4.6 Article

Everolimus and reduced-exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal-transplant recipients: A three-year phase II, randomized, multicenter, open-label study

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 78, Issue 9, Pages 1332-1340

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000140486.97461.49

Keywords

everolimus; cyclosporine; reduced exposure; renal transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Everolimus and cyclosporine (CsA) exhibit synergistic immunosuppressive activity when used in combination. We explored the use of everolimus with a CsA-sparing strategy in de novo renal-transplant recipients. Methods. A phase 11, randomized, open-label 3-year study was performed in 111 patients to compare the efficacy and tolerability of everolimus (3 mg/day) in combination with basiliximab, steroids, and either full-dose Neoral (FDN) or reduced-dose Neoral (RDN) (CsA trough levels 125-250 ng/mL and 50-100 ng/mL, respectively). Efficacy failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection, death, graft loss, or loss to follow-up), safety, and renal function were evaluated at 6, 12, and 36 months. A protocol amendment allowed further reduction of CsA exposure after 12 months. Results. Efficacy failure was significantly higher in FDN than in the RDN group at 6 (15.1% vs. 3.4%; P=0.046), 12 (28.3% vs. 8.6%; P=0.012), and 36 (35.8% vs. 17.2%; P=0.032) months. Mean creatinine clearance was higher in the RDN group at 6 (59.7 mL/min vs. 51.1 mL/min; P=0.009), 12 (60.9 mL/min vs. 53.5 mL/min; P=0.007), and 36 (56.6 mL/min vs. 51.7 mL/min; P=0.436) months. Discontinuations and serious adverse events were more frequent in the FDN group. Reduction of CsA exposure for 6 months during the amendment improved renal function in the FDN group. Conclusions. In de novo renal-transplant recipients, the regimen of everolimus plus RDN was well tolerated, with low efficacy failure and better renal function in comparison with everolimus plus FDN.

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