Transplantation · 2022
Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus Versus Mycophenolate in Kidney Transplant Recipients Receiving Tacrolimus.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nunes Ficher Klaus, Dreige Yasmin, Gessolo Lins Paulo Ricardo, Nicolau Ferreira Alexandra, Toniato de Rezende Freschi Juliana, Linhares Kamilla, Stopa Martins Suelen, Custodio Luciana, Cristelli Marina, Viana Laila, Wagner Santos Daniel, de Marco Renato, Gerbase-DeLima Maria, Proença Henrique, Aguiar Wilson, Nakamura Monica, Rosso Felipe Claudia, Medina Pestana Jose, Tedesco Silva Helio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The short-term efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with tacrolimus have been described in several clinical trials. Yet, detailed long-term data comparing the use of everolimus or mycophenolate in kidney transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus are lacking.
METHODS: This is a 5-y follow-up post hoc analysis of a prospective trial including 288 patients who were randomized to receive a single 3-mg/kg dose of rabbit antithymocyte globulin, tacrolimus, everolimus (EVR), and prednisone (rabbit antithymocyte globulin/EVR, n = 85); basiliximab, tacrolimus, everolimus, and prednisone (basiliximab/EVR, n = 102); or basiliximab, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and prednisone (basiliximab/mycophenolate, n = 101).
RESULTS: There were no differences in the incidence of treatment failure (31.8% versus 40.2% versus 34.7%, P = 0.468), de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (6.5% versus 11.7% versus 4.0%, P = 0.185), patient (92.9% versus 94.1% versus 92.1%, P = 0.854), and death-censored graft (87.1% versus 90.2% versus 85.1%, P = 0.498) survivals. Using a sensitive analysis, the trajectories of estimated glomerular filtration rate were comparable in the intention-to-treat (P = 0.145) and per protocol (P = 0.354) populations. There were no differences in study drug discontinuation rate (22.4% versus 30.4% versus 17.8%, P = 0.103).
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this analysis in a cohort of de novo low/moderate immunologic risk kidney transplant recipients suggests that the use of a single 3 mg/kg rabbit antithymocyte globulin dose followed by EVR combined with reduced tacrolimus concentrations was associated with similar efficacy and renal function compared with the standard of care immunosuppressive regimen.
METHODS: This is a 5-y follow-up post hoc analysis of a prospective trial including 288 patients who were randomized to receive a single 3-mg/kg dose of rabbit antithymocyte globulin, tacrolimus, everolimus (EVR), and prednisone (rabbit antithymocyte globulin/EVR, n = 85); basiliximab, tacrolimus, everolimus, and prednisone (basiliximab/EVR, n = 102); or basiliximab, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and prednisone (basiliximab/mycophenolate, n = 101).
RESULTS: There were no differences in the incidence of treatment failure (31.8% versus 40.2% versus 34.7%, P = 0.468), de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (6.5% versus 11.7% versus 4.0%, P = 0.185), patient (92.9% versus 94.1% versus 92.1%, P = 0.854), and death-censored graft (87.1% versus 90.2% versus 85.1%, P = 0.498) survivals. Using a sensitive analysis, the trajectories of estimated glomerular filtration rate were comparable in the intention-to-treat (P = 0.145) and per protocol (P = 0.354) populations. There were no differences in study drug discontinuation rate (22.4% versus 30.4% versus 17.8%, P = 0.103).
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this analysis in a cohort of de novo low/moderate immunologic risk kidney transplant recipients suggests that the use of a single 3 mg/kg rabbit antithymocyte globulin dose followed by EVR combined with reduced tacrolimus concentrations was associated with similar efficacy and renal function compared with the standard of care immunosuppressive regimen.