4.6 Article

Long-Term Belatacept Exposure Maintains Efficacy and Safety at 5 Years: Results From the Long-Term Extension of the BENEFIT Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages 2875-2883

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12460

Keywords

Belatacept; cyclosporine A; kidney; renal function

Funding

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-line Immunosuppression Trial randomized patients receiving a living or standard criteria deceased donor kidney transplant to a more (MI) or less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept or cyclosporine A (CsA). The 5-year results of the long-term extension (LTE) cohort are reported. A total of 456 (68.5% of intent-to-treat) patients entered the LTE at 36 months; 406 patients (89%) completed 60 months. Between Months 36 and 60, death occurred in 2%, 1% and 5% of belatacept MI, belatacept LI and CsA patients, respectively; graft loss occurred in 0% belatacept and 2% of CsA patients. Acute rejection between Months 36 and 60 was rare: zero belatacept MI, one belatacept LI and one CsA. Rates for infections and malignancies for Months 36-60 were generally similar across belatacept groups and CsA, respectively: fungal infections (14%, 15%, 12%), viral infections (21%, 18%, 16%) and malignancies (6%, 6%, 9%). No new posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder cases occurred after 36 months. Mean calculated GFR (MDRD, mL/min/1.73m(2)) at Month 60 was 74 for belatacept MI, 76 for belatacept LI and 53 for CsA. These results show that the renal function benefit and safety profile observed in belatacept-treated patients in the early posttransplant period was sustained through 5 years. This report presents the 5-year efficacy and safety results for the BENEFIT study of belatacept versus cyclosporine in kidney transplant. Also see article by Charpentier et al on page 2884.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available