Belatacept-Based Regimens Versus a Cyclosporine A-Based Regimen in Kidney Transplant Recipients: 2-Year Results From the BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT Studies

Background. At 1 year, belatacept was associated with similar patient/graft survival, better renal function, and an improved cardiovascular/metabolic risk profile versus cyclosporine A (CsA) in the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as Firstline Immunosuppression Trial (BENEFIT) and Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as Firstline Immunosuppression Trial-EXTended criteria donors (BENEFIT-EXT) studies. Acute rejection was more frequent with belatacept in BENEFIT. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD)-specifically central nervous system PTLD-was observed more frequently in belatacept-treated patients. This analysis assesses outcomes from BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT after 2 years of treatment. Methods. Patients received a more intensive (MI) or a less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept or a CsA-based regimen. Results. Four hundred ninety-three of 666 patients(74%) in BENEFIT and 347 of 543(64%) in BENEFIT-EXT completed 2 years of treatment. The proportion of patients who survived with a functioning graft was similar across groups (BENEFIT: 94% MI, 95% LI, and 91% CsA; BENEFIT-EXT: 83% MI, 84% LI, and 83% CsA). Belatacept's renal benefits were sustained, as evidenced by a 16 to 17 mL/min (BENEFIT) and an 8 to 10 mL/min (BENEFIT-EXT) higher calculated glomerular filtration rate in the belatacept groups versus CsA. There were few new acute rejection episodes in either study between years 1 and 2. Because PTLD risk was highest in Epstein-Barr virus(EBV)(-) patients, an efficacy analysis of EBV(+) patients was performed and was consistent with the overall population results. There were two previously reported cases of PTLD in each study between years 1 and 2 in the belatacept groups. The overall balance of safety and efficacy favored the LI over the MI regimen. Conclusions. At 2 years, belatacept-based regimens sustained better renal function, similar patient/graft survival, and an improved cardiovascular/metabolic risk profile versus CsA; outcomes that were maintained in EBV (+) patients. No new safety signals emerged.