as alternative options but necessitate additional long-term data for validation.

Acknowledgments

The writing of this paper was supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (Grant for New Researcher), Grant/Award Number: N42A661041 and Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund of Chulalongkorn University (GA66/084).

Author contributions. All authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study and acquisition of data. SU contributed substantially to data analysis. SU drafted the manuscript, and MRS and DAH revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors approve the final version submitted for publication and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work and take responsibility for statements made in the published article.

Conflicts of interest statement. Each author has completed and submitted an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest. None of the authors has any potential or actual conflicts of interest concerning the published article to disclose.

Data sharing statement. The present review is based on the references cited. All data generated or analyzed during the present study are included in this published article and the citations herein. Further details, opinions, and interpretation are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
==== Refs
References

[1] Tonelli M Wiebe N Knoll G Bello A Browne S Jadhav D Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes Am J Transplant 2011 11 2093 109 21883901
[2] Barker CF Markmann JF Historical overview of transplantation Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2013 3 a014977 10.1101/cshperspect.a014977 23545575
[3] Udomkarnjananun S Townamchai N Kerr SJ Tasanarong A Noppakun K Lumpaopong A The first Asian kidney transplantation prediction models for long-term patient and allograft survival Transplantation 2020 104 1048 57 31415034
[4] Johnson AC Silva JAF Kim SC Larsen CP Progress in kidney transplantation: The role for systems immunology Front Med (Lausanne) 2022 9 1070385 10.3389/fmed.2022.1070385 36590970
[5] Udomkarnjananun S Francke MI De Winter BCM Mulder MB Baan CC Metselaar HJ Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs in hepatology and gastroenterology Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2021 54–55 101756 10.1016/j.bpg.2021.101756
[6] Pilch NA Bowman LJ Taber DJ Immunosuppression trends in solid organ transplantation: The future of individualization, monitoring, and management Pharmacotherapy 2021 41 119 31 33131123
[7] Nankivell BJ Borrows RJ Fung CL O'Connell PJ Allen RD Chapman JR The natural history of chronic allograft nephropathy N Engl J Med 2003 349 2326 33 14668458
[8] Liptak P Ivanyi B Primer: Histopathology of calcineurin-inhibitor toxicity in renal allografts Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2006 2 398 404 quiz following 404. 16932468
[9] Naesens M Kuypers DR Sarwal M Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009 4 481 508 19218475
[10] Bentata Y Tacrolimus: 20 years of use in adult kidney transplantation. What we should know about its nephrotoxicity Artif Organs 2020 44 140 52 31386765
[11] Wood KJ Goto R Mechanisms of rejection: current perspectives Transplantation 2012 93 1 10 22138818
[12] Callemeyn J Lamarthée B Koenig A Koshy P Thaunat O Naesens M Allorecognition and the spectrum of kidney transplant rejection Kidney Int 2022 101 692 710 34915041
[13] Halloran PF Immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplantation N Engl J Med 2004 351 2715 29 15616206
[14] Barry JM Immunosuppressive drugs in renal transplantation. A review of the regimens Drugs 1992 44 554 66 1281071
[15] Canadian Multicentre Transplant Study Group A randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation N Engl J Med 1983 309 809 15 6350878
[16] European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group Cyclosporin in cadaveric renal transplantation: one-year follow-up of a multicentre trial Lancet 1983 2 986 9 6138592
[17] Tarantino A Aroldi A Stucchi L Montagnino G Mascaretti L Vegeto A Ponticelli C A randomized prospective trial comparing cyclosporine monotherapy with triple-drug therapy in renal transplantation Transplantation 1991 52 53 7 1858154
[18] Keown PA Stiller CR Ulan RA Sinclair NR Wall WJ Carruthers G Howson W Immunological and pharmacological monitoring in the clinical use of cyclosporin A Lancet 1981 1 686 9 6110913
[19] Clase CM Mahalati K Kiberd BA Lawen JG West KA Fraser AD Belitsky P Adequate early cyclosporin exposure is critical to prevent renal allograft rejection: patients monitored by absorption profiling Am J Transplant 2002 2 789 95 12243501
[20] David-Neto E Araujo LM Brito ZM Alves CF Lemos FC Yagyu EM Sampling strategy to calculate the cyclosporin-A area under the time-concentration curve Am J Transplant 2002 2 546 50 12118899
[21] Morris RG Cyclosporin therapeutic drug monitoring – an established service revisited Clin Biochem Rev 2003 24 33 46 18568053
[22] Britto ZM David-Neto E Lemos FC Pereira LM Castro MC Fonseca JA Identifying cyclosporine blood levels associated with the prevention of renal transplant rejection: a single-center, randomized prospective study Transplant Proc 2004 36 2649 55 15621114
[23] Citterio F Evolution of the therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine Transplant Proc 2004 36 2 Suppl 420S 5S 15041378
[24] Nemati E Einollahi B Taheri S Moghani-Lankarani M Kalantar E Simforoosh N Cyclosporine trough (C0) and 2-hour postdose (C2) levels: which one is a predictor of graft loss? Transplant Proc 2007 39 1223 4 17524938
[25] Glanville AR Morton JM Aboyoun CL Plit ML Malouf MA Cyclosporine C2 monitoring improves renal dysfunction after lung transplantation J Heart Lung Transplant 2004 23 1170 4 15477111
[26] Cantarovich M Besner JG Barkun JS Elstein E Loertscher R Two-hour cyclosporine level determination is the appropriate tool to monitor Neoral therapy Clin Transplant 1998 12 243 9 9642517
[27] Mahalati K Belitsky P Sketris I West K Panek R Neoral monitoring by simplified sparse sampling area under the concentration-time curve: its relationship to acute rejection and cyclosporine nephrotoxicity early after kidney transplantation Transplantation 1999 68 55 62 10428267
[28] Internation Neoral Renal Transplantation Study Group Randomized, international study of cyclosporine microemulsion absorption profiling in renal transplantation with basiliximab immunoprophylaxis Am J Transplant 2002 2 157 66 12099518
[29] Canadian Neoral Renal Transplantation Study Group Absorption profiling of cyclosporine microemulsion (neoral) during the first 2 weeks after renal transplantation Transplantation 2001 72 1024 32 11579295
[30] Pollard S Nashan B Johnston A Hoyer P Belitsky P Keown P A pharmacokinetic and clinical review of the potential clinical impact of using different formulations of cyclosporin A. Berlin, Germany, November 19, 2001 Clin Ther 2003 25 1654 69 12860490
[31] Levy G Thervet E Lake J Uchida K Consensus on Neoral C(2): Expert Review in Transplantation (CONCERT) Group Patient management by Neoral C(2) monitoring: an international consensus statement Transplantation 2002 73 9 Suppl S12 8
[32] Takeuchi H Matsuno N Senuma K Hirano T Yokoyama T Taira S Evidence of different pharmacokinetics including relationship among AUC, peak, and trough levels between cyclosporine and tacrolimus in renal transplant recipients using new pharmacokinetic parameter – why cyclosporine is monitored by C(2) level and tacrolimus by trough level Biol Pharm Bull 2008 31 90 4 18175948
[33] Levy GA C2 monitoring strategy for optimising cyclosporin immunosuppression from the Neoral formulation BioDrugs 2001 15 279 90 11437692
[34] European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection Lancet 1995 345 1321 5 7752752
[35] Sollinger HW Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group Transplantation 1995 60 225 32 7645033
[36] Halloran P Mathew T Tomlanovich S Groth C Hooftman L Barker C 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 9000658
[37] Remuzzi G Lesti M Gotti E Ganeva M Dimitrov BD Ene-Iordache B Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of acute rejection in renal transplantation (MYSS): a randomised trial Lancet 2004 364 503 12 15302193
[38] Remuzzi G Cravedi P Costantini M Lesti M Ganeva M Gherardi G Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of chronic allograft dysfunction in renal transplantation: the MYSS follow-up randomized, controlled clinical trial J Am Soc Nephrol 2007 18 1973 85 17460145
[39] Wagner M Earley AK Webster AC Schmid CH Balk EM Uhlig K Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015 Cd007746 10.1002/14651858.CD007746.pub2 26633102
[40] van Gelder T Hesselink DA Mycophenolate revisited Transpl Int 2015 28 508 15 25758949
[41] Starzl TE Todo S Fung J Demetris AJ Venkataramman R Jain A FK 506 for liver, kidney, and pancreas transplantation Lancet 1989 2 1000 4 2478846
[42] 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 5 8878381
[43] Mayer AD Dmitrewski J Squifflet JP Besse T Grabensee B Klein B Multicenter randomized trial comparing tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine in the prevention of renal allograft rejection: a report of the European Tacrolimus Multicenter Renal Study Group Transplantation 1997 64 436 43 9275110
[44] Pirsch JD Miller J Deierhoi MH Vincenti F Filo RS A comparison of tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression after cadaveric renal transplantation. FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group Transplantation 1997 63 977 83 9112351
[45] Webster A Woodroffe RC Taylor RS Chapman JR Craig JC Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005 Cd003961 10.1002/14651858.CD003961.pub2 16235347
[46] Canzanello VJ Textor SC Taler SJ Schwartz LL Porayko MK Wiesner RH Krom RA Late hypertension after liver transplantation: a comparison of cyclosporine and tacrolimus (FK 506) Liver Transpl Surg 1998 4 328 34 9649648
[47] McCune TR Thacker LR II Peters TG Mulloy L Rohr MS Adams PA Effects of tacrolimus on hyperlipidemia after successful renal transplantation: a Southeastern Organ Procurement Foundation multicenter clinical study Transplantation 1998 65 87 92 9448150
[48] Taylor DO Barr ML Radovancevic B Renlund DG Mentzer RM Jr Smart FW A randomized, multicenter comparison of tacrolimus and cyclosporine immunosuppressive regimens in cardiac transplantation: decreased hyperlipidemia and hypertension with tacrolimus J Heart Lung Transplant 1999 18 336 45 10226898
[49] Ellis JS Seymour RA Taylor JJ Thomason JM Prevalence of gingival overgrowth in transplant patients immunosuppressed with tacrolimus J Clin Periodontol 2004 31 126 31 15016038
[50] Thorp M DeMattos A Bennett W Barry J Norman D The effect of conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus on gingival hyperplasia, hirsutism and cholesterol Transplantation 2000 69 1218 20 10762229
[51] Lamb KE Lodhi S Meier-Kriesche HU Long-term renal allograft survival in the United States: a critical reappraisal Am J Transplant 2011 11 450 62 20973913
[52] Poggio ED Augustine JJ Arrigain S Brennan DC Schold JD Long-term kidney transplant graft survival-Making progress when most needed Am J Transplant 2021 21 2824 32 33346917
[53] Mihatsch MJ Thiel G Basler V Ryffel B Landmann J von Overbeck J Zollinger HU Morphological patterns in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients Transplant Proc 1985 17 4 Suppl 1 101 16 3895652
[54] Farouk SS Rein JL The many faces of calcineurin inhibitor toxicity-what the FK? Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2020 27 56 66 32147003
[55] Haller M Oberbauer R Calcineurin inhibitor minimization, withdrawal and avoidance protocols after kidney transplantation Transpl Int 2009 22 69 77 18764837
[56] Camilleri B Bridson JM Halawa A Calcineurin inhibitor-sparing strategies in renal transplantation: Where Are We? A comprehensive review of the current evidence Exp Clin Transplant 2016 14 471 83 27213490
[57] Sawinski D Trofe-Clark J Leas B Uhl S Tuteja S Kaczmarek JL Calcineurin inhibitor minimization, conversion, withdrawal, and avoidance strategies in renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Transplant 2016 16 2117 38 26990455
[58] Gatault P Lebranchu Y Conversion to mTOR-inhibitor-based immunosuppression: which patients and when? Transplant Res 2013 2 Suppl 1 S3 10.1186/2047-1440-2-S1-S3 24565231
[59] Salvadori M Bertoni E Is it time to give up with calcineurin inhibitors in kidney transplantation? World J Transplant 2013 3 7 25 24175203
[60] Mathis AS Egloff G Ghin HL Calcineurin inhibitor sparing strategies in renal transplantation, part one: Late sparing strategies World J Transplant 2014 4 57 80 25032096
[61] Webber AB Vincenti F An update on calcineurin inhibitor-free regimens: the need persists, but the landscape has changed Transplantation 2016 100 836 43 27003097
[62] Lim MA Kohli J Bloom RD Immunosuppression for kidney transplantation: Where are we now and where are we going? Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2017 31 10 7 28340885
[63] Oberbauer R Kreis H Johnson RW Mota A Claesson K Ruiz JC 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 12883194
[64] Dudley C Pohanka E Riad H Dedochova J Wijngaard P Sutter C Mycophenolate mofetil substitution for cyclosporine a in renal transplant recipients with chronic progressive allograft dysfunction: the “creeping creatinine” study Transplantation 2005 79 466 75 15729174
[65] Büchler M Caillard S Barbier S Thervet E Toupance O Mazouz H Sirolimus versus cyclosporine in kidney recipients receiving thymoglobulin, mycophenolate mofetil and a 6-month course of steroids Am J Transplant 2007 7 2522 31 17868057
[66] Ekberg H Grinyó J Nashan B Vanrenterghem Y Vincenti F Voulgari A Cyclosporine sparing with mycophenolate mofetil, daclizumab and corticosteroids in renal allograft recipients: the CAESAR study Am J Transplant 2007 7 560 70 17229079
[67] Gaston RS Kaplan B Shah T Cibrik D Shaw LM Angelis M Fixed- or controlled-dose mycophenolate mofetil with standard- or reduced-dose calcineurin inhibitors: the Opticept trial Am J Transplant 2009 9 1607 19 19459794
[68] Lebranchu Y Thierry A Toupance O Westeel PF Etienne I Thervet E 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 19422337
[69] Salvadori M Scolari MP Bertoni E Citterio F Rigotti P Cossu M Everolimus with very low-exposure cyclosporine a in de novo kidney transplantation: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial Transplantation 2009 88 1194 202 19935373
[70] Guba M Pratschke J Hugo C Krämer BK Nohr-Westphal C Brockmann J Renal function, efficacy, and safety of sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil after short-term calcineurin inhibitor-based quadruple therapy in de novo renal transplant patients: one-year analysis of a randomized multicenter trial Transplantation 2010 90 175 83 20463641
[71] Tedesco Silva H Jr Cibrik D Johnston T Lackova E Mange K Panis C Everolimus plus reduced-exposure CsA versus mycophenolic acid plus standard-exposure CsA in renal-transplant recipients Am J Transplant 2010 10 1401 13 20455882
[72] Flechner SM Glyda M Cockfield S Grinyó J Legendre Ch Russ G The ORION study: comparison of two sirolimus-based regimens versus tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients Am J Transplant 2011 11 1633 44 21668635
[73] Holdaas H Rostaing L Serón D Cole E Chapman J Fellstrøm B Conversion of long-term kidney transplant recipients from calcineurin inhibitor therapy to everolimus: a randomized, multicenter, 24-month study Transplantation 2011 92 410 8 21697773
[74] Weir MR Mulgaonkar S Chan L Shidban H Waid TH Preston D Mycophenolate mofetil-based immunosuppression with sirolimus in renal transplantation: a randomized, controlled Spare-the-Nephron trial Kidney Int 2011 79 897 907 21191361
[75] Budde K Lehner F Sommerer C Arns W Reinke P Eisenberger U Conversion from cyclosporine to everolimus at 4.5 months posttransplant: 3-year results from the randomized ZEUS study Am J Transplant 2012 12 1528 40 22642473
[76] Langer RM Hené R Vitko S Christiaans M Tedesco-Silva H Jr Ciechanowski K Everolimus plus early tacrolimus minimization: a phase III, randomized, open-label, multicentre trial in renal transplantation Transpl Int 2012 25 592 602 22471345
[77] Budde K Zeier M Witzke O Arns W Lehner F Guba M Everolimus with cyclosporine withdrawal or low-exposure cyclosporine in kidney transplantation from Month 3: a multicentre, randomized trial Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017 32 1060 70 28605781
[78] de Fijter JW Holdaas H Øyen O Sanders JS Sundar S Bemelman FJ Early conversion from calcineurin inhibitor- to everolimus-based therapy following kidney transplantation: results of the randomized ELEVATE trial Am J Transplant 2017 17 1853 67 28027625
[79] Sharif A Shabir S Chand S Cockwell P Ball S Borrows R Meta-analysis of calcineurin-inhibitor-sparing regimens in kidney transplantation J Am Soc Nephrol 2011 22 2107 18 21949096
[80] Lim WH Eris J Kanellis J Pussell B Wiid Z Witcombe D A systematic review of conversion from calcineurin inhibitor to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors for maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients Am J Transplant 2014 14 2106 19 25088685
[81] Murakami N Riella LV Funakoshi T Risk of metabolic complications in kidney transplantation after conversion to mTOR inhibitor: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Transplant 2014 14 2317 27 25146383
[82] Zeng J Zhong Q Feng X Li L Feng S Fan Y Conversion from calcineurin inhibitors to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Front Immunol 2021 12 663602 10.3389/fimmu.2021.663602 34539621
[83] Fribourg M Anderson L Fischman C Cantarelli C Perin L La Manna G T-cell exhaustion correlates with improved outcomes in kidney transplant recipients Kidney Int 2019 96 436 49 31040060
[84] Angeletti A Cantarelli C Riella LV Fribourg M Cravedi P T-cell Exhaustion in organ transplantation Transplantation 2022 106 489 99 34115657
[85] Ekberg H Tedesco-Silva H Demirbas A Vítko S Nashan B Gürkan A Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation N Engl J Med 2007 357 2562 75 18094377
[86] Ekberg H Bernasconi C Tedesco-Silva H Vítko S Hugo C Demirbas AH Calcineurin inhibitor minimization in the Symphony study: observational results 3 years after transplantation Am J Transplant 2009 9 1876 85 19563339
[87] Ekberg H van Gelder T Kaplan B Bernasconi C Relationship of tacrolimus exposure and mycophenolate mofetil dose with renal function after renal transplantation Transplantation 2011 92 82 7 21562449
[88] Schena FP Pascoe MD Alberu J del Carmen Rial M Oberbauer R Brennan DC 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 19155978
[89] Diekmann F Budde K Oppenheimer F Fritsche L Neumayer HH Campistol JM Predictors of success in conversion from calcineurin inhibitor to sirolimus in chronic allograft dysfunction Am J Transplant 2004 4 1869 75 15476488
[90] 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
[91] Tohme FA Kalil RS Thomas CP Conversion to a sirolimus-based regimen is associated with lower incidence of BK viremia in low-risk kidney transplant recipients Transpl Infect Dis 2015 17 66 72 25582442
[92] Wolf S Hoffmann VS Habicht A Kauke T Bucher J Schoenberg M Effects of mTOR-Is on malignancy and survival following renal transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with a minimum follow-up of 24 months PLoS One 2018 13 e0194975 10.1371/journal.pone.0194975 29659588
[93] Knoll GA Kokolo MB Mallick R Beck A Buenaventura CD Ducharme R Effect of sirolimus on malignancy and survival after kidney transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data BMJ 2014 349 g6679 10.1136/bmj.g6679 25422259
[94] Wolf S Hoffmann VS Sommer F Schrempf M Li M Ryll M Effect of sirolimus vs. everolimus on CMV-infections after kidney transplantation-a network meta-analysis J Clin Med 2022 11 4216 10.3390/jcm11144216 35887977
[95] Pascual J Berger SP Witzke O Tedesco H Mulgaonkar S Qazi Y Everolimus with reduced calcineurin inhibitor exposure in renal transplantation J Am Soc Nephrol 2018 29 1979 91 29752413
[96] Berger SP Sommerer C Witzke O Tedesco H Chadban S Mulgaonkar S Two-year outcomes in de novo renal transplant recipients receiving everolimus-facilitated calcineurin inhibitor reduction regimen from the TRANSFORM study Am J Transplant 2019 19 3018 34 31152476
[97] de Boer SE Sanders JSF Bemelman FJ Betjes MGH Burgerhof JGM Hilbrands L Rationale and design of the OPTIMIZE trial: OPen label multicenter randomized trial comparing standard IMmunosuppression with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil with a low exposure tacrolimus regimen In combination with everolimus in de novo renal transplantation in Elderly patients BMC Nephrol 2021 22 208 10.1186/s12882-021-02409-8 34078323
[98] Sommerer C Suwelack B Dragun D Schenker P Hauser IA Witzke O An open-label, randomized trial indicates that everolimus with tacrolimus or cyclosporine is comparable to standard immunosuppression in de novo kidney transplant patients Kidney Int 2019 96 231 44 31027892
[99] Bergan S Brunet M Hesselink DA Johnson-Davis KL Kunicki PK Lemaitre F Personalized therapy for mycophenolate: consensus report by the international association of therapeutic drug monitoring and clinical toxicology Ther Drug Monit 2021 43 150 200 33711005
[100] Su VC Harrison J Rogers C Ensom MH Belatacept: a new biologic and its role in kidney transplantation Ann Pharmacother 2012 46 57 67 22215686
[101] Lombardi Y François H Belatacept in kidney transplantation: what are the true benefits? A systematic review Front Med (Lausanne) 2022 9 942665 10.3389/fmed.2022.942665 35911396
[102] Vincenti F Charpentier B Vanrenterghem Y Rostaing L Bresnahan B Darji P A phase III study of belatacept-based immunosuppression regimens versus cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients (BENEFIT study) Am J Transplant 2010 10 535 46 20415897
[103] Vincenti F Rostaing L Grinyo J Rice K Steinberg S Gaite L Belatacept and long-term outcomes in kidney transplantation N Engl J Med 2016 374 333 43 26816011
[104] Kaufman DB Woodle ES Shields AR Leone J Matas A Wiseman A Belatacept for simultaneous calcineurin inhibitor and chronic corticosteroid immunosuppression avoidance: two-year results of a prospective, randomized multicenter trial Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2021 16 1387 97 34233921
[105] de Graav GN Baan CC Clahsen-van Groningen MC Kraaijeveld R Dieterich M Verschoor W A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing belatacept with tacrolimus after de novo kidney transplantation Transplantation 2017 101 2571 81 28403127
[106] Udomkarnjananun S Townamchai N Virojanawat M Avihingsanon Y Praditpornsilpa K An unusual manifestation of calcineurin inhibitor-induced pain syndrome in kidney transplantation: a case report and literature review Am J Case Rep 2018 19 442 6 29654227
[107] Pérez-Sáez MJ Yu B Uffing A Murakami N Borges TJ Azzi J Conversion from tacrolimus to belatacept improves renal function in kidney transplant patients with chronic vascular lesions in allograft biopsy Clin Kidney J 2018 12 586 91 31384452
[108] Grinyó JM Del Carmen Rial M Alberu J Steinberg SM Manfro RC Nainan G Safety and efficacy outcomes 3 years after switching to belatacept from a calcineurin inhibitor in kidney transplant recipients: results from a phase 2 randomized trial Am J Kidney Dis 2017 69 587 94 27889299
[109] Schulte K Vollmer C Klasen V Bräsen JH Püchel J Borzikowsky C Late conversion from tacrolimus to a belatacept-based immuno-suppression regime in kidney transplant recipients improves renal function, acid-base derangement and mineral-bone metabolism J Nephrol 2017 30 607 15 28540602
[110] Kumar D Raynaud M Chang J Reeve J Yakubu I Kamal L Impact of belatacept conversion on renal function, histology, and gene expression in kidney transplant patients with chronic active antibody-mediated rejection Transplantation 2021 105 660 7 32510913
[111] Jain D Rajab A Young JS Yin D Nadasdy T Chong AS Pelletier RP Reversing donor-specific antibody responses and antibody-mediated rejection with bortezomib and belatacept in mice and kidney transplant recipients Am J Transplant 2020 20 2675 85 32243663
[112] Vincenti F Schena FP Paraskevas S Hauser IA Walker RG Grinyo J FREEDOM Study Group A randomized, multicenter study of steroid avoidance, early steroid withdrawal or standard steroid therapy in kidney transplant recipients Am J Transplant 2008 8 307 16 18211506
[113] Thomusch O Wiesener M Opgenoorth M Pascher A Woitas RP Witzke O Rabbit-ATG or basiliximab induction for rapid steroid withdrawal after renal transplantation (HARMONY): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial Lancet 2016 388 3006 16 27871759
[114] Kukla A Chen E Spong R Weber M El-Shahawi Y Gillingham K Recurrent glomerulonephritis under rapid discontinuation of steroids Transplantation 2011 91 1386 91 21508898
[115] Di Vico MC Messina M Fop F Barreca A Segoloni GP Biancone L Recurrent IgA nephropathy after renal transplantation and steroid withdrawal Clin Transplant 2018 32 e13207 10.1111/ctr.13207 29345747
[116] Leeaphorn N Garg N Khankin EV Cardarelli F Pavlakis M Recurrence of IgA nephropathy after kidney transplantation in steroid continuation versus early steroid-withdrawal regimens: a retrospective analysis of the UNOS/OPTN database Transpl Int 2018 31 175 86 28926143
[117] Mulay AV van Walraven C Knoll GA Impact of immunosuppressive medication on the risk of renal allograft failure due to recurrent glomerulonephritis Am J Transplant 2009 9 804 11 19353768
[118] Barbour S Djurdjev O Gill JS Dong JJ Gill J A propensity score matched analysis shows no adverse effect of early steroid withdrawal in non-diabetic kidney transplant recipients with and without glomerulonephritis Kidney Int 2019 96 460 9 31248649
[119] Li Y Tang Y Lin T Song T Risk factors and outcomes of IgA nephropathy recurrence after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front Immunol 2023 14 1277017 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1277017 38090563
[120] Grootjans H Verschuuren EAM van Gemert JP Kerstjens HAM Bakker SJL Berger SP Chronic kidney disease after lung transplantation in a changing era Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2022 36 100727 10.1016/j.trre.2022.100727 36152358
[121] Wiseman AC CKD in recipients of nonkidney solid organ transplants: a review Am J Kidney Dis 2022 80 108 18 34979161
[122] Ojo AO Held PJ Port FK Wolfe RA Leichtman AB Young EW Chronic renal failure after transplantation of a nonrenal organ N Engl J Med 2003 349 931 40 12954741
[123] Snanoudj R Royal V Elie C Rabant M Girardin C Morelon E Specificity of histological markers of long-term CNI nephrotoxicity in kidney-transplant recipients under low-dose cyclosporine therapy Am J Transplant 2011 11 2635 46 21883915
[124] Stegall MD Park WD Larson TS Gloor JM Cornell LD Sethi S The histology of solitary renal allografts at 1 and 5 years after transplantation Am J Transplant 2011 11 698 707 21062418
[125] El-Zoghby ZM Stegall MD Lager DJ Kremers WK Amer H Gloor JM Cosio FG Identifying specific causes of kidney allograft loss Am J Transplant 2009 9 527 35 19191769
[126] Udomkarnjananun S Townamchai N Iampenkhae K Petchlorlian A Srisawat N Katavetin P Furosemide stress test as a predicting biomarker for delayed graft function in kidney transplantation Nephron 2019 141 236 48 30636249
[127] Udomkarnjananun S Iampenkhae K Pathological approach to kidney allograft infection Biomedicines 2023 11 1902 10.3390/biomedicines11071902 37509541
[128] Gaston RS Cecka JM Kasiske BL Fieberg AM Leduc R Cosio FC Evidence for antibody-mediated injury as a major determinant of late kidney allograft failure Transplantation 2010 90 68 74 20463643
[129] Hill GS Nochy D Bruneval P Duong van Huyen JP Glotz D Suberbielle C Donor-specific antibodies accelerate arteriosclerosis after kidney transplantation J Am Soc Nephrol 2011 22 975 83 21493773
[130] Loupy A Hill GS Jordan SC The impact of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies on late kidney allograft failure Nat Rev Nephrol 2012 8 348 57 22508180
[131] Sellarés J de Freitas DG Mengel M Reeve J Einecke G Sis B Understanding the causes of kidney transplant failure: the dominant role of antibody-mediated rejection and nonadherence Am J Transplant 2012 12 388 99 22081892
[132] Matas AJ Fieberg A Mannon RB Leduc R Grande J Kasiske BL Long-term follow-up of the DeKAF cross-sectional cohort study Am J Transplant 2019 19 1432 43 30506642
[133] Wiebe C Gibson IW Blydt-Hansen TD Karpinski M Ho J Storsley LJ Evolution and clinical pathologic correlations of de novo donor-specific HLA antibody post kidney transplant Am J Transplant 2012 12 1157 67 22429309
[134] Li X Zhuang S Recent advances in renal interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy after kidney transplantation Fibrogenesis Tissue Repair 2014 7 15 10.1186/1755-1536-7-15 25285155
[135] Stegall MD Gaston RS Cosio FG Matas A Through a glass darkly: seeking clarity in preventing late kidney transplant failure J Am Soc Nephrol 2015 26 20 9 25097209
[136] Chand S Atkinson D Collins C Briggs D Ball S Sharif A The spectrum of renal allograft failure PLoS One 2016 11 e0162278 10.1371/journal.pone.0162278 27649571
[137] Modena BD Kurian SM Gaber LW Waalen J Su AI Gelbart T Gene expression in biopsies of acute rejection and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy reveals highly shared mechanisms that correlate with worse long-term outcomes Am J Transplant 2016 16 1982 98 26990570
[138] Venner JM Famulski KS Reeve J Chang J Halloran PF Relationships among injury, fibrosis, and time in human kidney transplants JCI Insight 2016 1 e85323 10.1172/jci.insight.85323 27699214
[139] van Gelder T Meziyerh S Swen JJ de Vries APJ Moes DJAR The clinical impact of the C(0)/D ratio and the CYP3A5 genotype on outcome in tacrolimus treated kidney transplant recipients Front Pharmacol 2020 11 1142 10.3389/fphar.2020.01142 32848756
[140] Udomkarnjananun S Townamchai N Chariyavilaskul P Iampenkhae K Pongpirul K Sirichindakul B The cytochrome P450 3A5 non-expressor kidney allograft as a risk factor for calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity Am J Nephrol 2018 47 182 90 29539600
[141] Kim MY Brennan DC Therapies for chronic allograft rejection Front Pharmacol 2021 12 651222 10.3389/fphar.2021.651222 33935762
[142] Matas AJ Calcineurin inhibitors: short-term friend, long-term foe? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011 90 209 11 21772297
[143] Matas AJ Chronic progressive calcineurin nephrotoxicity: an overstated concept Am J Transplant 2011 11 687 92 21446973
[144] Azzi JR Sayegh MH Mallat SG Calcineurin inhibitors: 40 years later, can't live without J Immunol 2013 191 5785 91 24319282
[145] Udomkarnjananun S Eiamsitrakoon T de Winter BCM van Gelder T Hesselink DA Should we abandon therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus in whole blood and move to intracellular concentration measurements? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2023 10.1111/bcp.15946
[146] van Vugt LK Schagen MR de Weerd A Reinders ME de Winter BC Hesselink DA Investigational drugs for the treatment of kidney transplant rejection Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2022 31 1087 100
[147] Mayer KA Budde K Jilma B Doberer K Böhmig GA Emerging drugs for antibody-mediated rejection after kidney transplantation: a focus on phase II & III trials Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2022 27 151 67 35715978
