4.6 Article

Failure of Calcineurin Inhibitor (Tacrolimus) Weaning Randomized Trial in Long-Term Stable Kidney Transplant Recipients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 3255-3261

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13946

关键词

-

资金

  1. Labex IGO project [ANR-11-LABX-0016-01]
  2. LABEX TRANSPLANEX [ANR-11-LABX-0070_TRANSPLANTEX]
  3. Investissementsd'Avenir French Government
  4. EU consortium BIO-DrIM
  5. IHU-Cesti project
  6. French Government
  7. Investment into the Future program [ANR-10-IBHU-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term renal transplant outcome is limited by side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, particularly calcineurin inhibitor (CNI). We assumed that some patients selected for a low immunological risk of rejection could be eligible and benefit from a CNI weaning strategy. We designed a prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study (Eudract: 2010-019574-33) to analyze the benefit-risk ratio of tacrolimus weaning on highly selected patients (>= 4 years of transplantation, normal histology, stable graft function, no anti-HLA immunization). The primary endpoint was improvement of renal function. Fifty-two patients were scheduled in each treatment arm, placebo compared to the CNI maintenance arm. Only 10 patients were eligible and randomized. Five patients were assigned to the placebo arm and five were assigned to the tacrolimus maintenance arm. In the tacrolimus maintenance arm, all patients maintained stable graft function and no immunological events occurred. Contrastingly, in the placebo arm, all five patients had to reintroduce a full dose of tacrolimus since three of them presented an acute rejection episode (one humoral, one mixed, and one borderline) and two displayed anti-HLA antibodies without histological lesion (one donor-specific antibodies [DSA] and one non-DSA). Clearly, tacrolimus withdrawal must be avoided even in long-term highly selective stable kidney recipients.

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