OBJECTIVES— To systematically review the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD), risk factors for its development, prognostic implications, and optimal management.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— We searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals. Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression was used to explain between-study differences in incidence.

RESULTS— Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included. The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (<10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago. The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P = 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-dose cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies; later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted.

CONCLUSIONS— Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs.

Posttransplantation diabetes (PTD) is a complication of solid-organ transplantation. Beyond the description of PTD as the development of diabetes after transplantation, there is no consensus regarding the definition of this condition. Estimates of the frequency of PTD range from 2 to 50%. Some factors, such as age of the transplant recipient, are consistently described as increasing the risk of PTD. Under dispute is the importance of other factors, such as the recipients ethnicity, body weight, immunosuppressive regimen, and family history of diabetes, as well as the vital status of the organ donor. The prognostic implications of PTD and its optimal treatment are similarly unclear.

The goals of this systematic review were to estimate the incidence of PTD, identify the risk factors for its development, determine its implications for prognosis, and discover treatment strategies that lead to improved patient outcomes.

Questions asked

Our review was designed to answer four questions: 1) For patients with no history of diabetes before transplantation, what is the risk that PTD will develop? 2) What are the risk factors for the development of PTD? 3) What is the prognosis for patients with PTD? 4) Which therapies improve glycemic control and prognosis in patients with PTD?

Identification and retrieval of primary studies

We searched MEDLINE (OVID Technologies and PubMed), EMBASE (OVID Technologies), Current Contents (Institute for Scientific Information), LILACS (BIREME), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), and the Cochrane Library (Update Software) using the following subject headings (including their explosions) and text words: “diabetes mellitus,” “transplantation,” “immunosuppressive agents,” and their synonyms and related terms. Databases were searched from their inception to September 2000 (Current Contents was searched from January 2000 to September 2000). In addition, we manually searched the January 1998 to September 2000 issues of Transplantation, Transplantation Proceedings, Diabetes Care, Diabetes, Diabetologia, and Diabetic Medicine, as well as the bibliographies of all retrieved reports. We asked five experts in transplantation care for information about ongoing studies, completed but unpublished studies, and studies missed by our search strategy. We also queried the National Library of Medicine’s registry of clinical trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Inclusion criteria

We sought reports (in any language) of controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that provided data on PTD after any solid-organ transplantation except pancreas and islet cell transplantation. We included only those studies that enrolled adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation and followed them for at least 1 year after transplantation with <10% loss to follow-up. To be included, case-control studies and cohort studies must have compared all patients with PTD (cases or exposed cohort) with all, a matched set, or a random sample of others (control subjects or unexposed cohort) in whom PTD did not develop. To obtain information about strategies for treating PTD, we attempted to include clinical trials that enrolled patients with PTD and randomized them to intervention and control arms; however, we did not find any such studies and were unable to investigate this question.

Study selection, study quality, and data extraction

Two reviewers worked independently to determine whether a study met the inclusion criteria, collect information to assess the methodological validity (degree of protection against confounding and bias) of each study included, and extract data from the included studies using structured and standardized data extraction forms. Reviewers resolved discrepancies by jointly reviewing any study in question; if no consensus was reached, a third reviewer, who was unaware of the other reviewers’ determinations, functioned as an arbitrator.

Data analysis and statistical methods

We quantified interobserver reliability using Cohen’s κ statistic (1). We extracted the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD and calculated its 95% CI using the exact method by Pearson. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% CIs. When these calculations could not be conducted because too little information had been published, we noted the published P values or other statements of statistical significance.

We did not conduct statistical pooling of the data. To explore the effect of study characteristics on the 12-month cumulative incidence (response variable), we conducted multiple linear regression (meta-regression). The response variable was calculated for each cohort of patients receiving the same immunosuppressive regimen. If this was not possible, we used the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD for the entire study cohort and assigned the immunosuppressive regimen used by most participants developing PTD. We used square transformation of the response variable to stabilize its variance. The explanatory variables considered included the following: year when patient enrollment was started, study design (randomized trial, cohort study, or case-control study), definition of PTD (glycemic threshold, use of glucose-lowering medication, or combination of these criteria), and type of immunosuppressive regimen used (glucocorticoids, cyclosporine, high-dose tacrolimus, or low-dose tacrolimus). We used backward elimination to exclude explanatory variables that provided no significant information (P > 0.1). We tested the hypothesis that the resulting model was useful in predicting the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD and calculated the coefficient of multiple determination to quantify how much of the variability in the response variable was accounted for by the explanatory variables in the model. Statistical analyses were conducted using StatsDirect 2001 (CamCode; Ashwell, Hertfordshire, U.K.).

Search results

After searching the electronic databases, we identified 1,339 abstracts, of which 247 were deemed relevant by title and abstract alone. Also, we found 28 reports in specialized journals and 15 reports in the bibliographies of other reports. One study protocol was found in the clinical trials registry. Evaluation of 291 full reports led to the exclusion of 264 of them. Reasons for exclusion were as follows: 113 reports were not reports of controlled trials, cohort studies, or case-control studies; 46 did not report on PTD or excluded patients with PTD; 12 included children; 63 included patients with diabetes before transplantation or did not report diabetes status before transplantation; 21 followed patients for <1 year or lost >10% of patients to follow-up; and 9 were nonrandomized or uncontrolled studies of interventions to treat PTD. The inter-rater reliability for inclusion decisions was near perfect (κ = 0.93–1).

Study characteristics and quality

A total of 27 reports (228) provided information on 3,611 patients in 19 studies (Table 1). The study quality and methodological characteristics of the 19 included studies are shown in Table 2. Inter-rater reliability for quality assessments was good for studies reporting on risk (κ = 0.62) and studies reporting on prognosis (κ = 0.84). None of the included studies satisfied all quality criteria.

Data synthesis

The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD.

Table 1 includes the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD in 15 studies. Most cases of PTD were diagnosed within 3 months after transplantation. In the 12 studies of kidney transplantation, incidence estimates ranged from to 2 to 50%. In the exploratory analysis using multiple linear regression with data from 15 cohorts included in these 12 studies, the type of immunosuppressive regimen used (steroids, cyclosporine, high-dose tacrolimus, or low-dose tacrolimus) explained 74% of the variability in the 12-month cumulative incidence (P = 0.0004). Figure 1 shows the temporal trends in the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD, with a bimodal distribution corresponding to the initial kidney transplantation experience 3 decades ago and to the introduction of tacrolimus in the early 1990s.

Risk factors for PTD

Risk factors for PTD included age, nonwhite ethnicity, and immunosuppression. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the importance of a family history of diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance before transplantation, increasing weight, and vital status of the organ donor. Transplant recipients with PTD were 0–12 years older than those without PTD (811,15,16,25,27,28). In one study (8,9), individuals whose age was >45 years and weight was >70 kg had an OR of 6.4 (95% CI 1.2–33.4) for the development of PTD. The same study (8,9) found an increased risk of PTD in recipients of cadaveric grafts (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.1–13.7) but included cases from a series that did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review. Miles et al. (17) and Wu et al. (15) (the latter reporting only three cases of PTD) did not find a significant association between PTD and the vital status of the donor (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7–2.8; OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.05–30, respectively). When compared with white patients, nonwhite patients experienced a twofold increase in the risk of PTD (RR 3.3, 95% CI 1.6–7.0) (26).

An association between glucocorticoids (in total or maintenance doses) and PTD has not been reported since the steroids-azathioprine era (27,28). However, an association between glucocorticoid pulse therapy, as treatment for acute rejection, and PTD has been reported before and after the introduction of cyclosporine; up to 76% of cases have been diagnosed during or in the month after anti-rejection treatment (26,25).

Tacrolimus was used in high doses (>0.20 mg · kg−1 · day−1) during phase II and phase III studies, including the multicenter FK506 studies of liver and kidney transplantation (26,20). These studies revealed a significantly higher incidence of PTD in patients treated with tacrolimus than in those treated with cyclosporine (RR 5, 95% CI 2.2–11.5). In the published multiple regression analysis, increasing tacrolimus blood concentration was a significant risk factor for PTD (26). The risk of PTD was lower in white patients (12%) than in nonwhite patients (29%) receiving tacrolimus (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.8). However, compared with cyclosporine, tacrolimus was associated with a greater risk of PTD in white patients (12 vs. 1.2%; RR 10.6, 95% CI 1.8–86.7) than in nonwhite patients (29 vs. 7.8%; RR 3.7, 95% CI 1.6–9.2) (6). Compared with cyclosporine, tacrolimus was not associated with a significantly greater risk of PTD when used in lower doses (0.15–0.2 mg · kg−1 · day−1) (7,12).

Two studies (10,11,27,28) reported that rejection was associated with a three- to fourfold increase in the risk of PTD. However, that association was not significant in a study in which 14 of 32 cases of PTD appeared >1 year after transplantation (21). The subgroup of patients in whom PTD developed within 1 year after transplantation had a significantly greater risk of PTD during or after a rejection episode than those diagnosed with PTD >1 year after transplantation (OR 7.5, 95% CI 1.3–44).

Prognosis for patients with PTD.

PTD was associated with a small increase in mortality (Table 3). The survival difference between affected and unaffected patients was consistent across studies (and immunosuppression eras). However, patient survival appeared to have improved over time in patients with PTD (Table 3). Graft survival is shown in Table 3, and Table 4 depicts cardiovascular events and infections in patients with and without PTD.

Only one study with 10 years of follow-up data provided information about diabetes-related complications. Miles et al. (17) reported that, of 40 patients with PTD, two patients were diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy and two others were diagnosed with biopsy-proven diabetic nephropathy. Also, two patients had episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis and another two of hyperosmolar coma.

The highest proportion of patients able to discontinue glucose-lowering treatment was observed in patients receiving cyclosporine-based immunosuppressive therapy (60–100%), followed by patients receiving low-dose tacrolimus and azathioprine (75–90%) and those receiving high-dose tacrolimus (40–70%). The lowest proportions were observed in patients receiving low-dose tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (30–50%).

Sensitivity analysis

A total of 33 studies reported in 35 articles (2963) were excluded because they did not contain enough information to meet our inclusion criteria and the information needed was not obtained from the authors. We assessed these studies and determined that their inclusion would not change the overall findings and conclusions of this review.

As opposed to the traditional narrative review (64,65), the systematic review allows the reader to judge the appropriateness and completeness of the study selection, the quality of the included studies, and the information they provide (66). Our systematic review of studies of PTD found that the cumulative incidence of PTD has declined; age, ethnicity, and immunosuppressive regimen were the main risk factors for its development; and patients with PTD appeared to have poorer outcomes.

We attempted to minimize the limitations of this study. There is no agreed-upon way to assess whether publication bias, i.e., the preferential publication of studies with significant results (67), has affected the findings of a study like ours. To limit the possible effect of publication bias, we used several strategies for identifying studies to include. Inclusion criteria, established a priori, were chosen to increase the likelihood that high-quality studies would be included. Studies with important and valid data may not have met our inclusion criteria. However, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess whether our conclusions would have been affected by the results of studies not included in our review. The risk of bias and confounding in the primary studies (Table 2) suggested that pooling across studies would lead to inappropriately precise and potentially biased estimates of risk or prognosis (68). Instead, as advocated by Berlin (69), we chose to capitalize on the heterogeneity across studies to gain insights and answers to our review questions.

The studies included in our review used various definitions of PTD (Table 1). Diagnostic criteria for diabetes are based on the immediate threat to life (e.g., type 1 diabetes) or the future development of diabetes-related complications, such as retinopathy and nephropathy (70). For PTD, such data are not available. It may not be possible to extrapolate from data on type 2 diabetes to a definition of PTD because of differences in natural history (i.e., glycemic control progressively deteriorates in type 2 diabetes but may worsen or improve with changes in immunosuppression in PTD) and vascular risk at diagnosis (e.g., early clustering of dyslipidemia, decreased renal function, hypertension, and toxic immunosuppressive agents). Further research is needed to establish criteria for diagnosing PTD on the basis of its prognostic implications.

We did not find an association between PTD and body weight or BMI. One explanation is that obese patients were underrepresented in the studies included in our review. Another explanation is that intra-abdominal fat, not reported in any of the studies we reviewed, may be a more important risk factor than total body weight (71).

Nonwhite transplant recipients are at higher risk of PTD because of a greater risk of diabetes (72) and the differential diabetogenic effect of immunosuppressive agents. A multicenter trial found that African-American transplant recipients required higher doses of tacrolimus to achieve therapeutic levels, confirming the results of a pharmacokinetic study (26).

Immunosuppression was the factor most strongly associated with PTD. Glucocorticoids, cyclosporine, and tacrolimus have been shown to impair insulin secretion and insulin action through dose-dependent, complex, and imperfectly understood mechanisms (7377).

Since we completed this systematic review, clinical trials of sirolimus showed fewer or no diabetogenic effects compared with placebo (78) and azathioprine (79).

No randomized trials have evaluated treatment regimens for PTD. Randomized trials are needed to assess whether tight glycemic control is feasible and desirable in posttransplantation patients, considering that some patients have hyperglycemia only transiently. Also, trials should evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Finally, information is needed to clarify and diminish the effect of PTD on quality of life and long-term outcomes.

In the last 40 years, transplantation care has focused successfully on achieving optimal graft function and patient survival. Today, transplantation centers are accepting candidates at higher risk for complications after transplantation. Thus, attention needs to be shifted to the prevention and control of complications because they may lead to poor quality of life and increased mortality in patients with functioning grafts.

This systematic review, the first one on PTD, provides preliminary evidence for the modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients.

Figure 1—

Trends in the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD. The figure includes the 15 cohorts (12 studies of kidney transplantation numbered according to Table 1) from which the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD could be calculated. Triangles represent studies using glucocorticoids and azathioprine as the immunosuppressive regimen. The lower estimate (study 11 [25]) represents one center’s experience extending up to 1982, 5 years after the 1977 completion of the study reporting the higher estimate (study 10 [27,28]). Diamonds represent the triple therapy era (cyclosporine, azathioprine, glucocorticoids). Circles represent the tacrolimus era. The circles in the early 1990s represent studies of high-dose tacrolimus. The circles in the late 1990s represent studies of low-dose tacrolimus; these circles represent average data from reports of patients receiving tacrolimus in combination with azathioprine (12-month cumulative incidence of PTD, 12–14%) and 2 g mycophenolate mofetil (4–7%). Dotted lines link the tacrolimus and cyclosporine arms of two randomized trials. In the first trial (study 7 [26]), testing high-dose tacrolimus, there was a significant difference in the incidence of PTD between the tacrolimus and cyclosporine arms. That difference was not significant in the lower-dose trial (study 8 [7]).

Figure 1—

Trends in the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD. The figure includes the 15 cohorts (12 studies of kidney transplantation numbered according to Table 1) from which the 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD could be calculated. Triangles represent studies using glucocorticoids and azathioprine as the immunosuppressive regimen. The lower estimate (study 11 [25]) represents one center’s experience extending up to 1982, 5 years after the 1977 completion of the study reporting the higher estimate (study 10 [27,28]). Diamonds represent the triple therapy era (cyclosporine, azathioprine, glucocorticoids). Circles represent the tacrolimus era. The circles in the early 1990s represent studies of high-dose tacrolimus. The circles in the late 1990s represent studies of low-dose tacrolimus; these circles represent average data from reports of patients receiving tacrolimus in combination with azathioprine (12-month cumulative incidence of PTD, 12–14%) and 2 g mycophenolate mofetil (4–7%). Dotted lines link the tacrolimus and cyclosporine arms of two randomized trials. In the first trial (study 7 [26]), testing high-dose tacrolimus, there was a significant difference in the incidence of PTD between the tacrolimus and cyclosporine arms. That difference was not significant in the lower-dose trial (study 8 [7]).

Close modal
Table 1—

Studies of PTD

Study numberStudy description (immunosuppressive regimen)Study designEvidence of no pretransplantation diabetesPatients without pretransplantation diabetes (n)Definition of PTD (definition category*)Patients with PTD at 1 year (n); 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD [% (95% CI)]
Heart transplantation       
 1. Rinaldi et al. (14) Trial of FK506 vs. CsA RCT Investigator’s statement 23 Development of glucose intolerance (threshold) 3; 13 (2.8–33.6) 
Liver transplantation       
 2. Cavaille-Coll and Elashoff (6) FDA reanalysis of the U.S. and European phase III trials of FK506 vs. CsA RCT Investigator’s statement 963 Use of insulin for ≥30 days with <5-day gap (medication) 110; 11.4 (9.5–13.6) 
 3. Wahlstrom et al. (26) Single-center series (AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Investigator’s statement 19 case subjects, 141 control subjects Use of insulin (medication) 19 (160 at risk); 11.9 (7.3–17.9) 
 4. Trail et al. (22) Single-center series (CsA-Pred, FK506-Pred) CC Normal fasting or random glucose concentration 26 case subjects and 26 control subjects matched for age, sex, transplantation date, liver disease, outcome, and follow-up In first month after transplantation: two fasting glucose >8.3 mmol/l, one random value >11.1 mmol/l, or use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) ND 
Kidney transplantation       
 5. Boudreaux et al. (8,9) Trial of ALG-AZA-Pred vs. CsA-Pred RCT Investigator’s statement 105 Two fasting glucose ≥7.8 mmol/l and an abnormal glucose tolerance test (threshold) 7; 6.7 (2.7–13.3) 
 6. Isoniemi et al. (18,19) Trial of all possible combinations of AZA, CsA, and methylprednisolone RCT Investigator’s statement 98 Use of glucose-lowering medication (medication) 7; 7.1 (2.9–14.2) 
 7. FK506-Kidney Transplant Study Group (2–6) Multicenter study of FK506 vs. CsA RCT Investigator’s statement 302 Use of insulin for ≥30 days with <5 day gap (medication) 36; 11.9 (8.5–16.1) 
 8. Johnson et al. (7) Multicenter study of FK506-AZA, FK506-MMF, and CsA-MMF RCT Investigator’s statement 145 Use of insulin for ≥30 days or after 6- and 12-month transplantation (medication) 14; 9.6 (5–15.7) 
 9. Miller et al. (12,13) Multicenter study of FK506-AZA, FK506-MMF 1g, and MMF 2g RCT Investigator’s statement 126 Use of insulin for ≥30 consecutive days (medication) 15; 11.9 (6.8–18.9) 
 10. Arner et al. (27) and Gunnarsson et al. (28) Single-center series (AZA-Pred) Co Investigator’s statement 125 Two fasting glucose >8 mmol/l (threshold) 38–67; 30.4–53.6 
 11. Friedman et al. (25) Single-center series (AZA-Pred) CC Investigator’s statement 119 case subjects and 119 control subjects matched for transplantation date and donor vital status Three fasting glucose >8.3 mmol/l (threshold) 116 (758 at risk); 15.3 (12.8–18) 
 12. von Kiparski et al. (21) Single-center series (AZA-Pred, AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Normal fasting glucose or normal oral glucose tolerance test 32 case subjects and 32 control subjects matched for age, sex, immunosuppression, number of grafts received and function, transplantation date Two fasting glucose >6.7 mmol/l and use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) 18 (901 at risk); 2 (1.2–3) 
 13. Ochiai et al. (20) Multicenter phase II study of FK506 (historical CsA cohort) Co Normal oral glucose tolerance test 83 Hyperglycemia and use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) 18; 21.7 (13.4–32.1) 
 14. Wu et al. (15) Single-center series (AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Normal fasting glucose concentration 3 case subjects, 21 control subjects Two fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l, postprandial glucose >11.1 mmol/l, or abnormal glucose tolerance test (threshold) 2 (24 at risk); 8.3 (1–27) 
 15. Sakhuja et al. (24) Single-center series (AZA-Pred, AZA-CsA-Pred) Co Investigator’s statement 387 Two fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l or two 2-h postprandial values >11.1 mmol/l (threshold) 21; 5.4 (3.4–8.2) 
 16. Vesco et al. (10,11) Analysis of a transplant registry (AZA-Pred, AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Investigator’s statement 33 case subjects and 33 control subjects matched for sex, number of grafts, transplantation date Fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l requiring insulin therapy (combination) ND 
 17. Lanerolle et al. (16) Single-center series (AZA-Pred, CsA-Pred) CC Normal oral glucose tolerance test 34 case subjects, 131 control subjects Fasting glucose >6.8 mmol/l or 2-h glucose (75-g oral glucose tolerance test) >10 mmol/l (threshold) ND 
 18. Miles et al. (17) Single-center prospective series (AZA-CsA-Pred, CsA-Pred) Co Normal fasting glucose concentration 40 case subjects and 38 unaffected patients randomly selected from a cohort of patients with graft survival>1 year Three or more fasting glucose >8.3 mmol/l over 3 months (threshold) ND 
 19. Fang et al. (23) Single-center series (CsA-Pred) Co Investigator’s statement 386 Three fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l and use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) 7; 1.8 (0.7–3.7) 
Study numberStudy description (immunosuppressive regimen)Study designEvidence of no pretransplantation diabetesPatients without pretransplantation diabetes (n)Definition of PTD (definition category*)Patients with PTD at 1 year (n); 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD [% (95% CI)]
Heart transplantation       
 1. Rinaldi et al. (14) Trial of FK506 vs. CsA RCT Investigator’s statement 23 Development of glucose intolerance (threshold) 3; 13 (2.8–33.6) 
Liver transplantation       
 2. Cavaille-Coll and Elashoff (6) FDA reanalysis of the U.S. and European phase III trials of FK506 vs. CsA RCT Investigator’s statement 963 Use of insulin for ≥30 days with <5-day gap (medication) 110; 11.4 (9.5–13.6) 
 3. Wahlstrom et al. (26) Single-center series (AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Investigator’s statement 19 case subjects, 141 control subjects Use of insulin (medication) 19 (160 at risk); 11.9 (7.3–17.9) 
 4. Trail et al. (22) Single-center series (CsA-Pred, FK506-Pred) CC Normal fasting or random glucose concentration 26 case subjects and 26 control subjects matched for age, sex, transplantation date, liver disease, outcome, and follow-up In first month after transplantation: two fasting glucose >8.3 mmol/l, one random value >11.1 mmol/l, or use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) ND 
Kidney transplantation       
 5. Boudreaux et al. (8,9) Trial of ALG-AZA-Pred vs. CsA-Pred RCT Investigator’s statement 105 Two fasting glucose ≥7.8 mmol/l and an abnormal glucose tolerance test (threshold) 7; 6.7 (2.7–13.3) 
 6. Isoniemi et al. (18,19) Trial of all possible combinations of AZA, CsA, and methylprednisolone RCT Investigator’s statement 98 Use of glucose-lowering medication (medication) 7; 7.1 (2.9–14.2) 
 7. FK506-Kidney Transplant Study Group (2–6) Multicenter study of FK506 vs. CsA RCT Investigator’s statement 302 Use of insulin for ≥30 days with <5 day gap (medication) 36; 11.9 (8.5–16.1) 
 8. Johnson et al. (7) Multicenter study of FK506-AZA, FK506-MMF, and CsA-MMF RCT Investigator’s statement 145 Use of insulin for ≥30 days or after 6- and 12-month transplantation (medication) 14; 9.6 (5–15.7) 
 9. Miller et al. (12,13) Multicenter study of FK506-AZA, FK506-MMF 1g, and MMF 2g RCT Investigator’s statement 126 Use of insulin for ≥30 consecutive days (medication) 15; 11.9 (6.8–18.9) 
 10. Arner et al. (27) and Gunnarsson et al. (28) Single-center series (AZA-Pred) Co Investigator’s statement 125 Two fasting glucose >8 mmol/l (threshold) 38–67; 30.4–53.6 
 11. Friedman et al. (25) Single-center series (AZA-Pred) CC Investigator’s statement 119 case subjects and 119 control subjects matched for transplantation date and donor vital status Three fasting glucose >8.3 mmol/l (threshold) 116 (758 at risk); 15.3 (12.8–18) 
 12. von Kiparski et al. (21) Single-center series (AZA-Pred, AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Normal fasting glucose or normal oral glucose tolerance test 32 case subjects and 32 control subjects matched for age, sex, immunosuppression, number of grafts received and function, transplantation date Two fasting glucose >6.7 mmol/l and use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) 18 (901 at risk); 2 (1.2–3) 
 13. Ochiai et al. (20) Multicenter phase II study of FK506 (historical CsA cohort) Co Normal oral glucose tolerance test 83 Hyperglycemia and use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) 18; 21.7 (13.4–32.1) 
 14. Wu et al. (15) Single-center series (AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Normal fasting glucose concentration 3 case subjects, 21 control subjects Two fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l, postprandial glucose >11.1 mmol/l, or abnormal glucose tolerance test (threshold) 2 (24 at risk); 8.3 (1–27) 
 15. Sakhuja et al. (24) Single-center series (AZA-Pred, AZA-CsA-Pred) Co Investigator’s statement 387 Two fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l or two 2-h postprandial values >11.1 mmol/l (threshold) 21; 5.4 (3.4–8.2) 
 16. Vesco et al. (10,11) Analysis of a transplant registry (AZA-Pred, AZA-CsA-Pred) CC Investigator’s statement 33 case subjects and 33 control subjects matched for sex, number of grafts, transplantation date Fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l requiring insulin therapy (combination) ND 
 17. Lanerolle et al. (16) Single-center series (AZA-Pred, CsA-Pred) CC Normal oral glucose tolerance test 34 case subjects, 131 control subjects Fasting glucose >6.8 mmol/l or 2-h glucose (75-g oral glucose tolerance test) >10 mmol/l (threshold) ND 
 18. Miles et al. (17) Single-center prospective series (AZA-CsA-Pred, CsA-Pred) Co Normal fasting glucose concentration 40 case subjects and 38 unaffected patients randomly selected from a cohort of patients with graft survival>1 year Three or more fasting glucose >8.3 mmol/l over 3 months (threshold) ND 
 19. Fang et al. (23) Single-center series (CsA-Pred) Co Investigator’s statement 386 Three fasting glucose >7.8 mmol/l and use of glucose-lowering medication (combination) 7; 1.8 (0.7–3.7) 
*

PTD definition categories: threshold, glycemic threshold; medication, use of glucose-lowering medication; combination, combination of threshold and medication.

If reported in case-control studies, the total number of PTD cases in the first year after transplantation was used to calculate the cumulative incidence of PTD.

Data are range of cumulative incidence estimates taking the number of new cases at 3 months and the number of new cases at 20 months. ALG, antilymphocyte globulin; AZA, azathioprine; CC, case-control study; Co, cohort study; CsA, cyclosporine; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; FK506, tacrolimus; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; ND, not determined: information needed was not available; Pred, prednisone; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 2—

Quality of included studies

Study numberPTD definitionPTD surveillance (% escaped)Study quality indicators
Risk factor
Outcomes
Exposure ascertainmentReportingDefinitionAscertainmentBlindingReportingAdjustment
1. Rinaldi et al. (14) − − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
2. Cavaille-Coll and Elashoff (6) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
3. Wahlstrom et al. (26) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
4. Trail et al. (22) − − − 
5. Boudreaux et al. (8, 9) + (20) − − − − − − 
6. Isoniemi et al. (18,19) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
7. KTSG (2–6) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
8. Johnson et al. (7) − − NA NA NA NA NA 
9. Miller et al. (12,13) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
10. Arner et al. (27) and Gunnavvsson et al. (28) − − − − − − 
11. Friedman et al. (25) − − − − − − 
12. von Kiparski et al. (21) − − − − − 
13. Ochiai et al. (20) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
14. Wu et al. (15) − − NA NA NA NA NA 
15. Sakhuja et al. (24) + (22) − NA NA NA NA NA 
16. Vesco et al. (10,11) − − − − − − 
17. Lanerolle et al. (16) + (28) − − − − − − 
18. Miles et al. (17) NA NA NA − − − − 
19. Fang et al. (23) + (42) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
Study numberPTD definitionPTD surveillance (% escaped)Study quality indicators
Risk factor
Outcomes
Exposure ascertainmentReportingDefinitionAscertainmentBlindingReportingAdjustment
1. Rinaldi et al. (14) − − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
2. Cavaille-Coll and Elashoff (6) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
3. Wahlstrom et al. (26) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
4. Trail et al. (22) − − − 
5. Boudreaux et al. (8, 9) + (20) − − − − − − 
6. Isoniemi et al. (18,19) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
7. KTSG (2–6) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
8. Johnson et al. (7) − − NA NA NA NA NA 
9. Miller et al. (12,13) − − − NA NA NA NA NA 
10. Arner et al. (27) and Gunnavvsson et al. (28) − − − − − − 
11. Friedman et al. (25) − − − − − − 
12. von Kiparski et al. (21) − − − − − 
13. Ochiai et al. (20) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
14. Wu et al. (15) − − NA NA NA NA NA 
15. Sakhuja et al. (24) + (22) − NA NA NA NA NA 
16. Vesco et al. (10,11) − − − − − − 
17. Lanerolle et al. (16) + (28) − − − − − − 
18. Miles et al. (17) NA NA NA − − − − 
19. Fang et al. (23) + (42) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

PTD definition, a specified glycemic threshold, use of glucose-lowering agents, or both were used to define diabetes; PTD surveillance, a protocol to detect diabetes was described (% escaped, proportion presenting with symptomatic or complicated PTD); risk factor exposure ascertainment, methods to determine risk factors were described and similarly applied to case subjects and control subjects; risk factor reporting, all factors evaluated (not just those that were significant) were reported; outcomes definition, diagnostic criteria for all outcomes assessed were described; outcomes ascertainment, methods to determine the outcomes were described and similarly applied to patients with and without PTD; outcomes blinding, outcomes were assessed by investigators blind to diabetes status; outcomes reporting, prognostic factors entering the model and the procedures for model selection were described; outcomes adjustment, prognostic estimates were adjusted for differences between those with and without PTD; +, study met our review’s methodological quality criterion; −, study did not meet our review’s methodological quality criterion; NA, not applicable; KTSG, FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group.

Table 3—

Patient and graft survival according to PTD status in kidney transplant recipients

InvestigatorsYear follow-up began (mean)Immunosuppressive regimenTime at survival estimates (years*)Estimated survival
Patient
Graft
PTD present (%)PTD absent (%)PTD present (%)PTD absent (%)
Arner et al. (27,28) 1975 AZA and prednisone NA NA 38 81 
      69§ 85 
von Kiparski et al. (21) 1978 AZA and prednisone or triple 10 51 93 54 85 
Friedman et al. (25) 1980 AZA and prednisone 67 83 55 55 
Boudreaux et al. (8,9) 1984 AZA and prednisone or triple 71 94 NA NA 
Miles et al. (17) 1983 Triple 12 73 79 46 67# 
Vesco et al. (10,11) 1988 AZA and prednisone or triple 86 93 67 93 
Lanerolle et al. (16) 1993 Triple 85 95 NA NA 
InvestigatorsYear follow-up began (mean)Immunosuppressive regimenTime at survival estimates (years*)Estimated survival
Patient
Graft
PTD present (%)PTD absent (%)PTD present (%)PTD absent (%)
Arner et al. (27,28) 1975 AZA and prednisone NA NA 38 81 
      69§ 85 
von Kiparski et al. (21) 1978 AZA and prednisone or triple 10 51 93 54 85 
Friedman et al. (25) 1980 AZA and prednisone 67 83 55 55 
Boudreaux et al. (8,9) 1984 AZA and prednisone or triple 71 94 NA NA 
Miles et al. (17) 1983 Triple 12 73 79 46 67# 
Vesco et al. (10,11) 1988 AZA and prednisone or triple 86 93 67 93 
Lanerolle et al. (16) 1993 Triple 85 95 NA NA 
*

Number of patients at risk not reported in all studies.

For cadaveric grafts.

P < 0.001.

§

For living donors.

P < 0.05.

RR 12.1; 95% CI 2.2–58.8.

#

Predictors of graft loss (adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity) were PTD (RR 3.72; P = 0.04) and serum creatinine at 1 year (RR 2.01; P < 0.01). AZA, azathioprine; triple, AZA prednisone and cyclosporine.

Table 4—

Cardiovascular outcomes and infections associated with PTD in kidney transplant recipients

Outcome and investigatorsDuration of follow-up (years)Number of patients with outcome/total number of patients (%)
RR (95% CI)
PTD presentPTD absent
Cardiovascular complications     
 von Kiparski et al. (21) 10 9/32 (28) 3/32 (9.4) 3 (0.98–9.6) 
Myocardial infarction     
 Miles et al. (17) 8.5 3/40 (7.5) 3/38 (7.9) 0.95 (0.2–3.9) 
Stroke     
 Miles et al. (17) 8.5 2/40 (5) 1/38 (2.6) 1.9 (0.4–14.2) 
Severe infections requiring hospitalization     
 Boudreaux et al. (8,9) 6/7 (86) 40/98 (40.8) 1.9 (1–2.6) 
 von Kiparski et al. (21) 10 12/32 (37.5) 6/32 (18.8) 2 (0.9–4.6) 
Cytomegalovirus infections     
 Vesco et al. (10,11) 14/33 (42.4) 7/33 (21.2) 2 (0.96–4.3) 
Fatal sepsis     
 Lanerolle et al. (16) 3–9 3/34 (8.8) 1/131 (0.8) 11.6 (1.7–79) 
 Miles et al. (17) 8.5 5/40 (12.5) 1/38 (2.6) 4.8 (0.8–30) 
Outcome and investigatorsDuration of follow-up (years)Number of patients with outcome/total number of patients (%)
RR (95% CI)
PTD presentPTD absent
Cardiovascular complications     
 von Kiparski et al. (21) 10 9/32 (28) 3/32 (9.4) 3 (0.98–9.6) 
Myocardial infarction     
 Miles et al. (17) 8.5 3/40 (7.5) 3/38 (7.9) 0.95 (0.2–3.9) 
Stroke     
 Miles et al. (17) 8.5 2/40 (5) 1/38 (2.6) 1.9 (0.4–14.2) 
Severe infections requiring hospitalization     
 Boudreaux et al. (8,9) 6/7 (86) 40/98 (40.8) 1.9 (1–2.6) 
 von Kiparski et al. (21) 10 12/32 (37.5) 6/32 (18.8) 2 (0.9–4.6) 
Cytomegalovirus infections     
 Vesco et al. (10,11) 14/33 (42.4) 7/33 (21.2) 2 (0.96–4.3) 
Fatal sepsis     
 Lanerolle et al. (16) 3–9 3/34 (8.8) 1/131 (0.8) 11.6 (1.7–79) 
 Miles et al. (17) 8.5 5/40 (12.5) 1/38 (2.6) 4.8 (0.8–30) 

We acknowledge Hideto Tamura, MD, and Fawad Qureshi, MD, who assisted us with the translation of the reports written in Japanese. We are grateful to the statisticians at the Center for Patient-Oriented Research (Mayo Clinic) for their statistical support and review. We thank the transplantation experts who kindly advised us about studies for inclusion. We gratefully acknowledge Drs. Gordon H. Guyatt, Timothy O’Brien, and Robert A. Rizza for their thoughtful comments on this manuscript.

1
Fleiss JL:
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
. 2nd ed. New York, NY, Wiley,
1981
2
Pirsch JD, Miller J, Deierhoi MH, Vincenti F, Filo RS: A comparison of tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression after cadaveric renal transplantation: FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group.
Transplantation
63
:
977
–983,
1997
3
Miller J, Pirsch JD, Deierhoi M, Vincenti F, Filo RS: FK506 in kidney transplantation: results of the U.S.A. randomized comparative phase III study: the FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group.
Transplant Proc
29
:
304
–305,
1997
4
Neylan JF: Racial differences in renal transplantation after immunosuppression with tacrolimus versus cyclosporine: FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group.
Transplantation
65
:
515
–523,
1998
5
Jensik SC: Tacrolimus (FK506) in kidney transplantation: three-year survival results of the US multicenter, randomized, comparative trial: FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group.
Transplant Proc
30
:
1216
–1218,
1998
6
Cavaille-Coll MW, Elashoff MR: Commentary on a comparison of tacrolimus and cyclosporine for immunosuppression after cadaveric renal transplantation.
Transplantation
65
:
142
–145,
1998
7
Johnson C, Ahsan N, Gonwa T, Halloran P, Stegall M, Hardy M, Metzger R, Shield C III, Rocher L, Scandling J, Sorensen J, Mulloy L, Light J, Corwin C, Danovitch G, Wachs M, van Veldhuisen P, Salm K, Tolzman D, Fitzsimmons WE: Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation.
Transplantation
69
:
834
–841,
2000
8
Boudreaux JP, McHugh L, Canafax DM, Ascher N, Sutherland DE, Payne W, Simmons RL, Najarian JS, Fryd DS: The impact of cyclosporine and combination immunosuppression on the incidence of posttransplant diabetes in renal allograft recipients.
Transplantation
44
:
376
–381,
1987
9
Boudreaux JP, McHugh L, Canafax DM, Asher N, Sutherland DE, Payne W, Simmons RL, Najarian JS, Fryd DS: Cyclosporine, combination immunosuppression, and posttransplant diabetes mellitus.
Transplant Proc
19
:
1811
–1813,
1987
10
Vesco L, Busson M, Lang P: Characteristics of postrenal transplant diabetes mellitus.
Transplant Proc
27
:
2465
–2466,
1995
11
Vesco L, Busson M, Bedrossian J, Bitker MO, Hiesse C, Lang P: Diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation: characteristics, outcome, and risk factors.
Transplantation
61
:
1475
–1478,
1996
12
Miller J, Mendez R, Pirsch JD, Jensik SC: Safety and efficacy of tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in cadaveric renal transplant recipients: FK506/MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group.
Transplantation
69
:
875
–880,
2000
13
Miller J: Tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients: one year results of a multicenter, randomized dose ranging trial: FK506/MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group.
Transplant Proc
31
:
276
–277,
1999
14
Rinaldi M, Pellegrini C, Martinelli L, Goggi C, Gavazzi A, Campana C, Arbustini E, Grossi P, Regazzi M, Ippoliti G, Vigano M: FK506 effectiveness in reducing acute rejection after heart transplantation: a prospective randomized study.
J Heart Lung Transplant
16
:
1001
–1010,
1997
15
Wu CT, Wang WY, Lin SL, Lee CJ: Do immunosuppressants cause posttransplant diabetes mellitus?
Chung Hua I Hsueh Tsa Chih (Taipei)
55
:
37
–41,
1995
16
Lanerolle RD, de Abrew K, Fernando DJ, Sheriff MH: Post-renal transplant diabetes in Sri Lanka.
Transplant Proc
28
:
1945
–1947,
1996
17
Miles AM, Sumrani N, Horowitz R, Homel P, Maursky V, Markell MS, Distant DA, Hong JH, Sommer BG, Friedman EA: Diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation: as deleterious as non-transplant-associated diabetes?
Transplantation
65
:
380
–384,
1998
18
Isoniemi HM, Ahonen J, Tikkanen MJ, von Willebrand EO, Krogerus L, Eklund BH, Hockerstedt KV, Salmela KE, Hayry PJ: Long-term consequences of different immunosuppressive regimens for renal allografts.
Transplantation
55
:
494
–499,
1993
19
Isoniemi H: Renal allograft immunosuppression. V. Glucose intolerance occurring in different immunosuppressive treatments.
Clin Transplantation
5
:
268
–272,
1991
20
Ochiai T, Fukao K, Takahashi K, Endo T, Oshima S, Yokoyama I, Uchida K, Ishibashi M, Takahara S, Iwasaki Y, Ota K, Takagi H, Ohashi Y, Sonoda T: A phase III comparative study of FK506 (tacrolimus) on kidney transplantation: comparison with cyclosporine based immunosuppressant regimen.
Jpn J Transplant
29
:
650
–681,
1995
21
von Kiparski A, Frei D, Uhlschmid G, Largiader F, Binswanger U: Post-transplant diabetes mellitus in renal allograft recipients: a matched-pair control study.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
5
:
220
–225,
1990
22
Trail KC, McCashland TM, Larsen JL, Heffron TG, Stratta RJ, Langnas AN, Fox IJ, Zetterman RK, Donovan JP, Sorrell MF, Pillen TJ, Ruby EI, Shaw BW Jr: Morbidity in patients with posttransplant diabetes mellitus following orthotopic liver transplantation.
Liver Transpl Surg
2
:
276
–283,
1996
23
Fang J, Huang C, Chuang C, Chu S: Diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Transplant Proc
30
:
3027
–3028,
1998
24
Sakhuja V, Sharma UK, Jha V, Minz M, Chugh KS: High incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus in renal transplant recipients on triple-drug immunosuppression.
Transplant Proc
27
:
2728
–2730,
1995
25
Friedman EA, Shyh TP, Beyer MM, Manis T, Butt KM: Posttransplant diabetes in kidney transplant recipients.
Am J Nephrol
5
:
196
–202,
1985
26
Wahlstrom HE, Cooper J, Gores G, Rosen C, Wiesner R, Krom RA: Survival after liver transplantation in diabetics.
Transplant Proc
23
:
1565
–1566,
1991
27
Arner P, Gunnarsson R, Blomdahl S, Groth CG: Some characteristics of steroid diabetes: a study in renal-transplant recipients receiving high-dose corticosteroid therapy.
Diabetes Care
6
:
23
–25,
1983
28
Gunnarsson R, Arner P, Lundgren G, Magnusson G, Ostman J, Groth CG: Diabetes mellitus: a more-common-than-believed complication of renal transplantation.
Transplant Proc
11
:
1280
–1281,
1979
29
Olivari MT, Antolick A, Kaye MP, Jamieson SW, Ring WS: Heart transplantation in elderly patients.
J Heart Transplant
7
:
258
–264,
1988
30
Sumrani N, Delaney V, Ding Z, Davis R, Daskalakis P, Friedman EA, Butt KM, Hong JH: Posttransplant diabetes mellitus in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients.
Transplant Proc
23
:
1249
–1250,
1991
31
Hricik DE, Bartucci MR, Moir EJ, Mayes JT, Schulak JA: Effects of steroid withdrawal on posttransplant diabetes mellitus in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients.
Transplantation
51
:
374
–377,
1991
32
Holley JL, Shapiro R, Lopatin WB, Tzakis AG, Hakala TR, Starzl TE: Obesity as a risk factor following cadaveric renal transplantation.
Transplantation
49
:
387
–389,
1990
33
Fryer JP, Granger DK, Leventhal JR, Gillingham K, Najarian JS, Matas AJ: Steroid-related complications in the cyclosporine era.
Clin Transplant
8
:
224
–229,
1994
34
Ducloux D, Motte G, Vautrin P, Bresson-Vautrin C, Rebibou JM, Chalopin JM: Polycystic kidney disease as a risk factor for post-transplant diabetes mellitus.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
14
:
1244
–1246,
1999
35
Aker S, Ivens K, Grabensee B, Heering P: Cardiovascular risk factors and diseases after renal transplantation.
Int Urol Nephrol
30
:
777
–788,
1998
36
Basri N, Aman H, Adiku W, Baraqdar A, Bonatero I, Nezamuddin N: Diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Transplant Proc
24
:
1780
–1781,
1992
37
Roth D, Milgrom M, Esquenazi V, Fuller L, Burke G, Miller J: Posttransplant hyperglycemia: increased incidence in cyclosporine-treated renal allograft recipients.
Transplantation
47
:
278
–281,
1989
38
Suratkal LH, Almeida A, Acharya VN: Post-transplant diabetes in Indian renal allograft recipients.
J Assoc Physicians India
36
:
201
–203,
1988
39
Rao M, Jacob CK, Shastry JC: Post-renal transplant diabetes mellitus: a retrospective study.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
7
:
1039
–1042,
1992
40
Kur F, Reichenspurner H, Meiser BM, Welz A, Furst H, Muller C, Vogelmeier C, Schwaiblmaier M, Briegel J, Reichart B: Tacrolimus (FK506) as primary immunosuppressant after lung transplantation.
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
47
:
174
–178,
1999
41
Modlin CS, Flechner SM, Goormastic M, Goldfarb DA, Papajcik D, Mastroianni B, Novick AC: Should obese patients lose weight before receiving a kidney transplant?
Transplantation
64
:
599
–604,
1997
42
McGeown MG, Douglas JF, Brown WA, Donaldson RA, Kennedy JA, Loughridge WG, Mehta S, Nelson SD, Doherty CC, Johnstone R, Todd G, Hill CM: Advantages of low dose steroid from the day after renal transplantation.
Transplantation
29
:
287
–289,
1980
43
Yamamoto H, Akazawa S, Yamaguchi Y, Yokota A, Yamasaki H, Nakanishi T, Tahara D, Matsuya F, Saito Y, Nagataki S: Effects of cyclosporin A and low dosages of steroid on posttransplantation diabetes in kidney transplant recipients.
Diabetes Care
14
:
867
–870,
1991
44
Maximino J, Morgado T, Bacelar C, Pimentel J, Henriques A, Sarmento A, Xavier E: Risk factors for diabetes mellitus in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant patients.
Arquivos de Medicina
6
:
155
–157,
1992
45
Ruas L, Bastos M, Alves R, Gomes H, Rodrigues D, Barros L, Mota A, Carvalheiro M, Furtado AR: Diabetes mellitus after renal transplant.
Acta Med Port
9
:
233
–235,
1996
46
Roth D, Colona J, Burke GW, Ciancio G, Esquenazi V, Miller J: Primary immunosuppression with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil for renal allograft recipients.
Transplantation
65
:
248
–252,
1998
47
Jain AB, Kashyap R, Rakela J, Starzl TE, Fung JJ: Primary adult liver transplantation under tacrolimus: more than 90 months actual follow-up survival and adverse events.
Liver Transpl Surg
5
:
144
–150,
1999
48
Raofi V, Holman DM, Coady N, Vazquez E, Dunn TB, Bartholomew AM, Pollak R, Benedetti E: A prospective randomized trial comparing the efficacy of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in black recipients of primary cadaveric renal transplants.
Am J Surg
177
:
299
–302,
1999
49
Mayer AD: Four-year follow-up of the European Tacrolimus Multicenter Renal Study.
Transplant Proc
31 (Suppl. 1)
:
27
–28,
1999
50
Pham SM, Kormos RL, Hattler BG, Kawai A, Tsamandas AC, Demetris AJ, Murali S, Fricker FJ, Chang HC, Jain AB, Starzl TE, Hardesty RL, Griffith BP: A prospective trial of tacrolimus (FK506) in clinical heart transplantation: intermediate-term results.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
111
:
764
–772,
1996
51
Pham SM, Kormos RL, Kawai A, Murali S, Hattler BG, Demetris AJ, Griffith BP: Tacrolimus (FK506) in clinical cardiac transplantation: a five-year experience.
Transplant Proc
28
:
1002
–1004,
1996
52
Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VP, Vivas C, Fung JJ, McCauley J, Randhawa P, Demetris AJ, Irish W, Mitchell S, Hakala TR, Simmons RL, Starzl TE: A prospective randomized trial of FK506-based immunosuppression after renal transplantation.
Transplantation
59
:
485
–490,
1995
53
Scantlebury V, Shapiro R, Fung J, Tzakis A, McCauley J, Jordan M, Jensen C, Hakala T, Simmons R, Starzl TE: New onset of diabetes in FK506 vs cyclosporine-treated kidney transplant recipients.
Transplant Proc
23
:
3169
–3170,
1991
54
Jamali M, Mayeux D, Hestin D, Renoult E, Cao Huu T, Kessler M: Post transplant diabetes mellitus in renal transplantation.
Annales Medicales de Nancy et de L’Est
31
:
225
–227,
1992
55
Ladowski JS, Kormos RL, Uretsky BF, Lee A, Curran M, Clark R, Armitage JM, Griffith BP, Hardesty RL: Posttransplantation diabetes mellitus in heart transplant recipients.
J Heart Transplant
8
:
181
–183,
1989
56
Armitage JM, Kormos RL, Morita S, Fung J, Marrone GC, Hardesty RL, Griffith BP, Starzl TE: Clinical trial of FK506 immunosuppression in adult cardiac transplantation.
Ann Thorac Surg
54
:
205
–211,
1992
57
Ruiz JO, Simmons RL, Callender CO, Kjellstrand CM, Buselmeier TJ, Najarian JS: Steroid diabetes in renal transplant recipients: pathogenetic factors and prognosis.
Surgery
73
:
759
–765,
1973
58
David DS, Cheigh JS, Braun DW Jr, Fotino M, Stenzel KH, Rubin AL: HLA-A28 and steroid-induced diabetes in renal transplant patients.
JAMA
243
:
532
–533,
1980
59
Mejia G, Arbellou M, Henao JE, Arango JL, Garcia A: Cyclosporine-associated diabetes mellitus in renal transplants.
Clin Transplant
3
:
260
–263,
1989
60
Saxena S, Dash SC, Guleria S, Mittal R, Agarwal SK, Tiwari SC, Mehta SN: Post transplant diabetes mellitus in live related renal allograft recipients: a single centre experience.
J Assoc Physicians India
44
:
472,477
–479,
1996
61
Lee HC, Nam MS, Nam SY, Cha BS, Lee JH, Song YD, Lee EJ, Lim SK, Kim KR, Kim YS, Park K, Huh KB: Posttransplant diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation in Korea.
Transplant Proc
28
:
1159
–1160,
1996
62
Ahn KJ, Kim YS, Lee HC, Park K, Huh KB: Clinical characteristics and possible risk factors in postrenal transplant diabetes mellitus.
Transplant Proc
24
:
1581
–1582,
1992
63
Shapiro R, Jordan M, Scantlebury V, Vivas C, Fung J, McCauley J, Tzakis A, Randhawa P, Demetris AJ, Irish W, Mitchell S, Jensen C, Jain A, Hakala TR, Simmons RL, Starzl TE: A prospective, randomized trial of FK-506 in renal transplantation: a comparison between double- and triple-drug therapy.
Clin Transplant
8
:
508
–515,
1994
64
Mulrow CD: The medical review article: state of the science.
Ann Intern Med
106
:
485
–488,
1987
65
McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, Straus SE, Lawson FM, Moher D, Mulrow CD: The medical review article revisited: has the science improved?
Ann Intern Med
131
:
947
–951,
1999
66
Mulrow CD, Cook DJ, Davidoff F: Systematic reviews: critical links in the great chain of evidence (Editorial).
Ann Intern Med
126
:
389
–391,
1997
67
Montori VM, Smieja M, Guyatt GH: Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians.
Mayo Clin Proc
75
:
1284
–1288,
2000
68
Dickersin K, Berlin JA: Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science.
Epidemiol Rev
14
:
154
–176,
1992
69
Berlin JA: Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies.
Am J Epidemiol
142
:
383
–387,
1995
70
Expert Committee on Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus: Report of the Expert Committee on Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.
Diabetes Care
20
:
1183
–1197,
1997
71
Kissebah AH, Vydelingum N, Murray R, Evans DJ, Hartz AJ, Kalkhoff RK, Adams PW: Relation of body fat distribution to metabolic complications of obesity.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
54
:
254
–260,
1982
72
Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, Eberhardt MS, Goldstein DE, Little RR, Wiedmeyer HM, Byrd-Holt DD: Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1988–1994.
Diabetes Care
21
:
518
–524,
1998
73
Zeng Y, Ricordi C, Lendoire J, Carroll PB, Alejandro R, Bereiter DR, Tzakis A, Starzl TE: The effect of prednisone on pancreatic islet autografts in dogs.
Surgery
113
:
98
–102,
1993
74
Fernandez-Mejia C, Medina-Martinez O, Martinez-Perez L, Goodman PA: The human insulin gene contains multiple transcriptional elements that respond to glucocorticoids.
Pancreas
18
:
336
–341,
1999
75
Fernandez LA, Lehmann R, Luzi L, Battezzati A, Angelico MC, Ricordi C, Tzakis A, Alejandro R: The effects of maintenance doses of FK506 versus cyclosporin A on glucose and lipid metabolism after orthotopic liver transplantation.
Transplantation
68
:
1532
–1541,
1999
76
Carroll PB, Goncalves AA, Boschero AC, Tzakis AG, Starzl TE, Atwater I: Effect of the immunosuppressant FK506 on insulin release from adult rat islets of Langerhans.
Transplant Proc
23
:
337
–339,
1991
77
Menegazzo LA, Ursich MJ, Fukui RT, Rocha DM, Silva ME, Ianhez LE, Sabbaga E, Wajchenberg BL: Mechanism of the diabetogenic action of cyclosporin A.
Horm Metab Res
30
:
663
–667,
1998
78
MacDonald AS, The RAPAMUNE Global Study Group: A worldwide, phase III, randomized, controlled, safety and efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary mismatched renal allografts.
Transplantation
71
:
271
–280,
2001
79
Kahan BD: Efficacy of sirolimus compared with azathioprine for reduction of acute renal allograft rejection: a randomised multicentre study: The RAPAMUNE US Study Group.
Lancet
356
:
194
–202,
2000

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Yogish C. Kudva, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: kudva.yogish@mayo.edu.

Received for publication 16 July 2001 and accepted in revised form 15 November 2001.

J.A.V. has received funds from Roche and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.