SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA
  5. WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?
  6. Immunomodulatory effects of statins
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. References

Cardiovascular disease remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients who have undergone renal transplantation, with one of the main risk factors being post-transplantation hyperlipidaemia. To date, however, optimal management of elevated lipid levels in such patients has been hindered by the lack of both effective and safe treatments, coupled with concerns over probable interactions with immunosuppressive therapy, particularly cyclosporin. Numerous studies confirm that the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitors, such as fluvastatin, are effective lipid-lowering agents in renal transplant recipients, supporting findings in other patients’ groups. Moreover, based on investigations of metabolic profile and clinical observation, fluvastatin (at dosages of up to 80 mg/day) is well tolerated in renal transplant recipients receiving cyclosporin. In clinical trials to date, no instances of rhabdomyolysis have been observed during co-administration of fluvastatin and cyclosporin. The potential of fluvastatin for improving survival in renal transplant recipients, in terms of both cardiovascular mortality and graft rejection, is currently being investigated in two ongoing studies: ALERT (Assessment of Lescol [fluvastatin] in Renal Transplantation) and SOLAR (Study of Lescol [fluvastatin] in Acute Rejection). The results of these landmark studies should confirm the safe utility of fluvastatin in the renal transplantation setting.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA
  5. WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?
  6. Immunomodulatory effects of statins
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. References

Advances in renal transplantation have revolutionized the management of patients with end-stage renal failure. The introduction of effective immunosuppressive agents such as cyclosporin (cyclosporin A) has improved long-term survival of organ allograft recipients (1). Three-year graft survival rates in excess of 70% have been reported since the clinical introduction of cyclosporin A (2). However, despite advances in transplantation science, long-term patient survival is relatively poor for renal allograft recipients, with a predicted 10 years patient survival rate of approximately 60%. The paradox of the success of transplantation is that patients now die from accelerated premature cardiovascular disease rather than renal failure. Indeed, the cardiovascular death rate is 20–40-fold higher among individuals receiving renal replacement therapy (including dialysis and transplant recipients) compared with the age- and sex-matched background population (3–5). In the U.S.A., the percentage of deaths due to cardiovascular causes among renal transplant recipients is around 50% (6); this figure may be as high as 70% in some countries (5) and may be higher still, as many of the patients for whom a cause of death cannot be attributed die suddenly and unexpectedly of possible cardiac causes.

It is well established that hyperlipidaemia is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the general population, as shown by large-scale epidemiological studies (7). Moreover, hyperlipidaemia is a frequent complication in the post-renal transplantation period, the lipoprotein profile of which is characterized by an increase in total cholesterol level with excess low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles (8–11) (Fig. 1). An increase in total cholesterol of around 27% is typical (9), although higher levels may be seen, with the peak incidence of hypercholesterolaemia occurring 6 months post-transplantation (12). It is estimated that 60% of the renal transplant population has a total cholesterol level > 6·2 mmol/l and LDL-cholesterol level > 3·4 mmol/l (13). The aetiology of post-transplantation hyperlipidaemia is multifactorial, involving both immunosuppressive drugs and other agents, including diuretics, in addition to reduced renal function and proteinuria (14, 15). Although the major drug-related increases are attributable to corticosteroids, post-transplantation hyperlipidaemia has also been related to treatment with cyclosporin (12, 16, 17). For example, total cholesterol levels were 0·77–0·92 mmol/l higher in renal transplant patients treated with cyclosporin in addition to prednisolone and azathioprine compared with those who received prednisolone and azathioprine alone (17). Specifically, trough levels of cyclosporin correlate with increases in LDL-cholesterol but not triglycerides (18).

image

Figure 1. Changes in the mean lipoprotein pattern in the 2-year period following renal transplantation in 111 patients; LDL=low-density lipoprotein; ***P<0·001 vs. pre-transplant (11).

Download figure to PowerPoint

In addition to a possible increase in cardiovascular disease, evidence now suggests that hyperlipidaemia is an important risk factor for long-term graft outcome (11). Chronic rejection of renal allografts is characterized by graft vascular disease with intimal and medial vascular proliferation (19). The proliferative vascular changes are morphologically similar to those of atherosclerosis in the general population. Moreover, there is a clear link between graft and patient survival (20). Thus, a strong rationale exists to implement effective lipid-lowering therapy in the post-transplantation period to improve both long-term morbidity and, ideally, mortality. To date, however, this approach has been hindered by the lack of both effective and safe treatments for elevated lipids, coupled with concerns over possible interactions with immunosuppressive therapy, particularly cyclosporin. The aim of this review is to outline the clinical efficacy of fluvastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitor, when used for the treatment of elevated lipids in renal transplant recipients. Particular focus is paid to the safety and interaction potential of fluvastatin when co-administered with cyclosporin.

TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA
  5. WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?
  6. Immunomodulatory effects of statins
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. References

Dietary therapy alone does not provide adequate control of hyperlipidaemia following renal transplantation (21). Pharmacotherapy is therefore required in addition to dietary modification. Until recently, however, there have been no lipid-lowering agents available that could be used easily, safely and effectively in renal transplant patients with minimal or predictable effects on the patient's immunosuppressive therapy. In the case of bile acid sequestrants (resins), for example, it is well established that cholestyramine may alter the absorption of cyclosporin (22). Similarly, the dose of fibrates has to be reduced to minimize the risk of myositis, while the poor tolerability profile of nicotinic acid precludes its general use (23).

The HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have proven efficacy and safety for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia in the general population (24–31). With regard to fluvastatin, in a general practice study of over 5000 patients with hypercholesterolaemia, fluvastatin 20–40 mg/day was well tolerated and reduced mean total cholesterol levels by 27%, LDL-cholesterol by 38% and high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol levels were raised by a mean of 27% (32). Numerous clinical trials have been performed with this agent in patients with hyperlipidaemia following organ transplantation (Table 1). Typically, these studies have utilized a fluvastatin dosage of 20–40 mg/day, administered for up to one year (33). Some studies have titrated the dosage of fluvastatin to 40 mg/day (34–36), with one study using 80 mg/day in a small subgroup of patients (37). The efficacy findings of the latter study are summarized in Fig. 2. Overall, LDL-cholesterol was decreased by nearly 40% at the highest dosage, with parallel, dose-dependent, changes in total cholesterol and triglycerides; significant increases in HDL-cholesterol were also observed (37). Across all studies included in Table 1, the overall decreases in LDL-cholesterol and total cholesterol at a fluvastatin dosage of 20–40 mg/day are 26% and 19%, respectively, which is comparable to therapeutic efficacy observed for fluvastatin in non-transplant patients (38, 39). One study reported more modest changes in lipid parameters, which the study authors attributed to the inclusion of two patients with very high baseline total cholesterol levels (23). Increasing fluvastatin dosage from 20 to 40 mg/day further reduced LDL-cholesterol levels by 7% in one study (34). With regard to changes in HDL-cholesterol, while some studies reported statistically significant increases during fluvastatin ther- apy of up to 36% (23, 33, 36), others reported minimal changes and in some instances a decrease in HDL-cholesterol was observed (Table 1). Changes in serum triglyceride levels were generally modest at fluvastatin dosages of 20–40 mg/day, although more marked changes were apparent with increasing dosage (37). Interestingly, changes in triglycerides were more marked among corticosteroid-free patients treated with fluvastatin compared with those receiving prednisone as part of their immunosuppressive regimen (40). Overall, however, the response to fluvastatin was qualitatively similar between corticosteroid-free and corticosteroid-treated patients in the latter study.

Table 1.  Summary of the efficacy of fluvastin (F) for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia in renal transplant patients Thumbnail image of
image

Figure 2. Effect of fluvastin on mean lipid variables in renal transplant recipients; HDL=high-density lipoprotein; LDL=low-density lipoprotein; **P<0·01, ***P<0·001 vs. baseline (37).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Clinical studies therefore confirm that the efficacy and safety profile of fluvastatin in renal transplant recipients is similar to that in other populations.

Potential for interaction with cyclosporin

Although HMG CoA reductase inhibitors are effective for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia in renal transplant patients, a major caveat to their widespread use is the potential for interaction with cyclosporin and an increased likelihood for adverse effects. Of specific concern are musculoskeletal side-effects such as myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. Although the pathophysiology of these effects is not clear, they are directly related to plasma levels of the statin. Thus, there are concerns over observations that, for example, plasma exposure of lovastatin increases 20-fold when administered with cyclosporin (41). The incidence of musculoskeletal adverse effects increases by up to 28% (42) and several instances of myositis and rhabdomyolysis have been reported when lovastatin was co-administered with cyclosporin (43–45). Similarly, plasma exposure of simvastatin following a single 20 mg dose is increased by almost three-fold in the presence of cyclosporin (46) and there have been isolated reports of rhabdomyolysis in patients concomitantly treated with these agents (47, 48). Plasma levels of cerivastatin are also increased approximately three-fold in the presence of cyclosporin (49). While pravastatin reportedly has the lowest propensity to cause myopathy in cyclosporin-treated patients (50), co-administration of these agents in an animal model resulted in increased systemic exposure and a parallel increase in the risk of rhabdomyolysis (51). In addition, there are reports of large increases in plasma levels of pravastatin during concomitant treatment with cyclosporin (41, 52).

The interaction between cyclosporin and HMG CoA reductase inhibitors can be attributed to inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A (53), the major enzyme responsible for the metabolism of most agents of this class including lovastatin (54), simvastatin (55), cerivastatin (56) and atorvastatin. Other mechanisms may also contribute to this interaction, including inhibition of P-glycoprotein (57). Lovastatin, for example, is a substrate for P-glycoprotein (58); increased plasma levels of lovastatin during cyclosporin co-administration could therefore be partly explained by decreased biliary clearance following inhibition of this transport protein. Inhibition of P-glycoprotein or other carrier-mediated transport processes may also explain increased (5–23-fold) plasma levels of pravastatin in the presence of cyclosporin (41, 52), since pravastatin is not thought to be metabolized solely by CYP-dependent processes (59). Cyclosporin-induced cholestasis may also contribute to decreased hepatic elimination of these agents and hence increased systemic exposure (51). It is interesting to note that fluvastatin is not a substrate for P-glycoprotein (60). Moreover, the findings of a recent in vitro study indicate that fluvastatin is metabolized by multiple CYP enzymes including CYP2C9 and, to a lesser extent, CYP3A4 and CYP2C8 (61). The involvement of several enzymes in the metabolism of fluvastatin should therefore minimize the potential for interaction when co-administered with compounds that inhibit one of these enzymes, which confirms clinical experience with this agent (38, 39, 62). In the case of cyclosporin, for example, pharmacokinetic studies show that plasma exposure of fluvastatin (area under the plasma concentration–time curve) increased by only 1·9-fold in the presence of this agent, with minimal changes in other pharmacokinetic parameters (63). Such findings may explain the absence of reports of myopathy or rhabdomyolysis during clinical studies of fluvastatin in renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporin (33–, 40, 63, 64) (Table 2). Indeed, Schrama and colleagues (36) failed to demonstrate a significant increase in creatine phosphokinase and myoglobin elevations during provocative exercise testing among transplant patients treated with fluvastatin. Such findings provide indirect evidence that fluvastatin does not cause subclinical muscle toxicity when administered in conjunction with cyclosporin and although three patients (8%) reported temporary myalgia in one study, these symptoms were not accompanied by elevated creatine phosphokinase levels (65).

Table 2.  Pharmacokinetic profile (mean (SD) of fluvastin (20 mg/day) in renal transplant patients receiving concomitant cyclosporin Thumbnail image of

WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA
  5. WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?
  6. Immunomodulatory effects of statins
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. References

Although it is well established that a reduction in serum cholesterol with HMG CoA reductase inhibitors reduces the risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events in non-transplant patients (66–71), the association between hyperlipidaemia and risk of cardiovascular events in renal transplant patients is far from conclusive (10, 12, 72–75). In a series of 500 cyclosporin-treated renal transplant recipients, for example, Vathsala and colleagues (12) reported a significantly higher incidence of cardiovascular events among hypercholesterolaemic patients compared with those with normal cholesterol levels (15·4% vs. 5·2%; P< 0·001). Similar findings were reported by both Kasiske et al. (74) and Aker et al. (75), who found an association between the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the post-transplantation period and elevated cholesterol levels. Indeed, Aker et al. (75) found LDL-cholesterol > 180 mg/dl to be a significant independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease following renal transplantation (relative risk 2·27; P< 0·05), along with diabetes mellitus, age at transplantation, body mass index > 25 kg/m2, smoking and hyperuricaemia. A small retrospective study by Drüeke and colleagues (10) also reported that renal allograft recipients who experienced cardiovascular events (n=25) had significantly higher mean total cholesterol levels than those without such events (n=29,6·5 and 5·6 mmol/l, respectively; P< 0·05). The findings of the latter study were complicated, however, by the fact that the prevalence of smoking and use of antihypertensive medication was higher among those who experienced cardiovascular events. In contrast to the studies demonstrating an association between hyperlipidaemia and cardiovascular events, Pollock and co-workers (73) found no such association in an average 104-month follow-up study of 192 renal transplant recipients (12 of whom died as a result of cardiovascular disease). Similarly, other studies found no correlation between post-transplantation hyperlipidaemia and patient or graft survival (72, 76).

The lack of consensus regarding the relationship between hyperlipidaemia and risk of cardiovascular events in renal transplantation is compounded by the fact that, to date, no interventional studies have been conducted to assess the effect of HMG CoA reductase inhibitors on the frequency of cardiovascular events specifically in these patients. However, a small number of studies have been performed with these agents in cardiac transplant recipients (77, 78). Since cardiac transplant patients also have post-transplantation hyperlipidaemia with accelerated vascular disease (specifically graft vascular disease [GVD]) (79), it is highly likely that the effect of statins in this patient group can be extrapolated to renal transplant recipients. Wenke and colleagues (78) performed a 4-year prospective study in 72 heart transplant patients, 35 of whom were treated with a relatively low dosage of simvastatin (5 mg/day, increasing to 20 mg/day, if necessary, to attain a target LDL-cholesterol level of 110–120 mg/dl) from Day 4 post-operatively; the remaining patients received dietary advice alone. Simvastatin prevented the increase in total and LDL-cholesterol levels that followed transplantation (Fig. 3). Moreover, simvastatin significantly improved patient survival; after 4 years, 88·6% of simvastatin-treated patients were still alive compared with 70·3% in the control group (P=0·05). However, the differences in survival could not be attributed to an effect on cardiovascular deaths. The study by Kobashigawa and colleagues (77) showed a clear effect of pravastatin on survival in 97 heart transplant recipients at one year post-operation (94% vs. 78% of controls; P< 0·05). In this randomised, placebo-controlled study, treatment with pravastatin was commenced at a dosage of 20 mg/day from 1 to 2 weeks after transplantation, increasing to 40 mg/day after one month. Reduced progression of mean intimal thickness was also observed in pravastatin recipients (P< 0·01 vs. control). One potential limitation of this study, however, is that the control group contained a higher number of patients receiving a second transplant, which may have biased the survival results in favour of pravastatin, as these patients tend to have a poorer outcome. Despite this limitation, the survival benefit of pravastatin was maintained when only patients receiving their first transplant were analysed (77).

imageimage

Figure 3. Effect of treatment with simvastin on (A) mean total cholesterol and (B) mean low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level following cardiac transplantation in 72 patients; *P<0·005, **P<0·01 vs control (dietary therapy alone) (78).

Immunomodulatory effects of statins

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA
  5. WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?
  6. Immunomodulatory effects of statins
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. References

In addition to an improvement in survival post-transplantation, the studies of Kobashigawa et al. (77) and Wenke et al. (78) provide evidence for an immunomodulatory effect of statins. Pravastatin significantly decreased the rate of haemodynamically important rejection episodes (P< 0·01), associated with improved survival (77). This finding was reproduced in a small pilot study in renal transplant recipients, in whom pravastatin therapy also significantly reduced the incidence of acute rejection episodes (80).

The mechanism by which statins may interfere with the aggressive immunologically mediated process underlying allograft rejection remains unclear. One possible mechanism involves an indirect effect on the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporin. As this agent is lipophilic it is transported in the blood in LDL and HDL cores. Cyclosporin binding to lipoproteins accounts for approximately 35% of whole blood levels, thus any change in LDL-cholesterol may interfere with the removal of cyclosporin from the circulation (18). For example, a decrease in LDL-cholesterol during lipid-lowering therapy could reduce LDL-bound cyclosporin and hence give rise to an increase in unbound, and pharmacologically active, cyclosporin. This has been investigated in a study of 12 heart transplant recipients treated with simvastatin (5–15 mg/day) plus cyclosporin (81). Reduction of LDL-cholesterol was associated with a 29% increase in the unbound fraction of cyclosporin A (from 1·4% to 1·8%; P< 0·01). Whether this increase is sufficient to explain the lower incidence of rejection episodes observed in cardiac/renal allograft recipients treated with statins post-transplantation requires further investigation. Indeed, the clinical relevance of an indirect pharmacokinetic interaction between statins and cyclosporin is questioned by the study of Kobashigawa and colleagues (77). They found that 5/14 episodes of rejection accompanied by haemodynamic compromise occurred 1–2 months post-transplantation when no significant differences in lipid levels were apparent between the pravastatin and control groups (82).

An alternative mechanism focuses on a direct effect of statins on immune cells. In their study, Kobashigawa and colleagues (77) studied natural killer (NK) cell activity in terms of in vitro killing of K562 cells (a specific target for NK cells). They found that NK cells from patients treated with pravastatin had reduced effects on K562 cells (9·8% vs. 22·2% specific lysis for controls; P< 0·05), and that this effect was sequential over a 12-week period. Similar studies have been performed for fluvastatin, in which NK cells from healthy individuals were incubated with fluvastatin in vitro (unpublished observations). At a fluvastatin concentration of 5 mmol/l, killing of K562 cells was reduced from around 30% to less than 10% after 4 days’ incubation. This effect was not mediated by a decrease in cell number or viability and was reversed by incubation with mevalonate 1 mM for just 2 h. Statins are therefore able to uncouple the killing mechanism of NK cells without altering their viability. Fluvastatin has similar inhibitory effects on proliferation of lymphocytes, which have a clearer role in rejection than NK cells. Although these observations provide evidence for an immunosuppressive action in vitro, there is no evidence to indicate an increased risk of infection or cancer in statin trials among non-transplanted patients (83). To explain the apparent enhanced immunomodulatory effect in cyclosporin-treated transplant patients, in the absence of evidence for clinical immunosuppression in non-transplanted patients treated with HMG CoA reductase inhibitors, some authors have proposed a synergistic interaction between statins and cyclosporin. In their in vitro study, for example, Katznelson et al. (84) reported synergistic inhibition of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte activity when cells were cultured in the presence of both pravastatin and cyclosporin; by contrast, either agent used alone inhibited cytotoxic T-lymphocyte activity, albeit not significantly. This synergistic effect may occur via blockade of the synthesis of interleukin-2 in immune cells, a hypothesis based on findings that the addition of interleukin-2 restores natural killer cell activity, and partly restores antibody-dependent cytotoxicity that was inhibited by incubation with lovastatin (85).

More recently, Rothe et al. (86) have added to the knowledge relating to the effects of statins on immune cells in renal transplant patients. These authors looked at the size and activation of lymphocyte subpopulations in 44 renal transplant patients receiving fluvastatin 40 mg/day for 8 weeks. Interestingly, the baseline population size of activated (HLA-DR+) T-lymphocytes was negatively correlated with HDLC, suggesting increased allogeneic activation of T-lymphocytes in the presence of low HDL-C. After 8 weeks of treatment, a decrease in the population size and extent of activation of T-lymphocytes exerting non-MHC-specific or MHC class I-restricted cytotoxic effector functions was observed. Clearly, there is a need to explore further the clinical relevance of the potential immunomodulatory effects of statins in the transplantation setting and the potential influence of this mechanism on the beneficial effects of statins in atherosclerosis.

Ongoing studies

Given that both simvastatin and pravastatin improved outcomes after cardiac transplantation, it is reasonable to assume that this is an effect common to all agents of this class. However, further evidence is required to identify the survival benefits of treating renal transplant recipients with statins. Based on the good efficacy and safety profile of fluvastatin reported to date in renal transplant patients, together with a low potential for drug interactions, the effect of fluvastatin on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and rejection rates is currently being investigated in two ongoing studies: ALERT (Assessment of Lescol®[fluvastatin] in Renal Transplantation) and SOLAR (Study of Lescol®[fluvastatin] in Acute Rejection). The objective of the landmark ALERT study is to compare the long-term effect of treatment with fluvastatin 40 mg/day vs. placebo on the major adverse cardiac event-free survival time during 5 years of follow-up in 2100 renal transplant recipients with total cholesterol 4·0–9·0 mmol/l (165–351 mg/dl). This international multicentre, randomised, double-blind study should be completed in 2002. The potential for immunomodulatory effects of fluvastatin in combination with immunosuppressive agents, including cyclosporin, is being investigated in SOLAR. This randomised, double-blind study is designed to determine the short-term effect of treatment with fluvastatin 40 mg/day vs. placebo on the incidence of treated rejection episodes during a 3-month treatment period in approximately 350 renal transplant recipients. The findings of SOLAR will be available in 2000, and will provide pivotal evidence as to the potential immunomodulatory of fluvastatin in renal transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA
  5. WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?
  6. Immunomodulatory effects of statins
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. References

Accelerated cardiovascular disease remains a significant problem in patients who have undergone renal transplantation. Many of these patients suffer concomitant post-transplantation hyperlipidaemia, although a causal relationship to accelerated cardiovascular disease remains controversial. Against this background, however, evidence is emerging in the cardiac transplantation field that treatment with statins in the post-transplantation period both lowers elevated lipid levels and improves long-term morbidity and mortality. Hence, while there are numerous studies available to confirm the lipid-lowering efficacy of statins in renal transplant recipients, more widespread use has been hindered by concerns over possible interactions with immunosuppressive therapy, particularly cyclosporin. This concern principally relates to the precipitation of serious musculoskeletal adverse events such as myopathy and rhabdomyolysis, and has led to the use of lower doses of statins that may not be optimal in the long term. For example, while the 4S study reported that simvastatin reduces the risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events in non-transplant patients (66), over a third of patients in this study were receiving a dosage of 40 mg/day. This contrasts with studies in renal transplant patients that conclude that a simvastatin dosage of 10 mg/day is suitable for the majority of patients (87). It is interesting to note that changes in lipid parameters in the study of Arnadottir and colleagues (87) were comparable to those reported in the 4S study; however, there is now evidence to suggest that the beneficial effects of statins extend to beyond lipid lowering alone (88). Moreover, while Wenke and colleagues (78) reported a significant improvement in long-term survival among cardiac transplant recipient treated with an average dosage of simvastatin of 10 mg/day, the survival benefits may have been further increased had higher dosages of simvastatin been utilized. At dosages of up to 80 mg/day, fluvastatin is well tolerated in renal transplant recipients receiving cyclosporin and has markedly reduced potential for the drug interaction associated with other HMG CoA reductase inhibitors. The potential of fluvastatin for improving outcomes following renal transplantation, both in terms of cardiovascular mortality and graft rejection, is currently being investigated in a large programme involving over 2000 transplant patients. The results of such studies should confirm the suitability of fluvastatin as the statin of choice for prophylactic use in the post-transplantation setting. In the interim and in the absence of outcomes data, fluvastatin may be used safely in renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporin A.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POST-TRANSPLANTATION HYPERLIPIDAEMIA
  5. WILL STATINS IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS?
  6. Immunomodulatory effects of statins
  7. CONCLUSIONS
  8. References
  • Stiller CR, for the Canadian Multicenter Transplant Study Group. (1983) A randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 309, 809-816.
  • Sutherland DER, Fryd DS, Strand MH, et al . (1985) Results of the Minnesota randomized prospective trial of cyclosporine versus azathioprine-antilymphocyte globulin for immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients. American Journal of Kidney Disease, V, 318-327.
  • Brunner FP, Broyer M, Brynger H, et al . (1988) Survival on renal replacement therapy: data from the EDTA registry. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 2, 109-122.
  • Raine AE, Margreiter R, Brunner FP, et al . (1992) Report on management of renal failure in Europe, XXII, 1991. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 7(Suppl. 2), 7-35.
  • Aakhus S, Dahl K, Widerøe TE. (1999) Cardiovascular morbidity and risk factors in renal transplant patients. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 14, 648-654.
  • Schweitzer EJ, Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, et al . (1991) Causes of renal allograft loss: progress in the 1980s, challenge for the 1990s. Annals of Surgery, 214, 679-688.
  • Neaton JD, Wentworth DF. (1992) Serum cholesterol, blood pressure, cigarette smoking and death from coronary heart disease. Overall findings and differences by age for 316,099 white men. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 56-64.
  • Bittar AE, Ratcliffe PJ, Richardson AJ, et al . (1990) The prevalence of hyperlipidemia in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation, 50, 987-992.
  • Appel GA. (1991) Lipid abnormalities in renal disease. Kidney International, 39, 169-183.
  • Drüeke TB, Abdulmassih Z, Lacour B, Bader C, Chevalier A, Kreis H. (1991) Atherosclerosis and lipid disorders after renal transplantation. Kidney International, 39(Suppl. 31), S24-S28.
  • Dimény E, Wahlberg J, Lithell H, Fellström B. (1995) Hyperlipidaemia in renal transplantation - risk factor for long-term graft outcome. European Journal of Clinical Investigations, 25, 574-583.
  • Vathsala A, Weinberg RB, Schoenberg L, et al . (1989) Lipid abnormalities in cyclosporine-prednisolone-treated renal transplant recipients. Transplantation, 48, 37-43.
  • Coresh R, Longenecker C, Miller ER, Young HJ, Klag MJ. (1998) Epidemiology of cardiovascular risk factors in chronic renal disease. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 9, S24-S30.
  • Kasiske BL, Umen AJ. (1987) Persistent hyperlipidemia in renal transplant patients. Medicine, 66, 309-316.
  • Arnadottir M, Berg A-L. (1997) Treatment of hyperlipidemia in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation, 63, 339-345.
  • Harris KPG, Russell GI, Parvin SD, Veitch PS, Walls J. (1986) Alterations in lipid and carbohydrate metabolism attributable to cyclosporin A in renal transplant recipients. British Medical Journal, 292, 16.
  • Kasiske BL, Tortorice KL, Heim-Duthoy KL, Awni WM, Rao KV. (1991) The adverse impact of cyclosporine on serum lipids in renal transplant recipients. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 17, 700-707.
  • Kuster GM, Drexel H, Bleisch JA, et al . (1994) Relation of cyclosporine blood levels to adverse effects on lipoproteins. Transplantation, 57, 1479-1483.
  • Callard P, Bedrossian J, Idatte JM, et al . (1975) The arterial lesions in the cause of renal allograft rejection. Advances in Nephrology, 5, 333-353.
  • Woo YM, Jardine AG, Clark AF, et al . (1999) Early graft function and patient survival following cadaveric renal transplantation. Kidney International, 55, 692-699.
  • Tonstad S, Holdaas H, Gørbitz C, Ose L. (1995) Is dietary intervention effective in post-transplant hyperlipidemia Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 10, 82-85.
  • Keogh A, Day R, Critchley L, Duggin G, Baron D. (1988) The effect of food and cholestyramine on the absorption of cyclosporine in cardiac transplant recipients. Transplant Proceedings, 20, 27-30.
  • Lal SM, Hewett JE, Petroski GF, Van Stone JC, Ross G. (1995) Effects of nicotinic acid and lovastatin in renal transplant patients: a prospective, randomized, open-labelled crossover trial. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 25, 616-622.
  • Bradford RH, Shear CL, Chremos AN, et al . (1991) Expanded Clinical Evaluation of Lovastatin (EXCEL) study results. I. Efficacy in modifying plasma lipoproteins and adverse event profile in 8245 patients with moderate hypercholesterolemia. Archives of Internal Medicine, 151, 43-49.
  • Farmer JA, Washington LC, Jones PH, Shapiro DR, Goto AM, Mantell G. (1992) Comparative effects of simvastatin and lovastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia. The Simvastatin and Lovastatin Multicenter Study Participants. Clinical Therapy, 14, 708-717.
  • Lambrecht LF, Malini PL. (1993) Efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin 20 mg vs pravastatin 20 mg in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. European Study Group. Acta Cardiologica, 48, 541-554.
  • Lovastatin/Pravastatin Study Group. (1993) A multicenter comparative trial of lovastatin andpravastatin in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. American Journal of Cardiology, 71, 810-815.
  • Peters TK, Muratti EN, Mehra M. (1994) Fluvastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia. efficacy and safety in patients at high risk. An analysis of a clinical trial database. American Journal of Medicine, 96(Suppl. 6A), 79S-83S.
  • Steinhagen-Thiessen E, on behalf of the Simvastatin Pravastatin European Study Group. (1994) Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 5 and 10 mg simvastatin and 10 mg pravastatin in moderate primary hypercholesterolemia. Cardiology, 85, 244-254.
  • Herd JA, Ballantyne CM, Farmer JA, et al . (1997) Effects of fluvastatin on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with mild to moderate cholesterol elevations (Lipoprotein and Coronary Atherosclerosis Study [LCAS]). American Journal of Cardiology, 80, 278-286.
  • Schuster H, Berger J, Luft FC. (1998) Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial of atorvastatin and fluvastatin on plasma lipid levels in patients with untreated hyperlipidaemia. British Journal of Cardiology, 5, 597-602.
  • Beil S, Pfafferott C, Weber M, on behalf of the fluvastatin investigators. (1997) Fluvastatin lipid-lowering effect in routine practice conditions (FLIRT). Results of a drug surveillance study. Clinical Drug Investigations, 14, 146-153.
  • Földes K, Makláry E, Vargha P, et al . (1998) Effect of diet and fluvastatin treatment on the serum lipid profile of kidney transplant, diabetic recipients: a 1-year follow up. Transplant International, 11(Suppl. 1), S65-S68.
  • Li PKT, Mak TWL, Chan TH, Wang A, Lam CWK, Lai KN. (1995) Effect of fluvastatin on lipoprotein profiles in treating renal transplant recipients with dyslipoproteinemia. Transplantation, 60, 652-656.
  • Holdaas H, Hartmann A, Stenstrøm J, Dahl K, Borge M, Pfister P. (1995) Effect of fluvastatin for safely lowering atherogenic lipids in renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporine. American Journal of Cardiology, 76, 102A-106A.
  • Schrama YC, Hené RJ, de Jonge N, et al . (1998) Efficacy and muscle safety of fluvastatin in cyclosporine-treated cardiac and renal transplant recipients. an exercise provocation test. Transplantation, 66, 1175-1181.
  • Holdaas H, Hartmann A, Stenstrøm J, Nordal K, Berg K, Fauchald P. (1996) Effect of incremental doses of fluvastatin in renal recipients treated with cyclosporin [abstract]. 66th Congress of the European Atherosclerosis Society, 13-17 July . Florence, Italy.
  • Plosker GL, Wagstaff AJ, Fluvastatin. (1996) A review of its pharmacology and use in the management of hypercholesterolaemia. Drugs, 51, 433-459.
  • Langtry HD, Markham A, Fluvastatin. (1999) A review of its use in lipid disorders.. Drugs, in press .
  • Austen JL, Shifrin FA, Bartucci MR, Knauss TC, Schulak JA, Hricik DE. (1996) Effects of fluvastatin on hyperlipidemia after renal transplantation: influence of steroid therapy. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 30, 1386-1389.
  • Olbricht C, Wanner C, Eisenhauer T, et al . (1997) Accumulation of lovastatin, but not pravastatin, in the blood of cyclosporine-treated kidney graft patients after multiple doses. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 62, 311-321.
  • Tobert JA. (1998) Efficacy and long-term adverse effects pattern of lovastatin. American Journal of Cardiology, 62, 28J-34J.
  • Corpier CL, Jones PH, Suki WN, et al . (1988) Rhabdomyolysis and renal injury with lovastatin use. Report of two cases in cardiac transplant recipients. Journal of the American Medical Association, 260, 239-241.
  • East C, Alivizatos PA, Grundy SM, Jones PH, Farmer JA. (1988) Rhabdomyolysis in patients receiving lovastatin after cardiac transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 47-48.
  • Norman DJ, Illingworth DR, Munson J, Hosenpud J. (1988) Myolysis and acute renal failure in a heart-transplant recipient receiving lovastatin. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 46-47.
  • Arnadottir M, Eriksson L-O, Thysell H, Karkas JD. (1993) Plasma concentration profiles of simvastatin 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitory activity in kidney transplant recipients with and without ciclosporin. Nephron, 65, 410-413.
  • Meier C, Stey C, Brack T, Maggiorini M, Risti B, Krahenbuhl S. (1995) Rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with simvastatin and cyclosporin: role of hepatic cytochrome P450 enzyme system activity. Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift, 125, 1342-1346.
  • Keogh AM, Macdonal PS, Aboyoun C, Mundy JA, McCaffrey D, Spratt PM. (1999) Pravastatin confers superior survival after cardiac transplantation when compared to simvastatin [abstract]. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 33, Abstract no. 855-2.
  • Muck W. (1998) Rational assessment of the interaction profile of cerivastatin supports its low propensity for drug interactions. Drugs, 56(Suppl. 1), 15-23.
  • Hsu I, Spinler SA, Johnson NE. (1995) Comparative evaluation of the safety and efficacy of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor monotherapy in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 29, 743-759.
  • Smith PF, Eydelloth RS, Grossman SJ, et al . (1991) HMG-CoA. reductase inhibitor-induced myopathy in the rat: cyclosporine A interaction and mechanism studies. Journal of Pharmacological and Experimental Therapy, 257, 1225-1235.
  • Regazzi MB, Iacona I, Campana C, et al . (1993) Altered disposition of pravastatin following concomitant drug therapy with cyclosporin A in transplant recipients. Transplant Proceedings, 25, 2732-2734.
  • Kronbach T, Fischer V, Meyer UA. (1988) Cyclosporine metabolism in human liver: identification of a cytochrome P450III gene family as the major cyclosporine-metabolizing enzyme explains interactions of cyclosporine with other drugs. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 43, 630-635.
  • Wang RW, Kari PH, Lu AYH, Thomas PE, Guengerich FP, Vyas KP. (1991) Biotransformation of lovastatin. IV. Identification of cytochrome P450, 3A proteins as the major enzymes responsible for the oxidative metabolism of lovastatin in rat and human liver microsomes. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 290, 355-361.
  • Prueksaritanont T, Gorham LM, Ma B, et al . (1997) In vitro metabolism of simvastatin in humans [SBT] identification of metabolizing enzymes and effect of the drugs on hepatic P450s. Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 25, 1191-1199.
  • Boberg M, Angerbauer R, Fey P, et al . (1997) Metabolism of cerivastatin by human liver microsomes in vitro. Characterization of primary metabolic pathways and of cytochrome P450 isozymes involved. Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 25, 321-331.
  • Christians U, Jacobsen W, Floren LC. (1998) Metabolism and drug interactions of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors in transplant patients: are the statins mechanistically similar Pharmacological Therapy, 80, 1-34.
  • Dimitroulakos J, Yeger H. (1996) HMG-CoA. reductase mediates the biological effects of retinoic acid on human neuroblastoma cells: lovastatin specifically targets P- lycoprotein expressing cells. Nature Medicine, 2, 326-333.
  • Kitazawa E, Tamura N, Iwabuchi H, et al . (1993) Biotransformation of pravastatin sodium. Biochemistry and Biophysics Research Communications, 192, 597-602.
  • Lindahl A, Sanström R, Ungell A-L, Lennernäs H. (1998) Concentration- and region-dependent intestinal permeability of fluvastatin the rat. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 50, 737-744.
  • Fischer V, Johanson L, Heitz F, et al . (1999) The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor flu- vastatin: effect on human cytochrome P-450 and implications for metabolic drug interactions. Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 27, 410-416.
  • Appel S, Dingemanse J. (1996) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic interactions of fluvastatin and their therapeutic implications. Review of Contemporary Pharmacotherapy, 7, 167-182.
  • Goldberg R, Roth D. (1996) Evaluation of fluvastatin in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia in renal transplant recipients taking cyclosporine. Transplantation, 62, 1559-1564.
  • Hadjigavriel M, Kyriakides G. (1997) Fluvastatin in renal transplantation. Transplant Proceedings, 29, 3050.
  • Locsey L, Asztalos L, Kincses Z, Balázs G. (1997) Fluvastatin (Lescol) treatment of hyperlipidaemia in patients with renal transplants. International Urology and Nephrology, 29, 95-106.
  • Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. (1994) Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet, 344, 1383-1389.
  • Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al . (1995) Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. New England Journal of Medicine, 333, 1301-1307.
  • Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, et al . (1996) The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. New England Journal of Medicine, 335, 1001-1009.
  • Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, et al . for the AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group. (1998) Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels. Results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1615-1621.
  • The Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. (1998) Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. New England Journal of Medicine, 339, 1349-1357.
  • Serruys PW, Foley DP, Jackson G, et al . on behalf of the FLARE study group. (1999) A randomized placebo controlled trial of fluvastatin for prevention of restenosis after successful coronary balloon angioplasty: final results of the fluvastatin angiographic restenosis (FLARE) trial. European Heart Journal, 20, 58-69.
  • Bumgardner GL, Wilson GA, Tso PL, et al . (1995) Impact of serum lipids on long-term graft and patient survival after renal transplantation. Transplantation, 60, 1418-1421.
  • Pollock CA, Mahony JF, Ong CS, Caterson RJ, Waught DA, Ibels S. (1995) Hyperlipidemia in renal transplant patients: does it matter and can we treat it Transplant Proceedings, 27, 2152-2153.
  • Kasiske BL, Guijarro C, Massy ZA, Wiederkehr MR, Ma JZ. (1996) Cardiovascular disease after renal transplantation. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 7, 158-165.
  • Aker S, Ivens K, Guo Z, Grabensee B, Heering P. (1998) Cardiovascular complications after renal transplantation. Transplant Proceedings, 30, 2039-2042.
  • Hillebrand GF, Schlosser S, Schneeberger H, et al . (1999) No clinical evidence of hyperlipidemia as a risk factor for chronic renal allograft failure. Transplant Proceedings, 31, 1391-1392.
  • Kobashigawa JA, Katznelson S, Laks H, et al . (1995) Effect of pravastatin on outcomes after cardiac transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 333, 621-627.
  • Wenke K, MeiSeries B, Thiery J, et al . (1997) Simvastatin reduces graft vessel disease and mortality after heart transplantation. a four-year randomized trial. Circulation, 96, 1398-1402.
  • Eich D, Thompson JA, Ko DJ, et al . (1991) Hypercholesterolemia in long-term survivors of heart transplantation: an early marker of accelerated coronary heart disease. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 10, 45-49.
  • Katznelson S, Wilkinson AH, Kobashigawa JA, et al . (1996) The effect of pravastatin on acute rejection after kidney transplantation - a pilot study. Transplantation, 61, 1469-1474.
  • Akhlaghi F, McLachlan AJ, Keogh AM, Brown KF. (1997) Effect of simvastatin on cyclosporine unbound fraction and apparent blood clearance in heart transplant recipients. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 44, 537-542.
  • Kobashigawa JA. (1996) Drugs in cardiac transplantation [letter]. New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 401-402.
  • Hebert PR, Gaziano JM, Chan KS, Hennekens CH. (1997) Cholesterol lowering with statin drugs, risk of stroke, and total mortality. An overview of randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 313-321.
  • Katznelson W, Wang XM, Chia D, et al . (1998) The inhibitory effects of pravastatin on natural killer cell activity in vivo and on cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity in vitro. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 17, 335-240.
  • Cutts JL, Bankhurst AD. (1990) Reversal of lovastatin-mediated inhibition of natural killer cell activity. Journal of Cell Physiology, 145, 244-252.
  • Rothe G, Elbracht R, Hauser I, et al . (1997) Relative decrease of cytotoxic T cells in kidney transplanted patients [abstract]. Atherosclerosis, 134, 282.
  • Arnadottir M, Eriksson L-O, Germershausen JI, Thysell H. (1994) Low-dose simvastatin is a well tolerated and efficacious cholesterol-lowering agent in ciclosporin-treated kidney transplant recipients. double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in 40 patients. Nephron, 68, 57-62.
  • Rosenson RS, Tangney CC. (1998) Antiatherothrombotic properties of statins. Implications for cardiovascular event reduction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1643-1650.
  • Lal SM, Gupta N, Georgiev O, Ross G. (1997) Lipid-lowering of fluvastatin in renal transplant patients. A clinical observation. International Journal of Artificial Organs, 20, 18-21.
  • Melchor JL, Gracida C. (1998) Treatment of hypercholesterolemia with fluvastatin in kidney transplant patients. Transplant Proceedings, 30, 2054.