Outcome of Kidney Transplantation From Donor After Cardiac Death: Reanalysis of the US Mycophenolic Renal Transplant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is limited by the shortage of donor kidneys. Donation after cardiac death (DCD) has been explored to alleviate this problem. To better understand the outcome of DCD kidney transplantation, we reanalyzed the Mycophenolic Renal Transplant (MORE) Registry. METHODS: We compared delayed graft function (DGF), biopsy-proved acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, and patient death between DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) kidney transplantations. Recipients were further stratified into depleting and nondepleting induction groups for exploratory analysis. RESULTS: There were 548 patients who received kidney transplants from deceased donor in the MORE Registry. Among them, 133 received grafts from DCD donors and 415 received from DBD donors. The incidence of DGF was 29.4% and 23.5% in the DCD group and the DBD group, respectively (P = .1812), and the incidence of BPAR at 12 months was 9.0% and 9.9% respectively (P = .7713). The 1-year graft loss rate in the DCD group was higher than that in the DBD group (7.5% vs 3.1%, P = .0283), and the 4-year graft loss rate and patient death rate were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The DCD kidney transplant group had acceptable short-term outcomes and good long-term outcomes as compared with the DBD kidney transplant group.

Association of Clinical Events With Everolimus Exposure in Kidney Transplant Patients Receiving Low Doses of Tacrolimus.

A key objective in the use of immunosuppression after kidney transplantation is to attain the optimal balance between efficacy and safety. In a phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study, the incidences of clinical events, renal dysfunction, and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed at 12 months in 309 de novo renal transplant recipients receiving everolimus (EVR), low-dose tacrolimus (LTac), and prednisone. Cox proportional hazard regression modeling was used to estimate the probability of clinical events at specified combinations of time-normalized EVR and Tac trough concentrations. At 12 months, the highest incidence of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection (tBPAR) and graft loss occurred most often in patients with EVR trough concentration <3 ng/mL (64.7% and 10.5%, respectively). At 1 month and 12 months, increasing EVR levels were associated with fewer tBPAR events (both p < 0.0001). Low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and decreased eGFR occurred more often in patients with lower EVR and higher Tac levels. AEs were most often observed in patients with EVR levels <3 ng/mL. This study supports maintaining an EVR trough concentration of 3-8 ng/mL, when combined with LTac, to achieve balanced efficacy and safety in renal transplant recipients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01025817.

Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus Plus Low-Dose Tacrolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil Plus Standard-Dose Tacrolimus in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: 12-Month Data.

In this 12-month, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study, de novo renal transplant recipients (RTxRs) were randomized (1:1) to receive everolimus plus low-dose tacrolimus (EVR+LTac) or mycophenolate mofetil plus standard-dose Tac (MMF+STac) with induction therapy (basiliximab or rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin). Noninferiority of composite efficacy failure rate (treated biopsy-proven acute rejection [tBPAR]/graft loss/death/loss to follow-up) in EVR+LTac versus MMF+STac was missed by 1.4%, considering the noninferiority margin of 10% (24.6% vs. 20.4%; 4.2% [-3.0, 11.4]). Incidence of tBPAR (19.1% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.05) was significantly higher, while graft loss (1.3% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.05) and composite of graft loss/death/lost to follow-up (6.1% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.05) were significantly lower in EVR+LTac versus MMF+STac groups, respectively. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was similar between EVR+LTac and MMF+STac groups (63.1 [22.0] vs. 63.1 [19.5] mL/min/1.73 m2 ) and safety was comparable. In conclusion, EVR+LTac missed noninferiority versus MMF+STac based on the 10% noninferiority margin. Further studies evaluating optimal immunosuppression for improved efficacy will guide appropriate dosing and target levels of EVR and LTac in RTxRs.

Wound events in kidney transplant patients receiving de novo everolimus: a pooled analysis of three randomized controlled trials.

Data were pooled from three prospective, multicenter trials in which 1996 de novo kidney transplant recipients were randomized to everolimus 1.5 or 3.0 mg or mycophenolic acid (MPA), with cyclosporine and steroids. Wound healing complications reported as adverse events were retrospectively reviewed in a blinded manner. The incidence of wound healing adverse events was 17.6% (351 of 1996) by day 90 and was similar for everolimus 1.5 mg (16.6% [110 of 661]) vs. MPA (14.3% [95 of 665]) (p = 0.255), but higher with everolimus 3.0 mg (21.8% [146 of 670]) (p < 0.001 vs. MPA). Similar results were observed for wound healing complications reported as serious adverse events. The 12-month incidence of lymphocele was 11.2% with everolimus 1.5 mg and 8.9% with MPA (p = 0.171), but lymphocele reported as a serious adverse event were more frequent with everolimus 1.5 mg (6.5% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.012). The hazard ratio (HR) for any wound healing complication vs. MPA was not significantly higher for everolimus <3 ng/mL (HR 1.33; 95% CI 0.94-1.88; p = 0.104), but increased to 1.46 (95% CI 1.12-1.90; p = 0.005) for 3-8 ng/mL and 1.69 (95% CI 1.20-2.38; p = 0.002) for >8 ng/mL. These results suggest that de novo kidney transplant patients receiving an initial everolimus dose of 1.5 mg do not appear to have a pronounced increased risk of wound healing complications vs. patients receiving MPA.

The effect of everolimus versus mycophenolate upon proteinuria following kidney transplant and relationship to graft outcomes.

Although mTOR inhibitor use has been associated with proteinuria in kidney transplant recipients, dose dependency and impact on allograft function are unknown. In a post hoc analysis, we compared rates of proteinuria 3 months posttransplant among everolimus (EVR) and mycophenolate (MPA) treatment arms and used a time-dependent model to correlate the risk of proteinuria to EVR trough levels up to 24 months posttransplant. eGFR and graft loss was compared by proteinuria status at 3 months. Of 833 randomized patients, 24%, 36% and 19% of lower exposure EVR (1.5 mg/day), higher exposure EVR (3.0 mg/day) and MPA-treated patients had proteinuria ≥ 300 mg/g Cr at 3 months, respectively. EVR 1.5 was not associated with an increase in risk of proteinuria (HR 1.20; p = 0.19) unlike EVR 3.0 (HR 1.84; p < 0.001) versus MPA. EVR trough levels >8 ng/mL were significantly associated with proteinuria compared to 3-8 ng/mL (HR 1.86; p < 0.001). Those patients with proteinuria at 3 months and those who developed proteinuria thereafter had lower eGFR and higher graft loss at 24 months, regardless of treatment arm. We identify a dose-dependent effect of EVR with the risk of proteinuria; however, its independent impact upon eGFR and graft survival at 2 years was not evident.

Cytomegalovirus incidence between everolimus versus mycophenolate in de novo renal transplants: pooled analysis of three clinical trials.

Everolimus (EVR) in heart and renal transplant (RTx) recipients may be associated with a decreased incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV). A detailed analysis of the association between EVR versus mycophenolic acid (MPA) and CMV events has not been reported. CMV data from 2004 de novo RTx recipients from three-randomized, prospective, EVR studies A2309 (N = 833), B201 (N = 588) and B251 (N = 583) were retrospectively analyzed to identify differences between two EVR dosing groups and MPA. EVR groups received 1.5 mg/day, or 3 mg/day with either standard (SD-CsA) or reduced dose cyclosporine (RD-CsA). Controls received MPA with SD-CsA. CMV prophylaxis was as per center practice. CMV incidence (infection/syndrome, disease, viremia) was captured per local center evaluations. Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated that freedom from CMV viremia and infection/syndrome was significantly greater for EVR versus MPA for recipients without CMV prophylaxis. Among recipients who received prophylaxis, freedom from viremia was greater for EVR 3.0 mg; freedom from infection/syndrome was greater for EVR 3.0 and 1.5 mg. Although freedom from organ involvement was numerically greater for EVR, it was not statistically significant. This analysis documents significant reductions in the incidence of CMV infection/syndrome and viremia in EVR-treated de novo RTx recipients, especially those who did not receive CMV prophylaxis versus MPA.

Oxcarbazepine in migraine headache: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oxcarbazepine (1,200 mg/day) vs placebo as prophylactic therapy for patients with migraine headaches. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial consisted of a 4-week single-blind baseline phase and a 15-week double-blind phase consisting of a 6-week titration period, an 8-week maintenance period, and a 1-week down-titration period, after which patients could enter a 13-week open-label extension phase. During the 6-week titration period, oxcarbazepine was initiated at 150 mg/day and increased by 150 mg/day every 5 days to a maximum tolerated dose of 1,200 mg/day. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in the number of migraine attacks during the last 28-day period of the double-blind phase. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were randomized to receive oxcarbazepine and 85 to receive placebo. There was no difference between the oxcarbazepine (-1.30) and placebo groups in mean change in number of migraine attacks from baseline during the last 28 days of double-blind phase (-1.74; p = 0.2274). Adverse events were reported for 68 oxcarbazepine-treated patients (80%) and 55 placebo-treated patients (65%). The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most common adverse events (>or=15% of patients) in the oxcarbazepine-treated group were fatigue (20.0%), dizziness (17.6%), and nausea (16.5%); no adverse event occurred in more than 15% of the placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, oxcarbazepine was safe and well tolerated; however, oxcarbazepine did not show efficacy in the prophylactic treatment of migraine headaches.