Shamkant Mulgaonkar

BACKGROUND: There are few comparisons of antibody induction therapy allowing early glucocorticoid withdrawal in renal-transplant recipients. The purpose of the present study was to compare induction therapy involving alemtuzumab with the most commonly used induction regimens in patient populations at either high immunologic risk or low immunologic risk. METHODS: In this prospective study, we randomly assigned patients to receive alemtuzumab or conventional induction therapy (basiliximab or rabbit antithymocyte globulin). Patients were stratified according to acute rejection risk, with a high risk defined by a repeat transplant, a peak or current value of panel-reactive antibodies of 20% or more, or black race. The 139 high-risk patients received alemtuzumab (one dose of 30 mg, in 70 patients) or rabbit antithymocyte globulin (a total of 6 mg per kilogram of body weight given over 4 days, in 69 patients). The 335 low-risk patients received alemtuzumab (one dose of 30 mg, in 164 patients) or basiliximab (a total of 40 mg over 4 days, in 171 patients). All patients received tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil and underwent a 5-day glucocorticoid taper in a regimen of early steroid withdrawal. The primary end point was biopsy-confirmed acute rejection at 6 months and 12 months. Patients were followed for 3 years for safety and efficacy end points. RESULTS: The rate of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection was significantly lower in the alemtuzumab group than in the conventional-therapy group at both 6 months (3% vs. 15%, P<0.001) and 12 months (5% vs. 17%, P<0.001). At 3 years, the rate of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection in low-risk patients was lower with alemtuzumab than with basiliximab (10% vs. 22%, P=0.003), but among high-risk patients, no significant difference was seen between alemtuzumab and rabbit antithymocyte globulin (18% vs. 15%, P=0.63). Adverse-event rates were similar among all four treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: By the first year after transplantation, biopsy-confirmed acute rejection was less frequent with alemtuzumab than with conventional therapy. The apparent superiority of alemtuzumab with respect to early biopsy-confirmed acute rejection was restricted to patients at low risk for transplant rejection; among high-risk patients, alemtuzumab and rabbit antithymocyte globulin had similar efficacy. (Funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development; INTAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00113269.).

Background Everolimus permits reduced calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) exposure, but the efficacy and safety outcomes of this treatment after kidney transplant require confirmation. Methods In a multicenter noninferiority trial, we randomized 2037 de novo kidney transplant recipients to receive, in combination with induction therapy and corticosteroids, everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI (everolimus arm) or mycophenolic acid (MPA) with standard-exposure CNI (MPA arm). The primary end point was treated biopsy-proven acute rejection or eGFR&lt;50 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 at post-transplant month 12 using a 10% noninferiority margin. Results In the intent-to-treat population (everolimus n =1022, MPA n =1015), the primary end point incidence was 48.2% (493) with everolimus and 45.1% (457) with MPA (difference 3.2%; 95% confidence interval, −1.3% to 7.6%). Similar between-treatment differences in incidence were observed in the subgroups of patients who received tacrolimus or cyclosporine. Treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, or death at post-transplant month 12 occurred in 14.9% and 12.5% of patients treated with everolimus and MPA, respectively (difference 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, −1.7% to 6.4%). De novo donor-specific antibody incidence at 12 months and antibody-mediated rejection rate did not differ between arms. Cytomegalovirus (3.6% versus 13.3%) and BK virus infections (4.3% versus 8.0%) were less frequent in the everolimus arm than in the MPA arm. Overall, 23.0% and 11.9% of patients treated with everolimus and MPA, respectively, discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. Conclusions In kidney transplant recipients at mild-to-moderate immunologic risk, everolimus was noninferior to MPA for a binary composite end point assessing immunosuppressive efficacy and preservation of graft function.

BACKGROUND: This 36-month, randomized, parallel-group study compared safety and efficacy of two doses of everolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in de novo renal-transplant recipients. METHODS: Renal-allograft recipients received 1.5 mg/day or 3 mg/day of everolimus or 2 g/day of MMF, plus full-dose cyclosporine (CsA) and corticosteroids after randomization. For at least their first year, patients received study medication according to a double-blinded, double-dummy design. Concerns over nephrotoxicity led to a protocol amendment to an open-label design with reduced CsA troughs. RESULTS: Incidences of primary efficacy failure at 36 months (biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or loss to follow-up) were everolimus 1.5 mg/day, 33.7% (65/193); everolimus 3 mg/day, 34.0% (66/194); and MMF, 31.1% (61/196) (P=0.810). Antibody-treated acute rejection at 36 months was significantly lower with everolimus 1.5 mg (9.8%) than MMF (18.4%, P=0.014). Discontinuation for adverse events was more frequent with everolimus and hemolytic uremic syndrome, lymphoproliferative disease, and proteinuria, and higher serum creatinine occurred at increased frequency relative to the MMF arm. Creatinine levels in the everolimus arms were stable in follow-up: the mean rise in creatinine over the first 6 months of the open-label phase was 3 micromol/L or greater with everolimus and 7 micromol/L with MMF. However, serum creatinine levels were lower in the MMF group throughout. Death and graft loss were higher in the everolimus arms (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: As part of triple-drug immunosuppression, everolimus (1.5 or 3 mg/day) was as efficacious as MMF, although the side-effect profile featured increased adverse events. Nephrotoxicity/calcineurin-inhibitor-related adverse events will require judicious lowering of CsA exposure with monitoring of everolimus troughs.

BACKGROUND: FTY720 is the first of a new drug class: sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor agonist. Its effect relates to the modulation of lymphocytes trafficking from blood and peripheral tissues to lymph nodes. This is the first study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FTY720 in de novo renal transplantation. METHODS: This phase 2a, multicenter, open-label, dose-finding study compared FTY720 (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.5 mg) with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Patients (n=208) received FTY720 (n=167) or MMF (n=41) for 3 months followed by a 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection at month 3 was 23.3%, 34.9%, 17.5%, and 9.8%, respectively, with FTY720 at doses of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 mg, versus 17.1% with MMF. The incidence for the composite endpoint (biopsy-confirmed acute rejection, graft loss, or death) was lowest with FTY720 at a dose of 2.5 mg at month 3 (14.6%) compared with FTY720 at doses of 0.25 mg (25.6%), 0.5 mg (34.9%), and 1.0 mg (17.5%), and MMF (19.5%). Safety was comparable between FTY720 and MMF group. The main difference in tolerability was a mild and transient reduction in heart rate. A decrease in peripheral lymphocytes occurred in patients receiving FTY720, as expected from the mode of action, and this was reversible after treatment cessation. CONCLUSIONS: FTY720 at 2.5 mg was found to be as effective as MMF in combination with cyclosporine for the prevention of acute rejection after renal transplantation. FTY720 was well tolerated and not associated with the side effects commonly observed with immunosuppressant therapies.