| Literature DB >> 30186817 |
Cristina Dopazo1, Ramón Charco1, Mireia Caralt1, Elizabeth Pando1, José Luis Lázaro1, Concepción Gómez-Gavara1, Lluis Castells2, Itxarone Bilbao1.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low doses of anti-T-lymphocyte globulin (ATG)-based immunosuppression in preserving renal function and preventing liver rejection in liver transplant (LT) recipients with pretransplant renal dysfunction. We designed a prospective single-center cohort study analyzing patients with pre-LT renal dysfunction defined as eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73m2, who underwent induction therapy with ATG (ATG group, n=20). This group was compared with a similar retrospective cohort treated with basiliximab (BAS group, n=20). An economic analysis between both induction therapies was also undertaken. In the ATG group, 45% and 50% of patients had recovered their renal function without acute cellular rejection (ACR) episodes at day 7 and 1 month after LT, respectively, versus 40% and 55% of patients in the BAS group (p=1). Renal function improved in both groups over time and no differences between groups were observed regarding one-year eGRF and one-year probability of ACR. Cost per patient of the ATG course was 403€ (r: 126-756) versus 2,524€ of the basiliximab course (p=0.001). In conclusion, induction with low dose of ATG or basiliximab in patients with pretransplant renal dysfunction is a good strategy for preserving posttransplant renal function; however the use of low-dose ATG resulted in a substantial reduction in drug costs. This trail is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01453218.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30186817 PMCID: PMC6116465 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1672621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol ISSN: 2291-2789
Figure 3Cumulative probability of biopsy-proven rejection after transplantation.
Patient characteristics and surgical data.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 60(±6) | 57 (±7) | 0.143 |
|
| 18 (90%) | 17 (85%) | 1 |
|
| 0.215 | ||
| Alcoholic | 11 (55%) | 11(55%) | |
| Hepatitis C | 4 (20%) | 8 (40%) | |
| HCC | 3 (15%) | 1 (5%) | |
| Hepatitis B | 1 (5%) | - | |
| NASH | 1 (5%) | - | |
|
| 6 (30%) | 5 (25%) | 0.723 |
|
| 10 (50%) | 4 (20%) | 0.096 |
|
| 4 (20%) | - | 0.106 |
|
| 49±9 | 34±12 | 0.001 |
|
| 20 (±7) | 26 (±9) | 0.065 |
|
| 325±85 | 370±96 | 0.070 |
|
| 45±19 | 39±10 | 0.254 |
|
| |||
| Red blood cells (Unit) | 5 (0-26) | 6 (4-11) | 0.060 |
| Fresh Frozen Plasma (Unit) | 2 (0-18) | 8 (0-16) | 0.003 |
| Platelets (Unit) | 0 (0-10) | 2 (0-20) | 0.068 |
|
| 11 (55%) | 17 (85%) | 0.082 |
|
| 20 (11-90) | 15 (10-114) | 0.242 |
NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and MELD; model for end-stage liver disease.
Results of secondary endpoints.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 95% | 95% | 1 |
|
| 6 (30%) | 7 (35%) | 0.510 |
| (i) Cholangitis (gram-negative bacteria) | 3 | 1 | |
| (ii) Diarrheas (Clostridium difficile) | 3 | - | |
| (iii) Pneumonia (Klebsiella pneumoniae) | - | 2 | |
| (iv) Urinary tract infection (E. coli) | - | 2 | |
| (v) MRSA infection (central vein catheter) | - | 1 | |
| (vi) Oral Candidiasis | - | 1 | |
|
| 9 (45%) | 7 (35%) | 0.519 |
|
| |||
| Thrombocytopenia | 3 (15%) | ||
| Thrombocytopenia + Leukopenia | 1 (5%) |
MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.