4.6 Article

Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in the prevention of antibody-mediated rejection in living-donor kidney transplant recipients requiring desensitization therapy: A randomized trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 2876-2888

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15364

关键词

clinical research; practice; complement biology; donors and donation; living; immunosuppressant - fusion proteins and monoclonal antibodies; kidney transplantation; nephrology; rejection; antibody-mediated (ABMR); sensitization

资金

  1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report results of a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, open-label, two-arm study evaluating the safety and efficacy of eculizumab in preventing acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in sensitized recipients of living-donor kidney transplants requiring pretransplant desensitization (NCT01399593). In total, 102 patients underwent desensitization. Posttransplant, 51 patients received standard of care (SOC) and 51 received eculizumab. The primary end point was week 9 posttransplant treatment failure rate, a composite of: biopsy-proven acute AMR (Banff 2007 grade II or III; assessed by blinded central pathology); graft loss; death; or loss to follow-up. Eculizumab was well tolerated with no new safety concerns. No significant difference in treatment failure rate was observed between eculizumab (9.8%) and SOC (13.7%; P = .760). To determine whether data assessment assumptions affected study outcome, biopsies were reanalyzed by central pathologists using clinical information. The resulting treatment failure rates were 11.8% and 21.6% for the eculizumab and SOC groups, respectively (nominal P = .288). When reassessment included grade I AMR, the treatment failure rates were 11.8% (eculizumab) and 29.4% (SOC; nominal P = .048). This finding suggests a potential benefit for eculizumab compared with SOC in preventing acute AMR in recipients sensitized to their living-donor kidney transplants (EudraCT 2010-019630-28).

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