Cargando…

Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study

In the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First‐Line Immunosuppression Trial–Extended Criteria Donors (BENEFIT‐EXT), extended criteria donor kidney recipients were randomized to receive belatacept‐based (more intense [MI] or less intense [LI]) or cyclosporine‐based immunosuppr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Durrbach, A., Pestana, J. M., Florman, S., del Carmen Rial, M., Rostaing, L., Kuypers, D., Matas, A., Wekerle, T., Polinsky, M., Meier‐Kriesche, H. U., Munier, S., Grinyó, J. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5516151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27130868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13830
_version_ 1783251109534498816
author Durrbach, A.
Pestana, J. M.
Florman, S.
del Carmen Rial, M.
Rostaing, L.
Kuypers, D.
Matas, A.
Wekerle, T.
Polinsky, M.
Meier‐Kriesche, H. U.
Munier, S.
Grinyó, J. M.
author_facet Durrbach, A.
Pestana, J. M.
Florman, S.
del Carmen Rial, M.
Rostaing, L.
Kuypers, D.
Matas, A.
Wekerle, T.
Polinsky, M.
Meier‐Kriesche, H. U.
Munier, S.
Grinyó, J. M.
author_sort Durrbach, A.
collection PubMed
description In the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First‐Line Immunosuppression Trial–Extended Criteria Donors (BENEFIT‐EXT), extended criteria donor kidney recipients were randomized to receive belatacept‐based (more intense [MI] or less intense [LI]) or cyclosporine‐based immunosuppression. In prior analyses, belatacept was associated with significantly better renal function compared with cyclosporine. In this prospective analysis of the intent‐to‐treat population, efficacy and safety were compared across regimens at 7 years after transplant. Overall, 128 of 184 belatacept MI–treated, 138 of 175 belatacept LI–treated and 108 of 184 cyclosporine‐treated patients contributed data to these analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) comparing time to death or graft loss were 0.915 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.625–1.339; p = 0.65) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.927 (95% CI 0.634–1.356; p = 0.70) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) plus or minus standard error at 7 years was 53.9 ± 1.9, 54.2 ± 1.9, and 35.3 ± 2.0 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) for belatacept MI, belatacept LI and cyclosporine, respectively (p < 0.001 for overall treatment effect). HRs comparing freedom from death, graft loss or eGFR <20 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) were 0.754 (95% CI 0.536–1.061; p = 0.10) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.706 (95% CI 0.499–0.998; p = 0.05) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Acute rejection rates and safety profiles of belatacept‐ and cyclosporine‐based treatment were similar. De novo donor‐specific antibody incidence was lower for belatacept (p ≤ 0.0001). Relative to cyclosporine, belatacept was associated with similar death and graft loss and improved renal function at 7 years after transplant and had a safety profile consistent with previous reports.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5516151
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55161512017-08-02 Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study Durrbach, A. Pestana, J. M. Florman, S. del Carmen Rial, M. Rostaing, L. Kuypers, D. Matas, A. Wekerle, T. Polinsky, M. Meier‐Kriesche, H. U. Munier, S. Grinyó, J. M. Am J Transplant Original Articles In the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First‐Line Immunosuppression Trial–Extended Criteria Donors (BENEFIT‐EXT), extended criteria donor kidney recipients were randomized to receive belatacept‐based (more intense [MI] or less intense [LI]) or cyclosporine‐based immunosuppression. In prior analyses, belatacept was associated with significantly better renal function compared with cyclosporine. In this prospective analysis of the intent‐to‐treat population, efficacy and safety were compared across regimens at 7 years after transplant. Overall, 128 of 184 belatacept MI–treated, 138 of 175 belatacept LI–treated and 108 of 184 cyclosporine‐treated patients contributed data to these analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) comparing time to death or graft loss were 0.915 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.625–1.339; p = 0.65) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.927 (95% CI 0.634–1.356; p = 0.70) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) plus or minus standard error at 7 years was 53.9 ± 1.9, 54.2 ± 1.9, and 35.3 ± 2.0 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) for belatacept MI, belatacept LI and cyclosporine, respectively (p < 0.001 for overall treatment effect). HRs comparing freedom from death, graft loss or eGFR <20 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) were 0.754 (95% CI 0.536–1.061; p = 0.10) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.706 (95% CI 0.499–0.998; p = 0.05) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Acute rejection rates and safety profiles of belatacept‐ and cyclosporine‐based treatment were similar. De novo donor‐specific antibody incidence was lower for belatacept (p ≤ 0.0001). Relative to cyclosporine, belatacept was associated with similar death and graft loss and improved renal function at 7 years after transplant and had a safety profile consistent with previous reports. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-06-09 2016-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5516151/ /pubmed/27130868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13830 Text en © 2016 The Authors. American Journal of Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society of Transplant Surgeons This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/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.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Durrbach, A.
Pestana, J. M.
Florman, S.
del Carmen Rial, M.
Rostaing, L.
Kuypers, D.
Matas, A.
Wekerle, T.
Polinsky, M.
Meier‐Kriesche, H. U.
Munier, S.
Grinyó, J. M.
Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study
title Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study
title_full Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study
title_fullStr Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study
title_full_unstemmed Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study
title_short Long‐Term Outcomes in Belatacept‐ Versus Cyclosporine‐Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT‐EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study
title_sort long‐term outcomes in belatacept‐ versus cyclosporine‐treated recipients of extended criteria donor kidneys: final results from benefit‐ext, a phase iii randomized study
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5516151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27130868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13830
work_keys_str_mv AT durrbacha longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT pestanajm longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT flormans longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT delcarmenrialm longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT rostaingl longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT kuypersd longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT matasa longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT wekerlet longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT polinskym longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT meierkrieschehu longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT muniers longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy
AT grinyojm longtermoutcomesinbelataceptversuscyclosporinetreatedrecipientsofextendedcriteriadonorkidneysfinalresultsfrombenefitextaphaseiiirandomizedstudy