论文信息 - Everolimus versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in the Prevention of Rejection in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: A 3-Year Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study

Everolimus versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in the Prevention of Rejection in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: A 3-Year Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study

Background. This 36-month, randomized, parallel-group study compared safety and efficacy of two doses of everolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in de novo renal-transplant recipients. Methods. Renal-allograft recipients received 1.5 mg/day or 3 mg/day of everolimus or 2 g/day of MMF, plus full-dose cyclosporine (CsA) and corticosteroids after randomization. For at least their first year, patients received study medication according to a double-blinded, double-dummy design. Concerns over nephrotoxicity led to a protocol amendment to an open-label design with reduced CsA troughs. Results. Incidences of primary efficacy failure at 36 months (biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or loss to follow-up) were everolimus 1.5 mg/day, 33.7% (65/193); everolimus 3 mg/day, 34.0% (66/194); and MMF, 31.1% (61/196) (P=0.810). Antibody-treated acute rejection at 36 months was significantly lower with everolimus 1.5 mg (9.8%) than MMF (18.4%, P=0.014). Discontinuation for adverse events was more frequent with everolimus and hemolytic uremic syndrome, lymphoproliferative disease, and proteinuria, and higher serum creatinine occurred at increased frequency relative to the MMF arm. Creatinine levels in the everolimus arms were stable in follow-up: the mean rise in creatinine over the first 6 months of the open-label phase was 3 &mgr;mol/L or greater with everolimus and 7 &mgr;mol/L with MMF. However, serum creatinine levels were lower in the MMF group throughout. Death and graft loss were higher in the everolimus arms (not significant). Conclusions. As part of triple-drug immunosuppression, everolimus (1.5 or 3 mg/day) was as efficacious as MMF, although the side-effect profile featured increased adverse events. Nephrotoxicity/calcineurin–inhibitor-related adverse events will require judicious lowering of CsA exposure with monitoring of everolimus troughs.

[1] J. Ringers,et al. Oral efficacy of the macrolide immunosuppressant SDZ RAD and of cyclosporine microemulsion in cynomolgus monkey kidney allotransplantation. , 2000, Transplantation.

[2] M. Schreier,et al. SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivative: pharmacological properties in vitro and in vivo. , 1997, Transplantation.

[3] G. Berry,et al. Tissue distribution and clinical monitoring of the novel macrolide immunosuppressant SDZ-RAD and its metabolites in monkey lung transplant recipients: interaction with cyclosporine. , 2000, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[4] T. Meerloo,et al. SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivative: synergism with cyclosporine. , 1997, Transplantation.

[5] Julio Pascual,et al. Everolimus with Optimized Cyclosporine Dosing in Renal Transplant Recipients: 6‐Month Safety and Efficacy Results of Two Randomized Studies , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[6] G. Berry,et al. Coadministration of neoral and the novel rapamycin analog, SDZ RAD, to rat lung allograft recipients: potentiation of immunosuppressive efficacy and improvement of tolerability of staggered versus simultaneous treatment. , 1999, Transplantation.

[7] J. Kovarik,et al. Exposure-response relationships for everolimus in de novo kidney transplantation: defining a therapeutic range. , 2002, Transplantation.