4.6 Article

Everolimus With Very Low-Exposure Cyclosporine A in De Novo Kidney Transplantation: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 88, 期 10, 页码 1194-1202

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181bb43ec

关键词

Kidney transplantation; Immunosuppression; Randomized clinical trial

资金

  1. Novartis Farma SpA, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In combination with everolimus (EVL), cyclosporine A (CsA) may be used at low exposure, so reducing the risk of renal dysfunction in renal transplant recipients (RTR). We evaluated whether higher exposure of EVL could allow a further reduction of CsA. Methods. De novo RTR were randomized to standard exposure EVL (CO 3-8 ng/mL) with low-concentration CsA (C2 maintenance levels 350-500 ng/mL, group A) or higher EVL exposure (CO 8-12 ng/mL) with very low-concentration CsA (C2 maintenance levels 150-300 ng/mL, group B). The primary endpoints were 6-month creatinine clearance (CrCl) and biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) rate. After 6 months, patients were followed up (observational extension) to 12 months. Results. Two hundred eighty-five RTR (97% from deceased donors) were enrolled. Two patients per group died (1.4%). The 6-month death-censored graft survival was 90.2% in group A and 97.9% in group B and was unchanged at 12 months (P=0.007). There was no significant difference between groups at 6 months in CrCl (59.9 vs. 57.8 mL/min) and BPAR rates (14.7% vs. 11.9%) and also at 12 months (CrCl 62.5 +/- 20.7 vs. 61.3 +/- 22.0 mL/min, BPAR 14.7% vs. 14.1%). No significant differences were seen in treated acute rejections, steroid-resistant acute rejections, treatment failures, or delayed graft function, although there was a trend to better results in group B. Conclusions. EVL given at higher exposure for 6 months plus very low CsA concentration may obtain low acute rejection rate and good graft survival in De novo renal transplantation. However, there was no difference between groups in CrCl.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据