4.6 Article

Everolimus Plus Reduced-Exposure CsA versus Mycophenolic Acid Plus Standard-Exposure CsA in Renal-Transplant Recipients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 1401-1413

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03129.x

关键词

Calcineurin inhibitor toxicity; cyclosporine; everolimus; renal function; renal transplantation; therapeutic drug monitoring

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
  2. Novartis
  3. Astellas
  4. Janssen-Cilag
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  6. Wyeth
  7. Pfizer
  8. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Everolimus allows calcineurin-inhibitor reduction without loss of efficacy and may improve renal-transplant outcomes. In a 24-month, open-label study, 833 de novo renal-transplant recipients were randomized to everolimus 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day (target troughs 3-8 and 6-12 ng/mL, respectively) with reduced-exposure CsA, or mycophenolic acid (MPA) 1.44 g/day plus standard-exposure CsA. Patients received basiliximab +/- corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was composite efficacy failure (treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death or loss to follow-up) and the main safety endpoint was renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD]) at Month 12 (last-observation-carried-forward analyses). Month 12 efficacy failure rates were noninferior in the everolimus 1.5 mg (25.3%) and 3.0 mg (21.9%) versus MPA (24.2%) groups. Mean eGFR at Month 12 was noninferior in the everolimus groups versus the MPA group (54.6 and 51.3 vs 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the everolimus 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg and MPA groups, respectively; 95% confidence intervals for everolimus 1.5 mg and 3.0 mg vs MPA: -1.7, 6.4 and -5.0, 3.2, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups. The use of everolimus with progressive reduction in CsA exposure, up to 60% at 1 year, resulted in similar efficacy and renal function compared with standard-exposure CsA plus MPA.

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