4.6 Article

Everolimus (Certican) 12-month safety and efficacy versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant recipients

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 78, 期 10, 页码 1532-1540

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000141094.34903.54

关键词

kidney transplant; everolimus; rejection; cytomegalovirus; mycophenolate mofetil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Everolimus is a proliferation inhibitor designed to target chronic rejection, including prevention of acute rejection. Everolimus blocks growth factor-mediated transduction signals, preventing organ rejection by a mechanism different than that of calcineurin inhibitors and of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Methods. Everolimus (1.5 mg or 3 mg daily) was compared with MMF (2 g daily) in a randomized, multicenter, multinational, 12-month double-blind, double-dummy and 2-year open-label, phase 3 trial in de novo renal allograft recipients (n=588) who also received cyclosporine and corticosteroids as part of a triple immunosuppressive regimen. Results. At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences between doses of 1.5 and 3 mg/day everolimus and MMF (2 g/day) in incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (23.2%, 19.7%, and 24.0%, respectively), graft loss (4.6%, 10.6%, and 9.2%), or death (5.2%, 4.0%, and 2.6%), respectively. Everolimus 1.5 mg/day and MMF were generally equally well tolerated. Both were better tolerated than everolimus 3 mg/day. The incidence of cytomegalovirus infection was significantly lower in patients receiving either 1.5 or 3 mg/day everolimus than in those receiving MMF (5.2% and 7.6% vs. 19.4%, respectively) (P=.001). Conclusions. Everolimus is effective in preventing acute rejection and graft loss in de novo renal allograft recipients receiving a triple immunosuppressive regimen. Prevention of acute rejection, along with reduction in cytomegalovirus infection, addresses two factors known to contribute to chronic rejection in such patients.

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