PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

K Midtvedt

Publications and source records attributed to K Midtvedt.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase activity in renal allograft recipients during mycophenolate treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Mycophenolic acid (MPA) exerts its immunosuppression by inhibiting inosine 5'-monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH), depleting activated lymphocytes of guanine nucleotides and retarding their proliferation. An optimal strategy for monitoring has not been established for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in renal transplantation, and clinical investigations of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship are warranted. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics and whole blood cell IMPDH activity were investigated in two separate groups of renal allograft recipients. One group was studied within the 12-h dose interval, while the second group was examined by pre-dose samples pre-transplant and then repeatedly during 8 weeks post-transplant. RESULTS: An inverse relationship between plasma MPA and IMPDH activity within the dose interval was demonstrated. Minimum IMPDH activity was a median 8 % of values pre-MMF dose, coinciding with the MPA peak. Six hours post-dose, IMPDH activity had returned to pre-dose values. Patients receiving MMF had a 4.5-fold higher pre-dose enzyme activity than transplanted patients without MMF. During the 8 weeks post-transplant, the median MPA trough concentration was fairly stable. Following an initial decrease during the first 4 days post-transplant, IMPDH activity gradually increased during the 40 days post-transplant, reaching 5-fold the pre-transplant values. CONCLUSIONS: Provided that the changes in IMPDH activity in whole blood cells predict the clinical effect, these pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic findings may prove useful in the attempts to identify optimal timing and range for the monitoring of mycophenolate in renal transplantation. The question of whether MPA concentrations or measurements of IMPDH activity per se will be the optimal way of monitoring this immunosuppressant remains open and will only be answered by prospective clinical testing.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients with thrombotic microangiopathy/hemolytic uremic syndrome.

Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) and hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) represent serious threats to kidney allograft recipients. During a 4-year period, among 850 kidney transplantations, seven recipients with primary HUS and seven recipients (eight transplants) with previous or de novo TMA/HUS were identified and given calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-free immunosuppression by sirolimus (SRL), mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Thirteen out of 15 transplantations were successful in the long term; resulting in a mean creatinine of 101 mumol/L (16.4 months follow-up). In patients maintained on CNI-free regimen, no TMA/HUS recurrences were observed. A high rate of acute rejections (53%) may indicate insufficient immunosuppressive power and/or a causative relationship between TMA/HUS and rejection. Wound-related complications were abundant (60%), and call for surgical/immunosuppressive countermeasures. Our experience supports the idea that CNI's are major offenders in TMA/HUS induction. Total CNI elimination seems essential, as the nephrotoxic combination CNI + SRL may promote TMA. Features of TMA/HUS should be carefully explored in recurrent 'high responders'.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine has been established as part of the routine clinical treatment for patients after organ transplantation. The inability to define optimal dose (maximize efficacy/minimize toxicity) has been a problem related to drug monitoring of cyclosporine. The original cyclosporine formula showed high intra-patient and inter-patient variability and low bioavailability. The microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine (Neoral) was introduced to address the absorption problems related to the original cyclosporine formulation. With the introduction of Neoral, renewed interest in methods of therapeutic drug monitoring brought us from trough monitoring (C0) to levels measured 2 hours after dosing (C2). The pharmacokinetic rationale for using C2 to monitor patients receiving Neoral has demonstrated a reduced incidence of rejection in de novo patients and improvements in safety profile in both renal and hepatic transplant recipients. Monitoring C2 levels is a more precise method for optimizing cyclosporine dosing and a better way to individualize therapy. Further data are required from prospective trials to evaluate the clinical benefits of adopting C2 monitoring in cardiac and lung transplant recipients as well as in long-term maintenance patients.

Area Under Curve↗
PubMed2001

Sustained improvement of renal graft function for two years in hypertensive renal transplant recipients treated with nifedipine as compared to lisinopril.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of posttransplant hypertension is still a matter of debate. Calcium antagonists may ameliorate renal side effects of cyclosporin. Angiotensin converting enzyme- (ACE) inhibitors may be more effective in sustaining renal function in native chronic renal disease. We prospectively compared the effect of controlled release nifedipine and lisinopril on long-term renal function in hypertensive kidney transplant patients treated with cyclosporin. METHODS: A total of 154 renal transplant patients presenting with hypertension (diastolic blood pressure >or=95 mmHg) during the first 3 weeks after transplantation were randomised to receive double-blind nifedipine 30 mg or lisinopril 10 mg once daily. A total of 123 patients completed 1 year of treatment (69 nifedipine, 54 lisinopril) and 64 patients completed 2 years of double-blind treatment (39 nifedipine, 25 lisinopril). Baseline glomerular filtration rate was measured as 99 mTc-diethylene-triaminepentaacetate clearance in a stable phase 2 to 5 weeks after inclusion and repeated at 1 and 2 years. RESULTS: Baseline glomerular filtration rates were similar (46+/-16 ml/min with nifedipine, 43+/-14 ml/min with lisinopril). The changes in glomerular filtration rates from baseline were statistically significant between the groups after 1 year (9.6 ml/min mean treatment difference (95% confidence interval [CI]s 5.5-13.7 ml/min, P=0.0001) and remained statistically significant also after 2 years (10.3 ml/min mean difference (95% CIs 4.0-16.6], P=0.0017). After 1 year glomerular filtration rates averaged 56+/-19 ml/min in the nifedipine group and 44+/-14 ml/min in the lisinopril group. CONCLUSIONS: Both nifedipine and lisinopril were safe and effective in treatment of hypertension in renal transplant patients treated with cyclosporin. Patients receiving nifedipine but not lisinopril improved kidney transplant function over a period of 2 years.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Reduction of left ventricular mass by lisinopril and nifedipine in hypertensive renal transplant recipients: a prospective randomized double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the dominant cause of death in renal transplant recipients. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a known risk factor. After renal transplantation, persistent hypertension is an important determinant for the further evolution of LVH. The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (lisinopril) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) (controlled release nifedipine) in treatment of posttransplant hypertension focusing on changes in LVH. METHODS: One hundred fifty-four renal transplant recipients presenting with hypertension (diastolic BP> or =95 mmHg) during the first 3 weeks after transplantation were randomized to receive double-blind 30 mg nifedipine or 10 mg lisinopril once daily. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients completed 1 year of treatment. Good quality echocardiographic data were available in 116 recipients (62 nifedipine/54 lisinopril) 2 and 12 months posttransplant. Blood pressure was equally well controlled in the two groups throughout the study (mean systolic/diastolic+/-SD after 1 year: 140+/-16/87+/-8 mmHg with nifedipine and 136+/-17/85+/-8 mmHg with lisinopril). Left ventricular mass index was reduced by 15% (P<0.001) in both groups (from 153+/-43 to 131+/-38 g/m2 with nifedipine and from 142+/-35 to 121+/-34 g/m2 with lisinopril). There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups at baseline or at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive renal transplant recipients with well-controlled blood pressure, there is a regression of left ventricular mass after renal transplantation. The regression of left ventricular mass index is observed to a similar extent in patients treated with lisinopril or nifedipine.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Efficacy of nifedipine or lisinopril in the treatment of hypertension after renal transplantation: a double-blind randomised comparative trial.

Calcium channel blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors are commonly used in the treatment of hypertensive renal transplant recipients. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the response rate to treatment differs with these drugs in this setting. A single centre, prospective, randomised, double-blinded, comparative study to address the efficacy of controlled release nifedipine or lisinopril in the treatment of hypertension (diastolic blood pressure > or =95 mmHg) in cyclosporin (CsA)-treated renal transplant recipients was performed. Recipients were randomised to receive either lisinopril (10 mg once daily) or controlled release nifedipine (30 mg once daily). The dose was doubled on indication. The number of responders (diastolic blood pressure <90 mmHg on monotherapy) were addressed during the early post-transplant phase (first 3 months) and during a late post-transplant phase (from 3 to 12 months after renal transplantation) in the same patient population. One hundred and fifty-four patients (nifedipine=78, lisinopril=76) with untreated hypertension (diastolic blood pressure> or =95 mmHg) were randomised within 3 wk after renal transplantation. One hundred and twenty-three patients (nifedipine=69, lisinopril=54) completed the study. Fourteen (20%) nifedipine-treated recipients responded during the early, and 26 (38%) during the late post-operative phase (months 4-12 after renal transplantation). Eleven (20%) lisinopril-treated recipients responded during the early, and 18 (33%) during the late post-transplant phase. Non-responders were, on average, 8.5+/-1.5 kg heavier both in the early phase and after 1 yr of treatment (p<0.01), and 6.1+/-0.9 yr older than responders (p<0.05). In conclusion, these results indicate that both controlled release nifedipine and lisinopril are equally efficient in the treatment of post-transplant hypertension. As monotherapy, both drugs show a "response rate" of 20-38%, depending on time interval after transplantation.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Metabolic cardiovascular syndrome after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of death in renal transplant recipients. Traditional risk factors like hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes mellitus are common, but cannot completely account for the high prevalence of CVD in this population. The aim of the present study was to assess whether post-transplant glucose intolerance, defined as post-transplant diabetes mellitus, impaired glucose tolerance, or impaired fasting glucose, is associated with metabolic disturbances known to increase risk of cardiovascular disease, similar to what has been observed in the general population. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-three consecutive patients were prospectively examined 10 weeks after transplantation. An oral glucose tolerance test was completed in 167 patients. Questionnaires, medical records, and the results of various blood tests were used to evaluate a number of known cardiovascular risk factors in all patients. RESULTS: Glucose intolerance was present in about one-half the recipients and was associated with age, a positive family history of ischaemic heart disease, acute rejection, higher levels of serum triglycerides, apolipoprotein B and 2-h insulin, and lower levels of serum HDL cholesterol. After adjustment for age and sex, lower HDL cholesterol (P=0.005), higher serum triglycerides (P<0.001), apolipoprotein B (P=0.039) and 2-h insulin (P<0.001) were still associated with post-transplant glucose intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Ten weeks after renal transplantation glucose intolerance is associated with a clustering of cardiovascular risk factors and metabolic abnormalities, consistent with a post-transplant metabolic cardiovascular syndrome.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Better microvascular function on long-term treatment with lisinopril than with nifedipine in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of hypertension in renal transplant recipients is high but the pathophysiology is poorly defined. Impaired endothelial function may be a factor of major importance. The present study addresses the effects of long-term treatment with either lisinopril or slow-release nifedipine on microvascular function and plasma endothelin in renal transplant recipients on cyclosporin A (CsA). METHODS: Seventy-five hypertensive renal transplant recipients were double-blind randomized to receive slow-release nifedipine (NIF, n=40) or lisinopril (LIS, n=35). Ten normotensive, age-matched recipients served as controls. All patients received CsA-based immunosuppressive therapy including prednisolone and azathioprine. Microvascular function was assessed in the forearm skin vasculature, using laser Doppler flowmetry in combination with post-occlusive reactive hyperaemia and endothelial-dependent function during local acetylcholine (ACh) stimulation. RESULTS: The analysis of microvascular function (AUC(rh)) showed that nifedipine-treated patients had significantly lower responses compared with lisinopril-treated patients (20+/-17 and 43+/-20 AU x min respectively, P=0.0016). Endothelial function was borderline significantly lower in the NIF group compared with the LIS group (640+/-345 and 817+/-404 AU x min respectively, P=0.056). The responses in the LIS group were comparable with those in non-hypertensive controls (AUC(rh) was 37+/-16 and AUC(ACh) was 994+/-566 AU x min). Plasma endothelin-1 concentrations were significantly higher in the NIF group compared with the LIS group (0.44+/-0.19 vs. 0.34+/-0.10 fmol/ml respectively, P=0.048), and were 0.29+/-0.09 fmol/ml in the control patients. AUC(ACh) was associated with plasma endothelin-1 (P=0.0053), while AUC(rh) was not (P=0.080). CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that long-term treatment with lisinopril, when compared with nifedipine, yields a more beneficial effect on microvascular function in hypertensive renal transplant recipients on CsA. The beneficial microvascular effect may be mediated in part by an endothelin-1-associated effect on the endothelium.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Insulin resistance after renal transplantation: impact of immunosuppressive and antihypertensive therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to validate various surrogate estimates of insulin sensitivity (IS) in a renal transplant population and to assess the influence of immunosuppressive and antihypertensive therapy on insulin resistance (IR) after renal transplantation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 167 consecutive renal transplant recipients without previously known diabetes underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3 months after renal transplantation. A total of 43 patients also underwent a euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic glucose clamp study. Six OGTT-derived IS indexes were validated against the euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic glucose clamp-derived IS index (ISI(CLAMP)). RESULTS: The OGTT-derived ISI(TX) correlated closely with the ISI(CLAMP) (r = 0.58, P < 0.001). The other surrogate estimates of IS were also significantly but less well correlated with the ISI(CLAMP) (Spearman's correlation; r = -0.45 to 0.41, P = 0.003-0.050). In the univariate model, BMI, daily prednisolone dose, creatinine clearance, hypertension, number of antihypertensive agents, and use of diuretics or beta-blockers were negatively associated with ISI(TX) (P < 0.05). After multiple regression analysis, BMI (P < 0.001), daily prednisolone dose (P < 0.001), cytomegalovirus infection (P = 0.030), and triglycerides (P = 0.034) were shown to be independent predictors of posttransplant IR. CONCLUSIONS: The OGTT-derived ISI(TX) may be a useful estimate of IS in Caucasian renal transplant recipients. Increasing daily prednisolone dose is an independent predictor of IR after renal transplantation. Hypertension and the use of beta-blockers and diuretics may also deteriorate IR in this group of patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Management strategies for posttransplant hypertension.

Despite recent advances in the prolongation of patient and graft survival, transplant patients continue to die prematurely of accelerated cardiovascular disease. Arterial hypertension is a well-known risk factor for cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in the general population and a frequent complication following transplantation. The pathogenesis of posttransplant hypertension in renal transplant recipients is multifactorial and includes pretransplant hypertension in the recipient, donor hypertension, uncontrolled renin secretion from the remaining native kidney, hypertension as a consequence of graft dysfunction, recurrent or de novo renal disease, and, nowadays more rarely, transplant artery stenosis. The strong impact of an immunosuppressive regimen consisting of calcineurin inhibitors and steroids must also be considered. Calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids induce hypertension in renal, cardiac, liver, bone marrow, and lung transplant recipients. Posttransplant hypertension appears to be a major risk factor for graft and patient survival. Recent controlled studies support the opinion that posttransplant hypertension must be treated as strictly as in a population with essential hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or chronic renal failure.

Graft Survival↗
PubMed1999

[Cardiovascular disease after kidney transplantation].

Norwegian renal transplant recipients have a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease. In this group of patients cardiovascular disease causes three out of four deaths. Well-known risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes mellitus are common in renal transplant recipients, but these factors cannot fully explain the high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Atherosclerotic disease and left ventricular hypertrophy are highly prevalent in uremic patients before transplantation. Hyperhomocysteinemia, elevated levels of advanced glycosylated end products, and immunosuppressive medication may also accelerate the atherosclerotic process. Until results from controlled trials on the effect of lipid-lowering therapy in renal transplant recipients are available, treatment decisions must be based on studies in non-transplanted patients. Every patient should be treated individually with the overall risk pattern taken into account.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗
PubMed1999

[Infections in renal transplant recipients in Norway].

The normal inflammatory response seen with an invasion of microbes is reduced in transplant recipients due to the use of immunosuppressive medication. This often makes diagnosis of infectious diseases difficult. Urinary tract infections, pneumonia, wound infections and infections related to foreign material may occur in the first few weeks after renal transplantation. One to four months after renal transplantation opportunistic infections and cytomegalovirus infections are common. From four months on there are only minor differences with respect to infectious diseases between organ transplant recipients and the normal population. Successful treatment of infectious disease in organ transplant recipients depends on early diagnosis and adequate choice of therapy.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMed1999

Gene expression of the renal endothelin system in renal transplant recipients on cyclosporine A based immunosuppression.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive therapy based on cyclosporine A (CsA) is potentially nephrotoxic, and each dose of CsA is followed by a transient increase in plasma endothelin (ET)-1. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of CsA based immunosuppressive therapy on renal gene expression of the ET(A) and ET(B) receptor subtypes and preproET-1 in human transplant needle biopsies. METHODS: Twelve living donor renal transplant recipients, median age 51.5 years (range 24-63 years) were included in the study. Immunosuppressive therapy consisted of CsA, azathioprine, and prednisolone. Baseline renal cortical needle biopsies from the living donor kidneys were obtained just before nephrectomy. Follow-up biopsies were obtained from the same transplanted kidneys after 2-6 weeks of immunosuppressive therapy. We used a quantitative, competitive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay to measure renal ET(A) and ET(B) receptor subtype mRNAs as well as preproET-1 mRNA levels in each of the biopsies. RESULTS: The renal ET system was not significantly altered by CsA-based immunosuppressive therapy. Median ET(A) mRNA level was 185 (range 35-244) at baseline, and 120 (11-189) amol/microg total RNA after CsA based immunosuppressive therapy (P=0.11). ET(B) mRNA level was 506 (209-1411) at baseline, and 463 (267-1609) amol/microg total RNA at follow-up (P=0.44) and preproET-1 mRNA level was 160 (112-392) before and 221 (187-361) amol/microg total RNA after immunosuppressive therapy based on CsA (P=0.58). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that 2-6 weeks of CsA-based immunosuppression neither significantly influences renal gene expression of the ET(A) or ET(B) receptor subtypes nor preproET-1 in living donor renal transplant kidneys.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Routine perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis may prevent infection following renal transplantation but it also contributes to development of resistant microorganisms. With refined surgical techniques, improved graft preservation, and immunosuppressive monitoring during recent decades one can question the present use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of infection in our renal transplant centre where antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely used in renal recipients. Concurrently we performed a survey of perioperative antibiotic use to establish the current world-wide practice. METHODS: Infection episodes were evaluated from records of 448 adult renal transplant recipients (January 1994 to August 1996) at our centre. A questionnaire was mailed to 103 centres addressing the number of kidney transplantations in 1995, donor source (living vs cadaveric) and details on use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Single-centre study. Renal transplantation was performed without antibiotic prophylaxis in 377 patients (84%). Thirteen patients (3.4%) had early postoperative infections, nine with urinary-tract infection tended to have urinary catheter for a longer period than those without infection (5.0 +/- 2.7 vs 3.4 +/- 1.4 days, P = 0.27) and cadaveric kidney recipients to have higher incidence of infections (4.5 vs 1.5% P = 0.14). All infection episodes were successfully treated. The infection incidence in 71 (16%) 'high-risk' patients selected for antibiotic treatment was 4.2%. World-wide survey. Data were obtained from 101 centres in five continents representing 10532 renal transplants. Ninety centres (89%) used perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: The infection incidence in patients who did not receive perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was the same as in a small group of selected patients who received prophylaxis. The incidence was lower than usually reported in the literature. In contrast perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is given to all patients in almost 90% of transplant centres worldwide. A reduction of prophylactic antibiotic use is encouraged.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Insulin resistance is a common denominator of post-transplant diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Post-transplant diabetes mellitus is a known complication of steroid therapy in renal transplant recipients. Both insulin resistance and insulin deficiency have been shown to be necessary for development of post-transplant diabetes mellitus. It is not known whether recipients with impaired glucose tolerance have similar degree of insulin resistance or deficient insulin response as recipients with post-transplant diabetes mellitus. METHOD: To address this question, we used an oral glucose tolerance test to categorize 46 renal transplant recipients on triple immunosuppressive medication to groups with normal glucose tolerance, impaired glucose tolerance or post-transplant diabetes mellitus. Insulin sensitivity was measured using a hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp. Insulin response was calculated from the increase in serum insulin concentration during the oral glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: Twenty-five were categorized to normal glucose tolerance, 15 to impaired glucose tolerance and six to post-transplant diabetes mellitus. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding prednisolone dose, azathioprine dose, use of beta-blocker, age, gender, weight, waist-hip ratio, body mass index, donor source, smoking habits, or first-degree relatives with histories of diabetes mellitus. The impaired glucose tolerance and post-transplant diabetes mellitus groups showed a significant reduction in insulin-stimulated glucose disposal rate (mg/kg.min) compared to the normal glucose tolerance group (4.6 +/- 1.6 and 3.4 +/- 1.3 respectively vs 7.1 +/- 2.4, P < 0.05). The insulin response (picomol/l) was not different between the normal glucose tolerance and impaired glucose tolerance groups but was significantly reduced in the post-transplant diabetes mellitus group (448 +/- 310 and 450 +/- 291 respectively vs 170 +/- 128, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Insulin resistance is a common denominator of post-transplant diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance in renal transplant recipients.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Increased potency and decreased elimination of lamifiban, a GPIIb-IIIa antagonist, in patients with severe renal dysfunction.

Activation of the platelet membrane receptor glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa is essential for thrombus formation. The novel nonpeptide GPIIb-IIIa antagonist, lamifiban, represents a promising approach for antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease. Since renal impairment frequently occurs in these patients, we designed a phase I study to assess the tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of lamifiban in patients with renal impairment. Four healthy volunteers (Group 1) with creatinine clearance (CLCR) >75 ml/min, eight patients (Group 2) with mild to moderately impaired renal function (CLCR 30-74 ml/min) and eight patients (Group 3) with severe renal impairment (CLCR 10-29 ml/min) were studied. They received stepwise increased doses of lamifiban intravenously (i.v.). There was a linear relationship between the systemic clearance of the drug and renal function (R2 = 0.86). The mean plasma concentration required for half-maximal inhibition of thrombin-receptor agonist peptide (TRAP) induced platelet aggregation (EC50) ex vivo was 21, 28 and 11 ng/ml in Groups 1, 2 and 3. The patients in Group 3 were sensitized to the antiplatelet effect allowing an 18-fold dosage reduction without compromising the pharmacodynamics. In conclusion, the decreased clearance of lamifiban may act in concert with increased potency of the drug in patients with severe renal impairment, and the drug dosage should be reduced accordingly.

Acetates↗
PubMed1998

Can a diagnosis of renal allograft rejection be based on histology alone?

Acute renal allograft rejection is suspected by the clinician when the serum creatinine value increases in a patient for no other particular cause. A renal allograft biopsy may confirm the diagnosis. This report describes 2 patients with stable serum creatinine; however, protocol biopsy showed acute rejection changes according to the Banff criteria. No anti-rejection treatment was started and their graft function remained stable for 6 months. These two cases focus on the fact that renal allograft rejection should first of all be regarded as a clinical diagnosis which could be substantiated by histological findings.

Acute Disease↗