De novo use of everolimus with elimination or minimization of cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients

Everolimus Personalized Therapy: Second Consensus Report by the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology

ABSTRACT

The Immunosuppressive Drugs Scientific Committee of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology established the second consensus report to guide Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) of everolimus (EVR) and its optimal use in clinical practice 7 years after the first version was published in 2016. This version provides information focused on new developments that have arisen in the last 7 years. For the general aspects of the pharmacology and TDM of EVR that have retained their relevance, readers can refer to the 2016 document. This edition includes new evidence from the literature, focusing on the topics updated during the last 7 years, including indirect pharmacological effects of EVR on the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 2 with the major mechanism of direct inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1. In addition, various concepts and technical options to monitor EVR concentrations, improve analytical performance, and increase the number of options available for immunochemical analytical methods have been included. Only limited new pharmacogenetic information regarding EVR has emerged; however, pharmacometrics and model-informed precision dosing have been constructed using physiological parameters as covariates, including pharmacogenetic information. In clinical settings, EVR is combined with a decreased dose of calcineurin inhibitors, such as tacrolimus and cyclosporine, instead of mycophenolic acid. The literature and recommendations for specific organ transplantations, such as that of the kidneys, liver, heart, and lungs, as well as for oncology and pediatrics have been updated. EVR TDM for pancreatic and islet transplantation has been added to this edition. The pharmacodynamic monitoring of EVR in organ transplantation has also been updated. These updates and additions, along with the previous version of this consensus document, will be helpful to clinicians and researchers treating patients receiving EVR.

An overview of the efficacy and safety of everolimus in adult solid organ transplant recipients

As the risk of graft loss due to acute rejection has declined, the goal of post-transplant management has switched to long-term preservation of organ function. Minimizing calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-related nephrotoxicity is a key component of this objective. Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor/proliferation-signal inhibitor with potent immunosuppressive and anti-proliferative effects. It has been widely investigated in large randomized clinical studies that have shown it to have similar anti-rejection efficacy compared with standard-of-care regimens across organ transplant indications. With demonstrated potential to facilitate the reduction of CNI therapy and preserve renal function, everolimus is an alternative to the current standard-of-care CNI-based regimens used in de novo and maintenance solid organ transplantation recipients. Here, we provide an overview of the evidence from the everolimus clinical study program across kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplants, as well as other key data associated with its use in CNI reduction strategies in adult transplant recipients.

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I; sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the therapy of choice for many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with an improvement in survival rates and satisfactory short term graft survival. However, there has been little improvement in long-term survival. The place of target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I) (sirolimus, everolimus), which have different modes of action from other commonly used immunosuppressive agents, in kidney transplantation remains uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the short and long-term benefits and harms of TOR-I (sirolimus and everolimus) when used in primary immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 20 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which drug regimens, containing TOR-I commenced within seven days of transplant, were compared to alternative drug regimens, were included without age restriction, dosage or language of report.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE MAIN RESULTS: Seventy studies (17,462 randomised participants) were included; eight studies included two comparisons to provide 78 comparisons. Outcomes were reported at six months to three years post transplant. Risk of bias was judged to be low for sequence generation in 25 studies, for allocation concealment in 23 studies, performance bias in four studies, detection bias in 65 studies, attrition bias in 45 studies, selective reporting bias in 48 studies, and for other potential bias in three studies. Risk of bias was judged to be at high risk of bias for sequence generation in two studies, allocation concealment in two studies, performance bias in 61 studies, detection bias in one study, attrition bias in four studies, for selective reporting bias in 11 studies and for other potential risk of bias in 46 studies. Compared with CNI and antimetabolite, TOR-I with antimetabolite probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.98; 19 studies) or malignancies (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48; 10 studies); probably increases graft loss censored for death (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.81; 15 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.04; 15 studies), need to change treatment (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.11; 14 studies) and wound complications (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.36; 12 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); but reduces CMV infection (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.63; 13 studies) (high certainty evidence). Compared with antimetabolites and CNI, TOR-I with CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.33; 31 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; 26 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; 24 studies); and malignancies (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 17 studies); probably increases the need to change treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.90; 25 studies), and wound complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.91; 17 studies); but probably reduces CMV infection (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58; 25 studies) (moderate certainty evidence). Lower dose TOR-I and standard dose CNI compared with higher dose TOR-I and reduced dose CNI probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78; 9 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.20; 8 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.13; 8 studies), and CMV infection (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; 5 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to wound complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.71; 3 studies), malignancies (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04; 7 studies), and the need to change treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 5 studies) (low certainty evidence). Lower dose of TOR-I compared with higher doses probably makes little or no difference to death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; 13 studies), graft loss censored for death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 12 studies), biopsy-proven acute rejection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.43; 11 studies), CMV infection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 9 studies), wound complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29; 7 studies), and malignancy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.32; 10 studies) (moderate certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to the need to change treatments (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 studies) (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether sirolimus and everolimus differ in their effects on kidney function and lipid levels because the certainty of the evidence is very low based on a single small study with only three months of follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In studies with follow-up to three years, TOR-I with an antimetabolite increases the risk of graft loss and acute rejection compared with CNI and an antimetabolite. TOR-I with CNI potentially offers an alternative to an antimetabolite with CNI as rates of graft loss and acute rejection are similar between interventions and TOR-I regimens are associated with a reduced risk of CMV infections. Wound complications and the need to change immunosuppressive medications are higher with TOR-I regimens. While further new studies are not required, longer-term follow-up data from participants in existing methodologically robust RCTs are needed to determine how useful immunosuppressive regimens, which include TOR-I, are in maintaining kidney transplant function and survival beyond three years.

Calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal or tapering for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) can reduce acute transplant rejection and immediate graft loss but are associated with significant adverse effects such as hypertension and nephrotoxicity which may contribute to chronic rejection. CNI toxicity has led to numerous studies investigating CNI withdrawal and tapering strategies. Despite this, uncertainty remains about minimisation or withdrawal of CNI.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of CNI tapering or withdrawal in terms of graft function and loss, incidence of acute rejection episodes, treatment-related side effects (hypertension, hyperlipidaemia) and death.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 11 October 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where drug regimens containing CNI were compared to alternative drug regimens (CNI withdrawal, tapering or low dose) in the post-transplant period were included, without age or dosage restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 studies that involved 16,156 participants. Most were open-label studies; less than 30% of studies reported randomisation method and allocation concealment. Studies were analysed as intent-to-treat in 60% and all pre-specified outcomes were reported in 54 studies. The attrition and reporting bias were unclear in the remainder of the studies as factors used to judge bias were reported inconsistently. We also noted that 50% (47 studies) of studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.We classified studies into four groups: CNI withdrawal or avoidance with or without substitution with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR-I); and low dose CNI with or without mTOR-I. The withdrawal groups were further stratified as avoidance and withdrawal subgroups for major outcomes.CNI withdrawal may lead to rejection (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.12; moderate certainty evidence), may make little or no difference to death (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; moderate certainty), and probably slightly reduces graft loss (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; low quality evidence). Hypertension was probably reduced in the CNI withdrawal group (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95; low certainty), while CNI withdrawal may make little or no difference to malignancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30; low certainty), and probably makes little or no difference to cytomegalovirus (CMV) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.45; low certainty)CNI avoidance may result in increased acute rejection (RR 2.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.49; low certainty) but little or no difference in graft loss (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.16; low certainty). Late CNI withdrawal increased acute rejection (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.48; moderate certainty) but probably reduced graft loss (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, low certainty).Results were similar when CNI avoidance or withdrawal was combined with the introduction of mTOR-I; acute rejection was probably increased (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.78; moderate certainty) and there was probably little or no difference in death (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.36, moderate certainty). mTOR-I substitution may make little or no difference to graft loss (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19; low certainty), probably makes little of no difference to hypertension (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; moderate), and probably reduced the risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; moderate certainty) and malignancy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00; low certainty). Lymphoceles were increased with mTOR-I substitution (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.21; low certainty).Low dose CNI combined with mTOR-I probably increased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (MD 6.24 mL/min, 95% CI 3.28 to 9.119; moderate certainty), reduced graft loss (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.02; moderate certainty), and made little or no difference to acute rejection (RR 1.13 ; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.40; moderate certainty). Hypertension was decreased (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; low certainty) as was CMV (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.06; low certainty). Low dose CNI plus mTOR-I makes probably makes little of no difference to malignancy (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.53; low certainty) and may make little of no difference to death (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.90; moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CNI avoidance increased acute rejection and CNI withdrawal increases acute rejection but reduced graft loss at least over the short-term. Low dose CNI with induction regimens reduced acute rejection and graft loss with no major adverse events, also in the short-term. The use of mTOR-I reduced CMV infections but increased the risk of acute rejection. These conclusions must be tempered by the lack of long-term data in most of the studies, particularly with regards to chronic antibody-mediated rejection, and the suboptimal methodological quality of the included studies.

Design and rationale of the ATHENA study--A 12-month, multicentre, prospective study evaluating the outcomes of a de novo everolimus-based regimen in combination with reduced cyclosporine or tacrolimus versus a standard regimen in kidney transplant patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors remains the mainstay of treatment after kidney transplantation; however, long-term use of these drugs may be associated with nephrotoxicity. In this regard, the current approach is to optimise available immunosuppressive regimens to reduce the calcineurin inhibitor dose while protecting renal function without affecting the efficacy. The ATHENA study is designed to evaluate renal function in two regimens: an everolimus and reduced calcineurin inhibitor-based regimen versus a standard treatment protocol with mycophenolic acid and tacrolimus in de novo kidney transplant recipients.

Method/Design

ATHENA is a 12-month, multicentre, open-label, prospective, randomised, parallel-group study in de novo kidney transplant recipients (aged 18 years or older) receiving renal allografts from deceased or living donors. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1:1) prior to transplantation to one of the following three treatment arms: everolimus (starting dose 1.5 mg/day; C0 3–8 ng/mL) with cyclosporine or everolimus (starting dose 3 mg/day; C0 3–8 ng/mL) with tacrolimus or mycophenolic acid (enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium at 1.44 g/day or mycophenolate mofetil at 2 g/day) with tacrolimus; in combination with corticosteroids. All patients receive induction therapy with basiliximab. The primary objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of renal function (eGFR by the Nankivell formula) in one of the everolimus arms compared with the standard group at month 12 post transplantation. The key secondary objective is to assess the incidence of treatment failure, defined as biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, or death, among the treatment groups. Other objectives include assessment of the individual components of treatment failure, incidence and severity of viral infections, incidence and duration of delayed graft function, incidence of indication biopsies, slow graft function and wound healing complications, and overall safety and tolerability. Exploratory objectives include evaluation of left ventricular hypertrophy assessed by the left ventricular mass index, evolution of human leukocyte antigen and non-human leukocyte antigen antibodies, and a cytomegalovirus substudy.

Discussion

As one of the largest European multicentre kidney transplant studies, ATHENA will determine whether a de novo everolimus-based regimen can preserve renal function versus the standard of care. This study further assesses a number of clinical issues which impact long-term outcomes post transplantation; hence, its results will have a major clinical impact.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01843348, date of registration – 18 April 2013; EUDRACT number: 2011-005238-21, date of registration – 20 March 2012

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1220-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.