4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Experience with single-dose daclizumab in the prevention of acute rejection in heart transplantation

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 37, Issue 9, Pages 4036-4038

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2005.10.086

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. Daclizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the interleukin-2 receptor. It has been used as induction therapy in heart transplantation with two to five repeated administrations over several weeks. The objective of our study was to estimate the efficacy and safety of induction therapy with only one dose of daclizumab in a consecutive series of patients undergoing heart transplantation. Methods. Thirty-two consecutive heart transplants performed since July 2002, who received single-dose daclizumab as induction therapy, were compared with the 30 patients transplanted previously, who received OKT3. In both groups, maintenance immunosuppression included cyclosporine or tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. Follow-up time was 1 year. Results. There were no baseline differences between the two groups regarding age, gender, or etiology. In the group treated with daclizumab there were more diabetics (43% versus 10%, P =.01) and the ischemia time was longer (192 versus 156 minutes, P =.03). During the first posttransplant year, 76% of patients treated with OKT3 and 55% of those treated with daclizumab presented acute rejection >= 3A; 20% and 25%, respectively, presented infections; and 5 (17%) patients in the OKT3 group and 2 (6%) in the group treated with daclizumab died. None of these differences was statistically significant. Conclusions. Our experience suggests that induction therapy with a single-dose regimen of daclizumab seems to have an efficacy and safety profile similar to OKT3, and it is easier to administer and has a lower cost than other induction regimens.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available