4.5 Review

Calcineurin Inhibitor Nephrotoxicity: A Review and Perspective of the Evidence

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 602-612

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000351648

关键词

Graft loss; Calcineurin inhibitors; Nephrotoxicity; Chronic kidney disease; Kidney transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:There is no doubt that acute calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity exists; however, chronic CNI nephrotoxicity is questionable at best. Methods: We reviewed the literature to identify original articles related to the use of CNIs in renal and nonrenal solid organ transplantation in order to examine the available evidence about their chronic nephrotoxicity and contribution to graft failure. Results: Early clinical experience and animal studies support the evidence of CNI nephrotoxicity. These findings evolved into the dogma that CNI nephrotoxicity is the major cause of late renal allograft failure. However, in transplanted kidneys the specific role of chronic CNI nephrotoxicity has been questioned. The emerging literature clearly highlights the lack of solid evidence for the role of CNIs as the sole and major injurious agents that cause chronic renal dysfunction and subsequent graft failure. Most of the evidence available to date is against complete CNI avoidance, and minimization appears to be a more viable strategy. It is becoming increasingly clear that the typical pathological lesions linked to chronic CNI use are highly nonspecific, and most of the chronic changes that have been attributed to chronic CNI nephrotoxicity are the consequences of previously unrecognized immunologic injuries. One needs to keep in mind that the potential risk of side effects of CNI use should be balanced against the risk of rejection. Conclusions: More research should focus on addressing the true causes of chronic graft dysfunction rather than focusing on the overexaggerated contribution of CNIs to late graft loss. Copyright (c) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据