Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de Novo renal transplant recipients: A 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study

被引:187
|
作者
Lorber, MI
Mulgaonkar, S
Butt, KMH
Elkhammas, E
Mendez, R
Rajagopalan, PR
Kahan, B
Sollinger, H
Li, YL
Cretin, N
Tedesco, H
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sect Organ Transplantat, Sch Med, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[2] St Barnabas Hosp, Livingston, NJ USA
[3] Westchester Cty Med Ctr, Transplant Serv, Valhalla, NY 10595 USA
[4] Ohio State Univ Hosp, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[5] Natl Inst Transplantat, Los Angeles, CA USA
[6] Med Univ S Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425 USA
[7] Univ Texas, Sch Med, Houston, TX USA
[8] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[9] Novartis Pharmaceut Inc, E Hanover, NJ USA
[10] Novartis Pharmaceut AG, Basel, Switzerland
[11] Hosp Rim j& Hipertensao, Div Nephrol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
关键词
everolimus; cyclosporine; mycophenolate mofetil; renal transplantation; rejection;
D O I
10.1097/01.TP.0000164352.65613.24
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
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 mu mol/L or greater with everolimus and 7 Amol/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.
引用
收藏
页码:244 / 252
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Prospective study of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in living donor renal allograft recipients
    Park, K
    Kim, SI
    Moon, JI
    Kim, YS
    Kim, MS
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 1998, 30 (07) : 3575 - 3575
  • [22] Mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of chronic rejection in renal transplantation:: 3-year follow-up
    Noronha, IL
    Oliveira, AC
    Abensur, H
    Romao, JE
    Araújo, MRT
    Zatz, R
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 34 (02) : 491 - 493
  • [23] Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil In De Novo Renal Transplantation in a Retrospective Cohort of Transplant Recipients in Colombia-Esmitren Study
    Quiroz, Jose Nelson Carvajal
    Villalobos, Juan Sebastian Gomez
    Pereira, Juan Carlos Tobon
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2024, 56 (02) : 297 - 305
  • [24] Optimal Everolimus Concentration Is Associated With Risk Reduction for Acute Rejection in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients
    Chan, Laurence
    Hartmann, Erica
    Cibrik, Diane
    Cooper, Matthew
    Shaw, Leslie M.
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2010, 90 (01) : 31 - 37
  • [25] Influence of Induction Therapy On the Efficacy of Everolimus vs Mycophenolate Based Regimen in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients
    Vincenti, F.
    Qazi, Y.
    Kaplan, B.
    Kim, D.
    Shihab, F.
    McCague, K.
    Patel, D.
    Mulgaonkar, S.
    Shaffer, D.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 14 : 539 - 540
  • [26] Lower Incidence of Viral Infections with Everolimus Versus MMF in De Novo Heart Transplant Recipients: 12 Month Analysis of a Randomized Multicenter Study
    Ross, H.
    Kfoury, A. G.
    Van Bakel, A.
    Ewald, G.
    Burton, J.
    Andreassen, A.
    Segovia, J.
    Lopez, P.
    Cines, M.
    Dong, G.
    Potena, L.
    JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2011, 30 (04): : S63 - S64
  • [27] Pharmacodynamic monitoring of de novo renal transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate and cyclosporine with a conversion from cyclosporine to Everolimus
    Nolting, Jochen
    Glander, Petra
    Gainer, Niels
    Naik, Marcel
    Seffin, Anett
    Mai, Marco
    Klupp, Jochen
    Neurnayer, Hans H.
    Reinke, Petra
    Budde, Klemens
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2008, 8 : 550 - 550
  • [28] APOMYGRE: a multicenter trial which validates mycophenolate mofetil therapeutic drug monitoring in de novo kidney transplant recipients
    Marquet, P.
    Rousseau, A.
    Debord, J.
    Hoizey, G.
    Compagnon, P.
    Hary, L.
    Loichot, C.
    Turcant, A.
    Debruyne, D.
    Saivin, S.
    Jacqz-Aigrain, E.
    Le Meur, Y.
    FUNDAMENTAL & CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2007, 21 : 9 - 9
  • [29] 12-MONTH ATHENA STUDY: EVEROLIMUS VERSUS STANDARD REGIMEN IN DE NOVO RENAL TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
    Sommerer, C.
    Suwelack, B.
    Dragun, D.
    Hauser, I.
    Schenker, P.
    Baeumer, D.
    Nashan, B.
    Thaiss, F.
    TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 28 : 450 - 450
  • [30] A prospective, randomized trial of tacrolimus/prednisone versus tacrolimus/prednisone mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients
    Shapiro, R
    Jordan, ML
    Scantlebury, VP
    Vivas, C
    Marsh, JM
    McCauley, J
    Johnston, J
    Randhawa, P
    Irish, W
    Gritsch, HA
    Naraghi, R
    Hakala, TR
    Fung, JJ
    Starzl, TE
    TRANSPLANTATION, 1999, 67 (03) : 411 - 415