Helio Tedesco-Silva1, Julio Pascual2, Ondrej Viklicky3, Nikolina Basic-Jukic4, Elisabeth Cassuto5, Dean Y Kim6, Josep M Cruzado7, Claudia Sommerer8, Mohamed Adel Bakr9, Valter D Garcia10, Huynh-Do Uyen11, Graeme Russ12, Myoung Soo Kim13, Dirk Kuypers14,15, Matthias Buchler16, Franco Citterio17, Maria Pilar Hernandez Gutierrez18, Peter Bernhardt18, Steve Chadban19. 1. Division of Nephrology, Hospital do Rim, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Nephrology, Transplant Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Nephrology, Arterial Hypertension, Dialysis and Transplantation, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. 5. Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, Hôpital Pasteur, Nice, France. 6. Division of Transplant and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI. 7. Department of Nephrology, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain. 8. Department of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Mansoura Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura, Egypt. 10. Department of Renal Transplantation, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 11. Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Inselspital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 12. Central and Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Services, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 13. Department of Transplantation Surgery, Severance Hospital Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 14. Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, Gasthuisberg University Hospital, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 15. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 16. Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, CHRU de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, Tours, France. 17. Policlinico Foundation, A Gemelli University, IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 18. Research and Development, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. 19. Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The safety profiles of standard therapy versus everolimus with reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy using contemporary protocols in de novo kidney transplant recipients have not been compared in detail. METHODS: TRANSFORM was a randomized, international trial in which de novo kidney transplant patients were randomized to everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI (N = 1014) or mycophenolic acid (MPA) with standard-exposure CNI (N = 1012), both with induction and corticosteroids. RESULTS: Within the safety population (everolimus 1014, MPA 1012), adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug occurred in 62.9% versus 59.2% of patients given everolimus or MPA, respectively (P = 0.085). Hyperlipidemia, interstitial lung disease, peripheral edema, proteinuria, stomatitis/mouth ulceration, thrombocytopenia, and wound healing complications were more frequent with everolimus, whereas diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, leukopenia, tremor, and insomnia were more frequent in the MPA group. The incidence of viral infections (17.2% versus 29.2%; P < 0.001), cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections (8.1% versus 20.1%; P < 0.001), CMV syndrome (13.6% versus 23.0%, P = 0.044), and BK virus (BKV) infections (4.3% versus 8.0%, P < 0.001) were less frequent with everolimus. CMV infection was less common with everolimus versus MPA after adjusting for prophylaxis therapy in the D+/R- subgroup (P < 0.001). Study drug was discontinued more frequently due to rejection or impaired healing with everolimus, and more often due to BKV infection or BKV nephropathy with MPA. CONCLUSIONS: De novo everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI yielded a comparable incidence, though a distinctly different pattern, of adverse events versus current standard of care. Both regimens are safe and effective, yet their distinct profiles may enable tailoring for individual kidney transplant recipients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The safety profiles of standard therapy versus everolimus with reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy using contemporary protocols in de novo kidney transplant recipients have not been compared in detail. METHODS: TRANSFORM was a randomized, international trial in which de novo kidney transplant patients were randomized to everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI (N = 1014) or mycophenolic acid (MPA) with standard-exposure CNI (N = 1012), both with induction and corticosteroids. RESULTS: Within the safety population (everolimus 1014, MPA 1012), adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug occurred in 62.9% versus 59.2% of patients given everolimus or MPA, respectively (P = 0.085). Hyperlipidemia, interstitial lung disease, peripheral edema, proteinuria, stomatitis/mouth ulceration, thrombocytopenia, and wound healing complications were more frequent with everolimus, whereas diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, leukopenia, tremor, and insomnia were more frequent in the MPA group. The incidence of viral infections (17.2% versus 29.2%; P < 0.001), cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections (8.1% versus 20.1%; P < 0.001), CMV syndrome (13.6% versus 23.0%, P = 0.044), and BK virus (BKV) infections (4.3% versus 8.0%, P < 0.001) were less frequent with everolimus. CMV infection was less common with everolimus versus MPA after adjusting for prophylaxis therapy in the D+/R- subgroup (P < 0.001). Study drug was discontinued more frequently due to rejection or impaired healing with everolimus, and more often due to BKV infection or BKVnephropathy with MPA. CONCLUSIONS: De novo everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI yielded a comparable incidence, though a distinctly different pattern, of adverse events versus current standard of care. Both regimens are safe and effective, yet their distinct profiles may enable tailoring for individual kidney transplant recipients.
Authors: Ahmed A Shokeir; Saddam Hassan; Tamer Shehab; Wesam Ismail; Ismail R Saad; Abdelbasset A Badawy; Wael Sameh; Hisham M Hammouda; Ahmed G Elbaz; Ayman A Ali; Rashad Barsoum Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2021-01-03
Authors: Deirdre Hahn; Elisabeth M Hodson; Lorraine A Hamiwka; Vincent Ws Lee; Jeremy R Chapman; Jonathan C Craig; Angela C Webster Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-12-16
Authors: Muhammad Abdul Mabood Khalil; Saeed M G Al-Ghamdi; Ubaidullah Shaik Dawood; Said Sayed Ahmed Khamis; Hideki Ishida; Vui Heng Chong; Jackson Tan Journal: J Transplant Date: 2022-02-28
Authors: Gerold Thölking; Nils Hendrik Gillhaus; Katharina Schütte-Nütgen; Hermann Pavenstädt; Raphael Koch; Barbara Suwelack; Stefan Reuter Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Markus J Barten; Fausto Baldanti; Alexander Staus; Christian M Hüber; Kyriaki Glynou; Andreas Zuckermann Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-03-02