Seven years after transplantation, patient and graft survival and the mean eGFR were significantly higher with belatacept (both the more-intensive regimen and the less-intensive regimen) than with cyclosporine. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256750.).
SummaryBackground and objectives Prolonged use of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) in kidney transplant recipients is associated with renal and nonrenal toxicity and an increase in cardiovascular risk factors. Belatacept-based regimens may provide a treatment option for patients who switch from CNI-based maintenance immunosuppression.Design, setting, participants, & measurements This is a randomized, open-label Phase II trial in renal transplant patients with stable graft function and receiving a CNI-based regimen. Patients who were Ն6 months but Յ36 months after transplantation were randomized to either switch to belatacept or continue CNI treatment. All patients received background maintenance immunosuppression. The primary end point was the change in calculated GFR (cGFR) from baseline to month 12.Results Patients were randomized either to switch to belatacept (n ϭ 84) or to remain on a CNI-based regimen (n ϭ 89). At month 12, the mean (SD) change from baseline in cGFR was higher in the belatacept group versus the CNI group. Six patients in the belatacept group had acute rejection episodes, all within the first 6 months; all resolved with no allograft loss. By month 12, one patient in the CNI group died with a functioning graft, whereas no patients in the belatacept group had graft loss. The overall safety profile was similar between groups.
ConclusionsThe study identifies a potentially safe and feasible method for switching stable renal transplant patients from a cyclosporine-or tacrolimus-based regimen to a belatacept-based regimen, which may allow improved renal function in patients currently treated with CNIs.
Thymoglobulin was found to be superior to Atgam in reversing acute rejection and preventing recurrent rejection after therapy in renal transplant recipients.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.The Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-line Immunosuppression Trial randomized patients receiving a living or standard criteria deceased donor kidney transplant to a more (MI) or less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept or cyclosporine A (CsA). The 5-year results of the long-term extension (LTE) cohort are reported. A total of 456 (68.5% of intent-to-treat) patients entered the LTE at 36 months; 406 patients (89%) completed 60 months. Between Months 36 and 60, death occurred in 2%, 1% and 5% of belatacept MI, belatacept LI and CsA patients, respectively; graft loss occurred in 0% belatacept and 2% of CsA patients. Acute rejection between Months 36 and 60 was rare: zero belatacept MI, one belatacept LI and one CsA. Rates for infections and malignancies for Months 36-60 were generally similar across belatacept groups and CsA, respectively: fungal infections (14%, 15%, 12%), viral infections (21%, 18%, 16%) and malignancies (6%, 6%, 9%). No new posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder cases occurred after 36 months. Mean calculated GFR (MDRD, mL/min/ 1.73 m 2 ) at Month 60 was 74 for belatacept MI, 76 for belatacept LI and 53 for CsA. These results show that the renal function benefit and safety profile observed in belatacept-treated patients in the early posttransplant period was sustained through 5 years.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.