Transplantation direct · 2024
Modifying Tacrolimus-related Toxicity After Liver Transplantation Comparing Life Cycle Pharma Tacrolimus Versus Extended-released Tacrolimus: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mulder Midas B, van Hoek Bart, Polak Wojtek G, Alwayn Ian P J, de Winter Brenda C M, Darwish Murad Sarwa, Verhey-Hart Elke, Elshove Lara, Erler Nicole S, Hesselink Dennis A, den Hoed Caroline M, Metselaar Herold J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study was to investigate whether the life cycle pharma (LCP)-tacrolimus compared with the extended-release (ER)-tacrolimus formulation results in a difference in the prevalence of posttransplant diabetes, hypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD) at 12 mo after liver transplantation.
METHODS: Patients were 1:1 randomized to either of the 2 tacrolimus formulations. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of any of 3 events: sustained (>3 mo postrandomization) posttransplant diabetes, new-onset hypertension, and/or CKD, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 for >3 m during the follow-up.
RESULTS: In total, 105 patients were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, a statistically significant lower proportion of liver transplant recipients in the LCP-tacrolimus group reached the composite primary endpoint at 12 mo compared with the ER-tacrolimus group (50.9% [27/53], 95% confidence interval [CI], 37.9%-63.9% versus 71.2% [37/52], 95% CI, 57.7%-81.7%; risk difference: 0.202; 95% CI, 0.002-0.382; P = 0.046). No significant difference was found in the per protocol analysis. In the intention-to-treat and per protocol population, fewer liver transplant recipients in the LCP-tacrolimus group developed CKD and new-onset hypertension compared with the ER-tacrolimus group. No differences in rejection rate, graft and patient survival were found.
CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the prevalence of the composite primary endpoint was found in the LCP-tacrolimus group compared with the ER-tacrolimus group in the first year after liver transplantation with comparable efficacy.
METHODS: Patients were 1:1 randomized to either of the 2 tacrolimus formulations. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of any of 3 events: sustained (>3 mo postrandomization) posttransplant diabetes, new-onset hypertension, and/or CKD, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 for >3 m during the follow-up.
RESULTS: In total, 105 patients were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, a statistically significant lower proportion of liver transplant recipients in the LCP-tacrolimus group reached the composite primary endpoint at 12 mo compared with the ER-tacrolimus group (50.9% [27/53], 95% confidence interval [CI], 37.9%-63.9% versus 71.2% [37/52], 95% CI, 57.7%-81.7%; risk difference: 0.202; 95% CI, 0.002-0.382; P = 0.046). No significant difference was found in the per protocol analysis. In the intention-to-treat and per protocol population, fewer liver transplant recipients in the LCP-tacrolimus group developed CKD and new-onset hypertension compared with the ER-tacrolimus group. No differences in rejection rate, graft and patient survival were found.
CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the prevalence of the composite primary endpoint was found in the LCP-tacrolimus group compared with the ER-tacrolimus group in the first year after liver transplantation with comparable efficacy.