Jordana B Cohen1, Kevin C Eddinger, Kimberly A Forde, Peter L Abt, Deirdre Sawinski. 1. 1 Renal Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 2 Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4 Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although tacrolimus is the basis of most maintenance immunosuppression regimens for kidney transplantation, concerns about toxicity have made alternative agents, such as belatacept, attractive to clinicians. However, limited data exist to directly compare outcomes with belatacept-based regimens to tacrolimus. METHODS: We performed a propensity score matched cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients transplanted between May 1, 2001, and December 31, 2015, using national transplant registry data to compare patient and allograft survival in patients discharged from their index hospitalization on belatacept-based versus tacrolimus-based regimens. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, we found that belatacept was not associated with a statistically significant difference in risk of patient death (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.15, P = 0.28) or allograft loss (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.11; P = 0.20) despite an increased risk of acute rejection in the first year posttransplant (odds ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.13-4.57; P < 0.001). These findings were confirmed in additional sensitivity analyses that accounted for use of belatacept in combination with tacrolimus, transplant center effects, and differing approaches to matching. CONCLUSIONS: Belatacept appears to have similar longitudinal risk of mortality and allograft failure compared with tacrolimus-based regimens. These data are encouraging but require confirmation in prospective randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND: Although tacrolimus is the basis of most maintenance immunosuppression regimens for kidney transplantation, concerns about toxicity have made alternative agents, such as belatacept, attractive to clinicians. However, limited data exist to directly compare outcomes with belatacept-based regimens to tacrolimus. METHODS: We performed a propensity score matched cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients transplanted between May 1, 2001, and December 31, 2015, using national transplant registry data to compare patient and allograft survival in patients discharged from their index hospitalization on belatacept-based versus tacrolimus-based regimens. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, we found that belatacept was not associated with a statistically significant difference in risk of patientdeath (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.15, P = 0.28) or allograft loss (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.11; P = 0.20) despite an increased risk of acute rejection in the first year posttransplant (odds ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.13-4.57; P < 0.001). These findings were confirmed in additional sensitivity analyses that accounted for use of belatacept in combination with tacrolimus, transplant center effects, and differing approaches to matching. CONCLUSIONS: Belatacept appears to have similar longitudinal risk of mortality and allograft failure compared with tacrolimus-based regimens. These data are encouraging but require confirmation in prospective randomized controlled trials.
Authors: J O Medina Pestana; J M Grinyo; Y Vanrenterghem; T Becker; J M Campistol; S Florman; V D Garcia; N Kamar; P Lang; R C Manfro; P Massari; M D C Rial; M A Schnitzler; S Vitko; T Duan; A Block; M B Harler; A Durrbach Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: A J Matas; J M Smith; M A Skeans; B Thompson; S K Gustafson; D E Stewart; W S Cherikh; J L Wainright; G Boyle; J J Snyder; A K Israni; B L Kasiske Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: F Vincenti; S Friman; E Scheuermann; L Rostaing; T Jenssen; J M Campistol; K Uchida; M D Pescovitz; P Marchetti; M Tuncer; F Citterio; A Wiecek; S Chadban; M El-Shahawy; K Budde; N Goto Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2007-03-12 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: F Vincenti; B Charpentier; Y Vanrenterghem; L Rostaing; B Bresnahan; P Darji; P Massari; G A Mondragon-Ramirez; M Agarwal; G Di Russo; C-S Lin; P Garg; C P Larsen Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Mira T Keddis; Hatem Amer; Nikolay Voskoboev; Walter K Kremers; Andrew D Rule; John C Lieske Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Flavio Vincenti; Lionel Rostaing; Joseph Grinyo; Kim Rice; Steven Steinberg; Luis Gaite; Marie-Christine Moal; Guillermo A Mondragon-Ramirez; Jatin Kothari; Martin S Polinsky; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche; Stephane Munier; Christian P Larsen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jordana B Cohen; Roy D Bloom; Peter P Reese; Paige M Porrett; Kimberly A Forde; Deirdre L Sawinski Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: R Kraaijeveld; G N de Graav; M Dieterich; N H R Litjens; D A Hesselink; C C Baan Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Sunjae Bae; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang; Allan B Massie; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Josef Coresh; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 2.863