In all 0.5% of the donors developed ESRD. Due to high age of the uremic donors, there seems to be no increased incidence.

Combined liver and renal transplantations can be performed against a positive cross-match, indicating that the liver protects the kidney from the harmful HLA antibodies. This led us to the hypothesis that a partial auxiliary liver graft may have a similar protective effect when performed together with the kidney in highly sensitized patients. Seven patients, with broadly reacting HLA antibodies and positive crossmatches, were transplanted with a partial liver and a kidney from the same donor. In one of the cases a living donor was used. We performed lymphocytotoxic and flow crossmatches before and after the transplantation. Crossmatches turned negative after grafting in five of seven cases. The kidney function was excellent, without rejections, during the follow-up (24-60 months) in these patients. In two cases the cross-match remained positive after transplantation, one with a never-functioning renal graft and the other with an early graft failure, probably due to humoral rejection. A simultaneous transplantation of a partial auxiliary liver graft from the same donor, with the sole purpose of protecting the kidney from harmful lymphocytotoxic antibodies, can be performed successfully despite a positive cross-match and may thus be a new option of treatment for highly sensitized patients waiting for a kidney transplant.

In an open-label, multicenter trial, de novo kidney transplant recipients at low to medium immunological risk were randomized at week 7 posttransplant to remain on CsA (n = 100, controls) or convert to everolimus (n = 102), both with enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint, change in measured GFR (mGFR) from week 7 to month 12, was significantly greater with everolimus than controls: 4.9 (11.8) mL/min versus 0.0 (12.9) mL/min (p = 0.012; analysis of covariance [ANCOVA]). Per protocol analysis demonstrated a more marked difference: an increase of 8.7 (11.2) mL/min with everolimus versus a decrease of 0.4 (12.0) mL/min in controls (p < 0.001; ANCOVA). There were no differences in graft or patient survival. The 12-month incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) was 27.5% (n = 28) with everolimus and 11.0% (n = 11) in controls (p = 0.004). All but two episodes of BPAR in each group were mild. Adverse events occurred in 95.1% of everolimus patients and 90.0% controls (p = 0.19), with serious adverse events in 53.9% and 38.0%, respectively (p = 0.025). Discontinuation because of adverse events was more frequent with everolimus (25.5%) than controls (3.0%; p = 0.030). In conclusion, conversion from CsA to everolimus at week 7 after kidney transplantation was associated with a greater improvement in mGFR at month 12 versus CNItreated controls but discontinuations and BPAR were more frequent.

We performed a placebo-controlled study of rituximab induction in renal transplantation. There was a tendency toward fewer and milder rejections during the first 6 months in the rituximab group. Although induction with one dose of rituximab induced a complete depletion B cells, there was no increase in the incidence of infectious complications or leukopenia and it seems safe, therefore, to conduct further studies on the use of rituximab in transplantation.

Despite the low doses, CsA, Tac and SRL retained distinct and different toxicity profiles. These findings may be of relevance for tailoring specific immunosuppressive regimens to patients with particular needs.