1.The evaluation of immunosuppressive regimens in kidney transplant Mongolian recipients
Sarantsetseg J ; Byambadorj B ; Byambadash B ; Munkhjargal B ; Tumurbaatar B ; Jambaljav L ; Bayan-Undur D ; Ganbold L ; Chuluunbaatar D ; Oyunbileg B ; Batbaatar G ; Munkhbat B ; Nyamsuren D
Health Laboratory 2019;9(1):21-27
		                        		
		                        			Background:
		                        			However kidney transplantation has being performed in Mongolia since 
2006, because of pre-transplant sensitization, ABO incompatibility, hepatitis B and C virus 
activation many patients are taken kidney transplantation in abroad. The transplantation 
centers use own immunosuppressive regimens.
		                        		
		                        			Objective:
		                        			Our aim was to assess the immunosuppressive regimens efficacy and toxicity 
in kidney transplant Mongolian recipients.
		                        		
		                        			Methods:
		                        			We analyzed data from 96 adult kidney transplant recipients who had taken 
kidney transplantation in different transplant centers from August 2006 through January 
2014. There were 3 kinds of regimens Group I Simulect induction with standard triple 
/FK506/CyA+MMF/AZA+steroid/, Group II Campath-1H induction with CNI monotherapy 
and Group III Campath-1H induction with standard triple /FK506/CyA+MMF/AZA+steroid/. 
We retrospectively collected the post-transplant first two years serum creatinine. The study 
was performed in 2014. The questionnaire was taken and blood samples collected for 
determination of tacrolimus through level and for other laboratory tests. The primary end 
point was the first two years serum creatinine, the secondary end points included rejection 
episodes, blood through level of tacrolimus and some laboratory findings.
		                        		
		                        			Results:
		                        			The post-transplant first two years serum creatinine levels were significantly 
different in 3 groups. Group III showed similar results compared to Group I. There was not 
enough data of biopsy proven acute rejection episodes however group II said more 
rejections occurred. However participants said that rejection occurred in 15 (15.6%) biopsy 
was done only 3 (3.1%) cases. Blood through level of tacrolimus was significantly different 
in three groups. Some laboratory findings showed different between three groups.
		                        		
		                        			Conclusions
		                        			A regimen of Campath-1H induction with CNI monotherapy (Group II) may 
be advantageous for short-term renal function and cost effective but there were more 
rejection complications and increased creatinine. The regimen of Campath-1H induction 
11 with standard triple (Group III) may be advantageous for long-term renal function, allograft 
survival, but there should consider about infection complications and polycythemia. 
Simulect induction with standard triple could be best choice but transplantations were 
performed in experienced centers. The study enrolled few cases and cases which were 
performed at the beginning of transplant program so many things could influence on the 
result. The study was compared beginner transplant center with experienced centers. 
Longitudinal cohort study needed in the future.
		                        		
		                        		
		                        		
		                        	
            
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail