Long-Term Follow-Up of a Phase III Clinical Trial Comparing Tacrolimus Extended-Release/MMF, Tacrolimus/MMF, and Cyclosporine/MMF in De Novo Kidney Transplant Recipients

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: In a phase III, open-label, comparative, noninferiority study, 638 subjects receiving de novo kidney transplants were randomized to one of three treatment arms: tacrolimus extended-release (Astagraf XL) qd, tacrolimus (Prograf) bid, or cyclosporine (CsA) bid. All subjects received basiliximab induction, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. Safety and efficacy follow-up data through 4 years are reported. METHODS: Evaluations included patient and graft survival, study drug discontinuations, laboratory values including renal function and development of new-onset diabetes after transplantation, concomitant medications, and adverse events. RESULTS: At study termination, 129 Astagraf XL, 113 Prograf, and 79 CsA patients had continued follow-up. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar in all arms. Four-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient survival in the Astagraf XL, Prograf, and CsA groups were 93.2, 91.2, and 91.7%, respectively, while graft survival was 84.7, 82.7, and 83.9%, respectively. At least one serious adverse event was reported in the majority of patients in each group during the study (65.9% Astagraf XL, 69.8% Prograf, and 65.6% CsA). Renal function was not significantly different between Astagraf XL and Prograf. HgbA1c levels were collected every 6 months; the 4-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for incidence of HgbA1c levels ≥ 6.5% was significantly higher for both tacrolimus formulations compared to CsA; 41.1% (Astagraf XL), 33.6% (Prograf), and 21.3% (CsA). CONCLUSIONS: In this 4-year follow-up report, patients receiving Astagraf XL and Prograf showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles, with a higher incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplantation but superior renal function compared to patients receiving CsA.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.