Improved rejection prophylaxis with an initially intensified dosing regimen of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in de novo renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of cyclosporine A-treated renal transplant recipients do not reach sufficient mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposure in the first weeks posttransplantation with standard MPA dosing regimens. METHODS: Here, we present a prospectively planned meta-analysis of data from two 6-month parallel-run studies that evaluated the effect of an initially intensified versus standard dosing regimen of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS). Four hundred forty-one de novo renal transplant recipients were randomized (1:1) to intensified (2 weeks 2880 mg/d; subsequently 4 weeks 2160 mg/d; followed by 1440 mg/d) or standard (1440 mg/d) EC-MPS, with concomitant cyclosporine A treatment and steroids with or without anti-IL-2R induction. Primary endpoint was treatment failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection [BPAR], graft loss, or death) at month 6 posttransplantation. RESULTS: Treatment failure rates were 17.4% in intensified and 22.4% in standard groups (P=0.110). The incidence of BPAR was 13.8% (intensified) vs. 19.3% (standard; P=0.034). A total of 80.5% (intensified) versus 39.0% (standard) of patients achieved 12 hr MPA-area under the curve more than 30 µg·hr/mL as early as day 3 posttransplant. Renal function, gastrointestinal symptom rating scores, and safety profiles were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The initially intensified EC-MPS dosing regimen was associated with higher MPA exposure, significantly lower rate of BPAR, and comparable safety. However, the intensified regimen did not affect graft function or survival.

Evolution of the absorption profile of cyclosporine A in renal transplant recipients: a longitudinal study of the de novo and maintenance phases.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring for cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA-ME) is often performed using either trough levels (C0) or levels at 2 h post-dose (C2). This analysis assessed changes in C0 and C2 and their relationship to CsA-ME dose over time post-transplant in renal transplant patients. METHODS: Data were obtained from MO2ART, a prospective multicentre trial in which CsA-ME dose was adjusted based on C2 level. All 98 patients in whom C0 and C2 were available at day 5, month 3 and month 12 were included, out of 234 who completed the 12 month study. Normalized dose (ND) of CsA-ME, defined as dose per kilogram body weight, was calculated, together with C0/ND, C2/ND and C2/C0. RESULTS: C0/ND and C2/ND both increased between day 5 and month 3: C0/ND from 33+/-15 to 53+/-24 (ng/ml)/(mg/kg) and C2/ND from 161+/-64 to 248+/-80 (ng/ml)/(mg/kg). Between month 3 and month 12, C2/ND remained stable but C0/ND decreased to 42+/-20 (ng/ml)/(mg/kg) while the C2/C0 ratio increased from 5.2+/-1.9 to 6.5+/-2.3, indicating an acceleration of drug elimination. The inter-individual coefficient of variation was higher for C0/ND than for C2/ND at 3 months (45 vs 32%, P<0.05) and at 12 months (48 vs 31%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CsA clearance accelerates between months 3 and 12 post-transplant, resulting in lower C0 levels for a given exposure (as measured by C2). As a consequence, C0 monitoring may progressively underestimate CsA exposure during the first year post-transplant. C2 monitoring contributes to improved individualized CsA-ME treatment in both the de novo phase and beyond month 3.

Randomized double-blind study of immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in combination with mycophenolate mofetil-containing triple therapy in renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Acute rejection remains a major problem in renal transplantation. Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab (Simulect) has achieved significant reductions in acute rejection episodes in renal allograft recipients receiving dual immunosuppression. This study explored the tolerability and cumulative benefit of combining basiliximab with triple-drug therapy-cyclosporine (USP Modified, Neoral), mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 123 kidney transplant recipients received either basiliximab at 20 mg before transplantation (day 0) and 20 mg on day 4 (n=59), or placebo (n=64). All received triple-drug immunosuppression and were followed for 6 months. RESULTS: Tolerability of basiliximab was equivalent to placebo, with no increase in serious adverse events, infection, malignancy, or posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. At 6 months, there were trends in favor of basiliximab over placebo in the incidences of first biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (15.3% vs. 26.6%, P=NS) and of acute rejection treated with antibody (5.1% vs. 15.6%, P=NS). Kaplan-Meier estimates at 4 weeks and 6 months were significantly in favor of basiliximab treatment for first acute rejection, biopsy-confirmed rejection, rejection episodes treated with antibody therapy, and treatment failure. Renal function improved more rapidly in the basiliximab group, with mean creatinine clearance at week 2 being 54.7 mL/min versus 43.2 mL/min for placebo (P=0.034). At 12 months, patient survival was 100% in both groups; graft survival was 94.9% with basiliximab and 92.2% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Basiliximab immunoprophylaxis is safe, well tolerated, and shows a trend toward reduction in number of acute rejection episodes in renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids.

Safety and efficacy of an alternative basiliximab (Simulect) regimen after renal transplantation: administration of a single 40-mg dose on the first postoperative day in patients receiving triple therapy with azathioprine.

This was a multi-center, open-label, randomized, dose-comparative study on 202 renal transplantation patients. We evaluated for the first time an alternative dosing regimen for basiliximab, consisting of a single 40-mg intravenous dose on day 1 post-transplantation plus triple therapy, in comparison with the conventional two-dose regimen (2 h before transplantation and on day 4) plus triple therapy. At 6 months, the incidence of acute rejection was low: 22.5% of patients in the basiliximab 2 x 20-mg group and 20.0% of patients in the basiliximab 1 x 40-mg group experienced an acute rejection episode ( P = 0.628) (biopsy-proven rejection: 19.6% and 17.0%, P = 0.585). There was no statistically significant difference in any of the secondary efficacy parameters. The incidence of graft loss by 12 months was 4.9% and 6.0% in the 2 x 20-mg and 1 x 40-mg group, respectively ( P = 0.73). No differences were observed between the dosage groups with regards to safety assessments (adverse events (AEs), infections, vital signs, laboratory safety evaluations, and physical examinations). The data reveal that basiliximab can be safely and effectively administered as a single 40-mg dose on day 1 after renal transplantation as a therapeutic option to the established 2 x 20-mg dosing regimen. This alternative dosing regimen may be of significant convenience under circumstances when a first dose of basiliximab was not given prior to transplantation. Both regimens can conveniently be used during the initial hospitalization of the patient.

Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in combination with azathioprine-containing triple therapy in liver transplant recipients.

Acute graft rejection remains a major problem among additional sequelae in liver transplant recipients. Basiliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody with high affinity for the CD25 chain of the interleukin-2 receptor, has significantly reduced the incidence of acute rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients. This single-arm, open-label, multicenter study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis in adult patients undergoing first elective liver transplantation. One hundred one patients (70 hepatitis C virus [HCV]-negative patients, 31 HCV-positive patients) were administered basiliximab, 20 mg, by intravenous bolus injection the day of transplantation (day 0) and day 4. In addition, all patients were administered triple immunosuppressive therapy with cyclosporine, steroids, and azathioprine. The efficacy of basiliximab was assessed by conventional parameters, and tolerability was assessed by the incidence of adverse events, infections, and laboratory test result abnormalities. At 6 months, the incidence of first acute biopsy-confirmed rejection episodes was 22.8%. Rejections were more frequent in the HCV-positive (29.0%) than HCV-negative subgroup (20.0%; P =.441). No rejection episode was graded histologically as severe, and no patient required antibody therapy for the management of acute rejection. Ten patients (9.9%) required treatment with tacrolimus for acute rejection episodes. Patient and graft survival rates at 12 months were 90.1% and 88.1%, respectively. Basiliximab caused no injection-site reactions, anaphylaxis, or cytokine release syndrome. Five malignancies were reported at 12 months: of these, three malignancies predated transplantation surgery. Compared with earlier studies, the addition of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis to triple immunosuppressive therapy provides increased efficacy in reducing the incidence of acute rejection episodes, with no clinically significant increase in adverse events.