Josep M. Grinyó

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive regimens with the fewest possible toxic effects are desirable for transplant recipients. This study evaluated the efficacy and relative toxic effects of four immunosuppressive regimens. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1645 renal-transplant recipients to receive standard-dose cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids, or daclizumab induction, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids in combination with low-dose cyclosporine, low-dose tacrolimus, or low-dose sirolimus. The primary end point was the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), as calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula, 12 months after transplantation. Secondary end points included acute rejection and allograft survival. RESULTS: The mean calculated GFR was higher in patients receiving low-dose tacrolimus (65.4 ml per minute) than in the other three groups (range, 56.7 to 59.4 ml per minute). The rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection was lower in patients receiving low-dose tacrolimus (12.3%) than in those receiving standard-dose cyclosporine (25.8%), low-dose cyclosporine (24.0%), or low-dose sirolimus (37.2%). Allograft survival differed significantly among the four groups (P=0.02) and was highest in the low-dose tacrolimus group (94.2%), followed by the low-dose cyclosporine group (93.1%), the standard-dose cyclosporine group (89.3%), and the low-dose sirolimus group (89.3%). Serious adverse events were more common in the low-dose sirolimus group than in the other groups (53.2% vs. a range of 43.4 to 44.3%), although a similar proportion of patients in each group had at least one adverse event during treatment (86.3 to 90.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A regimen of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids in combination with low-dose tacrolimus may be advantageous for renal function, allograft survival, and acute rejection rates, as compared with regimens containing daclizumab induction plus either low-dose cyclosporine or low-dose sirolimus or with standard-dose cyclosporine without induction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00231764 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Preliminary studies suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), which inhibits proliferation of T and B cells, may reduce the frequency of acute rejection after renal transplantation. Our randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of MMF with placebo for prevention of acute rejection episodes after first or second cadaveric renal allograft transplantation. 491 patients were enrolled; 166 were assigned placebo, 165 MMF 2 g, and 160 MMF 3 g. Patients also received cyclosporin and corticosteroids. Significantly fewer (p less than or equal to 0.001) patients had biopsy-proven rejection or withdrew early from the trial (for any reason) during the first 6 months after transplantation with MMF 2 g (30.3%) or 3 g (38.8%) than with placebo (56.0%). The corresponding percentages for biopsy-proven rejection were 17.0%, 13.8%, and 46.4%. 28.5% of MMF 2 g and 24.4% of MMF 3 g patients needed full courses of corticosteroids or antilymphocyte agents for treatment of rejection episodes in the first 6 months, compared with 51.8% of placebo recipients. By 6 months, 10.2%, 6.7%, and 8.8% of the patients in the placebo, MMF 2 g, and MMF 3 g groups, respectively, had died or lost the graft. Overall, the frequency of adverse events was similar in all treatment groups, although gastrointestinal problems, leucopenia, and opportunistic infections were more common in the MMF groups and there was a trend for more events in the 3 g than the 2 g group. MMF significantly reduced the rate of biopsy-proven rejection or other treatment failure during the first 6 months after transplantation and was well tolerated, The 3 g dose was somewhat less well tolerated.

BACKGROUND: Renal transplantation is the standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease. Although maintenance immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors yields excellent one-year survival, it is associated over the long term with high rates of death and graft loss, owing in part to the adverse renal, cardiovascular, and metabolic effects of these agents. The use of potentially less toxic agents, such as belatacept, a selective blocker of T-cell activation, may improve outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned renal-transplant recipients to receive an intensive or a less-intensive regimen of belatacept or cyclosporine. All patients received induction therapy with basiliximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of belatacept over cyclosporine in the incidence of acute rejection at six months (with an upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval around the treatment difference of less than 20 percent). RESULTS: At six months, the incidence of acute rejection was similar among the groups: 7 percent for intensive belatacept, 6 percent for less-intensive belatacept, and 8 percent for cyclosporine. At 12 months, the glomerular filtration rate was significantly higher with both intensive and less-intensive belatacept than it was with cyclosporine (66.3, 62.1, and 53.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2, respectively), and chronic allograft nephropathy was less common with both regimens of belatacept than with cyclosporine (29 percent, 20 percent, and 44 percent, respectively). Lipid levels and blood-pressure values were similar or slightly lower in the belatacept groups, despite the greater use of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications in the cyclosporine group. CONCLUSIONS: Belatacept, an investigational selective costimulation blocker, did not appear to be inferior to cyclosporine as a means of preventing acute rejection after renal transplantation. Belatacept may preserve the glomerular filtration rate and reduce the rate of chronic allograft nephropathy.

Recipients of extended criteria donor (ECD) kidneys are at increased risk for graft dysfunction/loss, and may benefit from immunosuppression that avoids calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity. Belatacept, a selective costimulation blocker, may preserve renal function and improve long‐term outcomes versus CNIs. BENEFIT‐EXT (Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First‐line Immunosuppression Trial—EXTended criteria donors) is a 3‐year, Phase III study that assessed a more (MI) or less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept versus cyclosporine in adult ECD kidney transplant recipients. The coprimary endpoints at 12 months were composite patient/graft survival and a composite renal impairment endpoint. Patient/graft survival with belatacept was similar to cyclosporine (86% MI, 89% LI, 85% cyclosporine) at 12 months. Fewer belatacept patients reached the composite renal impairment endpoint versus cyclosporine (71% MI, 77% LI, 85% cyclosporine; p = 0.002 MI vs. cyclosporine; p = 0.06 LI vs. cyclosporine). The mean measured glomerular filtration rate was 4–7 mL/min higher on belatacept versus cyclosporine (p = 0.008 MI vs. cyclosporine; p = 0.1039 LI vs. cyclosporine), and the overall cardiovascular/metabolic profile was better on belatacept versus cyclosporine. The incidence of acute rejection was similar across groups (18% MI; 18% LI; 14% cyclosporine). Overall rates of infection and malignancy were similar between groups; however, more cases of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) occurred in the CNS on belatacept. ECD kidney transplant recipients treated with belatacept‐based immunosuppression achieved similar patient/graft survival, better renal function, had an increased incidence of PTLD, and exhibited improvement in the cardiovascular/metabolic risk profile versus cyclosporine‐treated patients. Recipients of extended criteria donor (ECD) kidneys are at increased risk for graft dysfunction/loss, and may benefit from immunosuppression that avoids calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity. Belatacept, a selective costimulation blocker, may preserve renal function and improve long‐term outcomes versus CNIs. BENEFIT‐EXT (Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First‐line Immunosuppression Trial—EXTended criteria donors) is a 3‐year, Phase III study that assessed a more (MI) or less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept versus cyclosporine in adult ECD kidney transplant recipients. The coprimary endpoints at 12 months were composite patient/graft survival and a composite renal impairment endpoint. Patient/graft survival with belatacept was similar to cyclosporine (86% MI, 89% LI, 85% cyclosporine) at 12 months. Fewer belatacept patients reached the composite renal impairment endpoint versus cyclosporine (71% MI, 77% LI, 85% cyclosporine; p = 0.002 MI vs. cyclosporine; p = 0.06 LI vs. cyclosporine). The mean measured glomerular filtration rate was 4–7 mL/min higher on belatacept versus cyclosporine (p = 0.008 MI vs. cyclosporine; p = 0.1039 LI vs. cyclosporine), and the overall cardiovascular/metabolic profile was better on belatacept versus cyclosporine. The incidence of acute rejection was similar across groups (18% MI; 18% LI; 14% cyclosporine). Overall rates of infection and malignancy were similar between groups; however, more cases of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) occurred in the CNS on belatacept. ECD kidney transplant recipients treated with belatacept‐based immunosuppression achieved similar patient/graft survival, better renal function, had an increased incidence of PTLD, and exhibited improvement in the cardiovascular/metabolic risk profile versus cyclosporine‐treated patients.