| 1. |
- Kraemer, B. K., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy of Prolonged- and Immediate-release Tacrolimus in Kidney Transplantation : A Pooled Analysis of Two Large, Randomized, Controlled Trials
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Transplantation Proceedings. - : Elsevier BV. - 0041-1345 .- 1873-2623. ; 49:9, s. 2040-2049
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background. Two large, prospective studies (12-03; OSAKA) compared the efficacy and tolerability of prolonged-release versus immediate-release tacrolimus in kidney transplant patients also receiving mycophenolate mofetil and low-dose corticosteroids (without induction therapy). Methods. Data were combined into one database to compare results over 24 weeks using 3 alternative endpoints: biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (BCAR); the Food and Drug Administration composite endpoint (graft loss, SCAR, and loss to follow-up), and the European Medicines Agency composite endpoint (graft loss, BCAR, and graft dysfunction). The 95% confidence intervals were calculated (10% noninferiority margin). Results. Overall, 633 patients received prolonged-release tacrolimus (12-03, n = 331; OSAKA, n = 302) and 645 received immediate-release tacrolimus (n = 336; n = 309). Baseline characteristics were comparable. Proportionately more patients receiving prolonged-release tacrolimus had trough levels of 5-15 ng/mL on day 1 (60.8%) and 2 (56.6%) versus immediate-release tacrolimus (42.5% and 43.9%, respectively, both P < .001). Efficacy of prolonged-release and immediate-release tacrolimus were similar as assessed by BCAR (13.9% vs 14.1%, respectively), European Medicines Agency composite endpoint (40.3% vs 38.3%) and US Food and Drug Administration composite endpoint (21.5% vs 19.8%). Conclusions. Novel efficacy endpoints as required by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration demonstrate noninferiority of prolonged-release versus immediate-release tacrolimus. Significantly more patients treated with prolonged release tacrolimus versus immediate-release tacrolimus achieved trough levels of 5 to 15 ng/mL early after transplantation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Uhlin, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Endopeptidase Cleavage of Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Antibodies in vivo in Severe Kidney Disease: An Open-Label Phase 2a Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1046-6673 .- 1533-3450. ; 33:4, s. 829-838
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The prognosis for kidney survival is poor in patients presenting with circulating anti-glomerular basement membrane (GBM) antibodies and severe kidney injury. It is unknown if treat-ment with an endopeptidase that cleaves circulating and kidney bound IgG can alter the prognosis.& nbsp;Methods An investigator-driven phase 2a one-arm study (EudraCT 2016-004082-39) was performed in 17 hospitals in five European countries. A single dose of 0.25 mg/kg of imlifidase was given to 15 adults with circulating anti-GBM antibodies and an eGFR < 15 ml/min per 1.73m(2). All patients received standard treatment with cyclophosphamide and corticosteroids, but plasma exchange only if autoantibodies rebounded. The primary outcomes were safety and dialysis independency at 6 months.& nbsp;Results At inclusion, ten patients were dialysis dependent and the other five had eGFR levels between 7 and 14 ml/min per 1.73m(2). The median age was 61 years (range 19-77), six were women, and six were also positive for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. Then 6 hours after imlifidase infusion, all patients had anti-GBM antibodies levels below the reference range of a prespecified assay. At 6 months 67% (ten out of 15) were dialysis independent. This is significantly higher compared with 18% (nine out of 50) in a historical control cohort (P < 0.001, Fisher's exact test). Eight serious adverse events (including one death) were reported, none assessed as probably or possibly related to the study drug.& nbsp;Conclusions In this pilot study, the use of imlifidase was associated with a better outcome compared with earlier publications, without major safety issues, but the findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial.
|
|
