1
|
Tönshoff B, Patry C, Fichtner A, Höcker B, Böhmig GA. New Immunosuppressants in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation: What's in the Pipeline for Kids? Pediatr Transplant 2025; 29:e70008. [PMID: 39711054 DOI: 10.1111/petr.70008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2024] [Revised: 11/05/2024] [Accepted: 12/08/2024] [Indexed: 12/24/2024]
Abstract
The 1- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates of pediatric kidney transplant recipients have improved considerably in recent years. Regardless of early success, kidney transplantation is challenged by suboptimal long-term allograft and patient survival. Many kidney transplants are lost due to immune (rejection) and nonimmune allograft injuries, and patient survival is limited from cardiovascular disease, infection, and malignancy. Many of these co-morbidities are due to side effects of the currently available immunosuppressive drugs, especially calcineurin inhibitors and glucocorticoids, which are associated with long-term toxicity. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop new, more specific and less toxic immunosuppressive drugs. Unfortunately, there have also been no new drug approvals for adult kidney transplant recipients since belatacept in 2012, leaving the immunosuppressive drug armamentarium unchanged for more than 20 years. As a consequence of the lack of innovation in adult kidney transplant recipients, the pipeline of novel immunosuppressive agents for pediatric solid organ transplant recipients is also limited. The most promising agent in the near future, at least for adolescent patients, appears to be belatacept, despite its many limitations. In this review article, we report on three areas that appear to be the most relevant topics at this time: (i) extended-release tacrolimus, (ii) costimulation blockade with belatacept, and (iii) treatment of antibody-mediated rejection. Improved synergies between the pharmaceutical industry and the transplant community are needed to achieve the ultimate goal of improving long-term outcomes in pediatric kidney transplantation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Burkhard Tönshoff
- Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty, University Children's Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Christian Patry
- Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty, University Children's Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Alexander Fichtner
- Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty, University Children's Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Britta Höcker
- Department of Pediatrics I, Medical Faculty, University Children's Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Georg A Böhmig
- Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Divard G, Aubert O, Debiais-Deschamp C, Raynaud M, Goutaudier V, Sablik M, Sayeg C, Legendre C, Obert J, Anglicheau D, Lefaucheur C, Loupy A. Long-Term Outcomes after Conversion to a Belatacept-Based Immunosuppression in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2024; 19:628-637. [PMID: 38265815 PMCID: PMC11108246 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.0000000000000411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 01/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conversion to a belatacept-based immunosuppression is currently used as a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) avoidance strategy when the CNI-based standard-of-care immunosuppression is not tolerated after kidney transplantation. However, there is a lack of evidence on the long-term benefit and safety after conversion to belatacept. METHODS We prospectively enrolled 311 kidney transplant recipients from 2007 to 2020 from two referral centers, converted from CNI to belatacept after transplant according to a prespecified protocol. Patients were matched at the time of conversion to patients maintained with CNIs, using optimal matching. The primary end point was death-censored allograft survival at 7 years. The secondary end points were patient survival, eGFR, and safety outcomes, including serious viral infections, immune-related complications, antibody-mediated rejection, T-cell-mediated rejection, de novo anti-HLA donor-specific antibody, de novo diabetes, cardiovascular events, and oncologic complications. RESULTS A total of 243 patients converted to belatacept (belatacept group) were matched to 243 patients maintained on CNIs (CNI control group). All recipient, transplant, functional, histologic, and immunologic parameters were well balanced between the two groups with a standardized mean difference below 0.05. At 7 years post-conversion to belatacept, allograft survival was 78% compared with 63% in the CNI control group ( P < 0.001 for log-rank test). The safety outcomes showed a similar rate of patient death (28% in the belatacept group versus 36% in the CNI control group), active antibody-mediated rejection (6% versus 7%), T-cell-mediated rejection (4% versus 4%), major adverse cardiovascular events, and cancer occurrence (9% versus 11%). A significantly higher rate of de novo proteinuria was observed in the belatacept group as compared with the CNI control group (37% versus 21%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This real-world evidence study shows that conversion to belatacept post-transplant was associated with lower risk of graft failure and acceptable safety outcomes compared with patients maintained on CNIs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER Long-term Outcomes after Conversion to Belatacept, NCT04733131 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gillian Divard
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Kidney Transplant Department, Saint-Louis Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Olivier Aubert
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Charlotte Debiais-Deschamp
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Marc Raynaud
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Valentin Goutaudier
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Marta Sablik
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Caroline Sayeg
- Kidney Transplant Department, Saint-Louis Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Christophe Legendre
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Julie Obert
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Dany Anglicheau
- Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
- Necker-Enfants Malades Institute, INSERM U1151, Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Carmen Lefaucheur
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Kidney Transplant Department, Saint-Louis Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Alexandre Loupy
- INSERM U970 PARCC, Pa`ris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Kidney Transplant Department, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kitchens WH, Larsen CP, Badell IR. Costimulatory Blockade and Solid Organ Transplantation: The Past, Present, and Future. Kidney Int Rep 2023; 8:2529-2545. [PMID: 38106575 PMCID: PMC10719580 DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2023.08.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Revised: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 08/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Belatacept is the first costimulatory blockade agent clinically approved for transplant immunosuppression. Although more than 10 years of study have demonstrated that belatacept offers superior long-term renal allograft and patient survival compared to conventional calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based immunosuppression regimens, the clinical adoption of belatacept has continued to lag because of concerns of an early risk of acute cellular rejection (ACR) and various logistical barriers to its administration. In this review, the history of the clinical development of belatacept is examined, along with the findings of the seminal BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT trials culminating in the clinical approval of belatacept. Recent efforts to incorporate belatacept into novel CNI-free immunosuppression regimens are reviewed, as well as the experience of the Emory Transplant Center in using a tapered course of low-dose tacrolimus in belatacept-treated renal allograft patients to garner the long-term outcome benefits of belatacept without the short-term increased risks of ACR. Potential avenues to increase the clinical adoption of belatacept in the future are explored, including surmounting the logistical barriers of belatacept administration through subcutaneous administration or more infrequent belatacept dosing. In addition, belatacept conversion strategies and potential expanded clinical indications of belatacept are discussed for pediatric transplant recipients, extrarenal transplant recipients, treatment of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), and in patients with failed renal allografts. Finally, we discuss the novel immunosuppressive drugs currently in the development pipeline that may aid in the expansion of costimulation blockade utilization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William H. Kitchens
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Christian P. Larsen
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - I. Raul Badell
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Leal R, Pardinhas C, Martinho A, Sá HO, Figueiredo A, Alves R. Challenges in the Management of the Patient with a Failing Kidney Graft: A Narrative Review. J Clin Med 2022; 11:6108. [PMID: 36294429 PMCID: PMC9605319 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2022] [Revised: 09/29/2022] [Accepted: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Patients with a failed kidney allograft have steadily increase in recent years and returning to dialysis after graft loss is one of the most difficult transitions for chronic kidney disease patients and their assistant physicians. The management of these patients is complex and encompasses the treatment of chronic kidney disease complications, dialysis restart and access planning, immunosuppression withdrawal, graft nephrectomy, and evaluation for a potential retransplant. In recent years, several groups have focused on the management of the patient with a failing renal graft and expert recommendations are arising. A review of Pubmed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library was performed focusing on the specific care of these patients, from the management of low clearance complications to concerns with a subsequent kidney transplant. Conclusion: There is a growing interest in the failing renal graft and new approaches to improve these patients' outcomes are being defined including specific multidisciplinary programs, individualized immunosuppression withdrawal schemes, and strategies to prevent HLA sensitization and increase retransplant rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rita Leal
- Nephrology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, 3000-548 Coimbra, Portugal
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Clara Pardinhas
- Nephrology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, 3000-548 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - António Martinho
- Coimbra Histocompatibility Center, Portuguese Institute of Blood and Transplantation, 3041-861 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Helena Oliveira Sá
- Nephrology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, 3000-548 Coimbra, Portugal
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Arnaldo Figueiredo
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal
- Urology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, 3000-548 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Rui Alves
- Nephrology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, 3000-548 Coimbra, Portugal
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3004-531 Coimbra, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Osmanodja B, Ronicke S, Budde K, Jens A, Hammett C, Koch N, Seelow E, Waiser J, Zukunft B, Bachmann F, Choi M, Weber U, Eberspächer B, Hofmann J, Grunow F, Mikhailov M, Liefeldt L, Eckardt KU, Halleck F, Schrezenmeier E. Serological Response to Three, Four and Five Doses of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Kidney Transplant Recipients. J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11092565. [PMID: 35566691 PMCID: PMC9105533 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2022] [Revised: 04/27/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Mortality from COVID-19 among kidney transplant recipients (KTR) is high, and their response to three vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 is strongly impaired. We retrospectively analyzed the serological response of up to five doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in KTR from 27 December 2020 until 31 December 2021. Particularly, the influence of the different dose adjustment regimens for mycophenolic acid (MPA) on serological response to fourth vaccination was analyzed. In total, 4277 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 in 1478 patients were analyzed. Serological response was 19.5% after 1203 basic immunizations, and increased to 29.4%, 55.6%, and 57.5% in response to 603 third, 250 fourth, and 40 fifth vaccinations, resulting in a cumulative response rate of 88.7%. In patients with calcineurin inhibitor and MPA maintenance immunosuppression, pausing MPA and adding 5 mg prednisolone equivalent before the fourth vaccination increased the serological response rate to 75% in comparison to the no dose adjustment (52%) or dose reduction (46%). Belatacept-treated patients had a response rate of 8.7% (4/46) after three vaccinations and 12.5% (3/25) after four vaccinations. Except for belatacept-treated patients, repeated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of up to five times effectively induces serological response in kidney transplant recipients. It can be enhanced by pausing MPA at the time of vaccination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bilgin Osmanodja
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +49-30-450-614-368
| | - Simon Ronicke
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Klemens Budde
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Annika Jens
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Charlotte Hammett
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Nadine Koch
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Evelyn Seelow
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Johannes Waiser
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Bianca Zukunft
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Friederike Bachmann
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Mira Choi
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Ulrike Weber
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | | | - Jörg Hofmann
- Labor Berlin—Charité Vivantes GmbH, 13353 Berlin, Germany; (B.E.); (J.H.)
| | - Fritz Grunow
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Michael Mikhailov
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Lutz Liefeldt
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Kai-Uwe Eckardt
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Fabian Halleck
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
| | - Eva Schrezenmeier
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany; (S.R.); (K.B.); (A.J.); (C.H.); (N.K.); (E.S.); (J.W.); (B.Z.); (F.B.); (M.C.); (U.W.); (F.G.); (M.M.); (L.L.); (K.-U.E.); (F.H.); (E.S.)
- Berlin Institute of Health, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Serological Response to Three, Four and Five Doses of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Kidney Transplant Recipients. J Clin Med 2022. [DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092565
expr 939359460 + 834636087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Mortality from COVID-19 among kidney transplant recipients (KTR) is high, and their response to three vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 is strongly impaired. We retrospectively analyzed the serological response of up to five doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in KTR from 27 December 2020 until 31 December 2021. Particularly, the influence of the different dose adjustment regimens for mycophenolic acid (MPA) on serological response to fourth vaccination was analyzed. In total, 4277 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 in 1478 patients were analyzed. Serological response was 19.5% after 1203 basic immunizations, and increased to 29.4%, 55.6%, and 57.5% in response to 603 third, 250 fourth, and 40 fifth vaccinations, resulting in a cumulative response rate of 88.7%. In patients with calcineurin inhibitor and MPA maintenance immunosuppression, pausing MPA and adding 5 mg prednisolone equivalent before the fourth vaccination increased the serological response rate to 75% in comparison to the no dose adjustment (52%) or dose reduction (46%). Belatacept-treated patients had a response rate of 8.7% (4/46) after three vaccinations and 12.5% (3/25) after four vaccinations. Except for belatacept-treated patients, repeated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of up to five times effectively induces serological response in kidney transplant recipients. It can be enhanced by pausing MPA at the time of vaccination.
Collapse
|
7
|
Morel A, Hoisnard L, Dudreuilh C, Moktefi A, Kheav D, Pimentel A, Sakhi H, Mokrani D, Attias P, El Sakhawi K, Champy CM, Remy P, Sbidian E, Grimbert P, Matignon M. Three-Year Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients Switched From Calcineurin Inhibitor-Based Regimens to Belatacept as a Rescue Therapy. Transpl Int 2022; 35:10228. [PMID: 35497889 PMCID: PMC9043102 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2021] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Background: The long-term benefits of conversion from calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) to belatacept in kidney transplant recipients (KTr) are poorly documented. Methods: A single-center retrospective work to study first-time CNI to belatacept conversion as a rescue therapy [eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, chronic histological lesions, or CNI-induced thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA)]. Patient and kidney allograft survivals, eGFR, severe adverse events, donor-specific antibodies (DSA), and histological data were recorded over 36 months after conversion. Results: We included N = 115 KTr. The leading cause for switching was chronic histological lesions with non-optimal eGFR (56.5%). Three years after conversion, patient, and death-censored kidney allograft survivals were 88% and 92%, respectively, eGFR increased significantly from 31.5 ± 17.5 to 36.7 ± 15.7 ml/min/1.73 m2 (p < 0.01), the rejection rate was 10.4%, OI incidence was 5.2 (2.9–7.6) per 100 person-years. Older age was associated with death, eGFR was not associated with death nor allograft loss. No patient developed dnDSA at M36 after conversion. CNI-induced TMA disappeared in all cases without eculizumab use. Microvascular inflammation and chronic lesions remained stable. Conclusion: Post-KT conversion from CNIs to belatacept, as rescue therapy, is safe and beneficial irrespective of the switch timing and could represent a good compromise facing organ shortage. Age and eGFR at conversion should be considered in the decision whether to switch.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antoine Morel
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Léa Hoisnard
- AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Centre d'Investigation Clinique and Fédération Hospitalo-Universitaire TRUE (InnovaTive theRapy for immUne disordErs), Créteil, France.,Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), EpiDermE (Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of therapeutics), Créteil, France
| | - Caroline Dudreuilh
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Anissa Moktefi
- Groupe Hospitalier Henri-Mondor/Albert-Chenevier, Pathology Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Créteil, France.,Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U955, Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale (IMRB), Université Paris-Est Créteil, Créteil, France
| | - David Kheav
- AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Laboratoire Régional d'histocompatibilité, Hôpital Saint Louis, Vellefaux, Paris
| | - Ana Pimentel
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Hamza Sakhi
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - David Mokrani
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Philippe Attias
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Karim El Sakhawi
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Cécile Maud Champy
- Groupe Hospitalier Henri-Mondor/Albert Chenevier, Urology department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Philippe Remy
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.,Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U955, Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale (IMRB), Université Paris-Est Créteil, Créteil, France
| | - Emilie Sbidian
- AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Centre d'Investigation Clinique and Fédération Hospitalo-Universitaire TRUE (InnovaTive theRapy for immUne disordErs), Créteil, France.,Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), EpiDermE (Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of therapeutics), Créteil, France.,Department of Dermatology, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.,INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique 1430, Créteil, France
| | - Philippe Grimbert
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.,AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Centre d'Investigation Clinique and Fédération Hospitalo-Universitaire TRUE (InnovaTive theRapy for immUne disordErs), Créteil, France.,Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U955, Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale (IMRB), Université Paris-Est Créteil, Créteil, France.,AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, CIC biotherapy, Créteil, France
| | - Marie Matignon
- Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Department, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.,Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U955, Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale (IMRB), Université Paris-Est Créteil, Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Influence of Belatacept- vs. CNI-Based Immunosuppression on Vascular Stiffness and Body Composition. J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11051219. [PMID: 35268310 PMCID: PMC8911184 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11051219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2022] [Revised: 02/12/2022] [Accepted: 02/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Arterial stiffness and phase angle (PhA) have gained importance as a diagnostic and prognostic parameter in the management of cardiovascular disease. There are few studies regarding the differences in arterial stiffness and body composition between renal transplant recipients (RTRs) receiving belatacept (BELA) vs. calcineurin inhibitors (CNI). Therefore, we investigated the differences in arterial stiffness and body composition between RTRs treated with different immunosuppressants, including BELA. Methods: In total, 325 RTRs were enrolled in the study (mean age 52.2 years, M −62.7%). Arterial stiffness was determined with an automated oscillometric device. All body composition parameters were assessed, based on bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and laboratory parameters were obtained from the medical files of the patients. Results: We did not detect any significant difference in terms of arterial stiffness and PhA in RTRs undergoing different immunosuppressive regimens, based on CsA, Tac, or BELA. Age was an essential risk factor for greater arterial stiffness. The PhA was associated with age, BMI, time of dialysis before transplantation, and kidney graft function. Conclusion: No significant differences in arterial stiffness and PhA were observed in RTRs under different immunosuppressive regimens. While our data provide additional evidence for arterial stiffness and PhA in RTRs, more research is needed to fully explore these cardiovascular risk factors and the impact of different immunosuppressive regimens.
Collapse
|
9
|
Belatacept Conversion Protocols and Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Transplant Proc 2021; 53:976-983. [PMID: 33478745 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.11.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 11/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conversion from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based to belatacept-based immunosuppression has become common; however, numerous protocols have emerged in lieu of a standardized protocol. The purpose of this study was to characterize belatacept conversion protocols from multiple centers and observe outcomes. METHODS This was a retrospective study that included Kaiser Permanente Southern California members. The primary outcome was rejection 6 months after conversion and secondary outcomes included change in serum creatinine and graft loss. RESULTS Seventy-eight patients were included. Thirteen distinct protocols were identified from 8 different transplant centers. Protocols varied by initial dose, induction schedule, and CNI taper. The observed rate of rejection was 6%. There was a trend toward an association of rejection with lower tacrolimus exposure at the time of conversion and lower mycophenolic acid dosing postconversion. Graft survival was 88% and patient survival was 94%. There was a significant improvement in creatinine after conversion. Those with early conversions and creatinine >2.0 mg/dL at the time of conversion had the best response. CONCLUSIONS A large variety of belatacept conversion protocols were identified. Protocols were defined by the initial dose, induction regimen, and CNI taper. Rejection rates were low and may be influenced by exposure to maintenance immunosuppression during and after conversion. Most patients showed stabilization and improvement in creatinine postconversion, with the largest effect in those with an early conversion and serum creatinine >2.0 mg/dL.
Collapse
|
10
|
Prevention of acute rejection after rescue with Belatacept by association of low-dose Tacrolimus maintenance in medically complex kidney transplant recipients with early or late graft dysfunction. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0240335. [PMID: 33057374 PMCID: PMC7561183 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240335] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2020] [Accepted: 09/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Increased acute rejection risk in rescue protocols with Belatacept may limit its use particularly in medically complex patients where preexisting increased risk of rejection couples with CNI toxicity. Methods Retrospective analysis was performed in 19 KTs shifted to a Belatacept-based immunosuppression with low-dose Tacrolimus (2–3 ng/mL) after evidence of allograft disfunction, including patients with primary non-function (PNF), chronic-active antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR), history of previous KTs and/or other concomitant transplants (liver, pancreas). Evaluation of CD28+ CD4+ effector memory T cell (TEM) before conversion was performed in 10/19. Results Kidney function significantly improved (median eGFR 16.5 ml/min/1.73m2 before vs 25 ml/min after; p = 0.001) at a median time after conversion of 12.5 months (9.1–17.8). Overall graft and patient survival were 89.5% and 100% respectively. Definitive weaning from dialysis in 5/5 KTs with PNF was observed, whereas 7/8 patients lost their graft within first year in a control group. eGFR significantly ameliorated in re-trasplants (p = 0.001) and stabilized in KTs with other organ transplants or cAMR. No acute rejection episodes occurred, despite the significant risk suggested by high frequency of CD28+ CD4+ TEM in most patients. Opportunistic infections were limited and most common in early vs late-converted. Conclusions Rescue association of Belatacept with low-dose Tacrolimus in medically complex KTs is a feasible option that allows prevention of acute rejection and amelioration of graft function.
Collapse
|
11
|
Choi M, Bachmann F, Wu K, Lachmann N, Schmidt D, Brakemeier S, Duerr M, Kahl A, Eckardt KU, Budde K, Nickel P. Microvascular inflammation is a risk factor in kidney transplant recipients with very late conversion from calcineurin inhibitor-based regimens to belatacept. BMC Nephrol 2020; 21:354. [PMID: 32819287 PMCID: PMC7439694 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-020-01992-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2020] [Accepted: 07/29/2020] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background In de novo kidney transplant recipients (KTR) treatment with belatacept has been established as a comparable option as maintenance immunosuppression, preferably as a strategy to convert from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)- to belatacept-based immunosuppression. Switch to belatacept demonstrated improved renal function in patients with CNI-induced nephrotoxicity, but risk of transplant rejection and the development of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) are still a matter of debate. Only few data are available in patients at increased immunological risk and late after transplantation. Methods We analyzed 30 long-term KTR (including 2 combined pancreas-KTR) converted from CNI to belatacept > 60 months after transplantation with moderate to severe graft dysfunction (GFR ≤ 45 mL/min). Biopsies were classified according to the Banff 2015 criteria. Group differences were assessed in a univariate analysis using Mann Whitney U or Chi square test, respectively. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for treatment failure was performed using a binary logistic regression model including significant predictors from univariate analysis. Fifty-six KTR matched for donor and recipient characteristics were used as a control cohort remaining under CNI-treatment. Results Patient survival in belatacept cohort at 12/24 months was 96.7%/90%, overall graft survival was 76.7 and 60.0%, while graft survival censored for death was 79.3%/66.7%. In patients with functioning grafts, median GFR improved from 22.5 mL/min to 24.5 mL/min at 24 months. Positivity for DSA at conversion was 46.7%. From univariate analysis of risk factors for graft loss, GFR < 25 mL/min (p = 0.042) and Banff microvascular inflammation (MVI) sum score ≥ 2 (p = 0.023) at conversion were significant at 24 months. In the analysis of risk factors for treatment failure, a MVI sum score ≥ 2 was significant univariately (p = 0.023) and in a bivariate (p = 0.037) logistic regression at 12 months. DSA-positivity was neither associated with graft loss nor treatment failure. The control cohort had comparable graft survival outcomes at 24 months, albeit without increase of mean GFR in patients with functioning grafts (ΔGFR of − 3.6 ± 8.5 mL/min). Conclusion Rescue therapy with conversion to belatacept is feasible in patients with worsening renal function, even many years after transplantation. The benefit in patients with MVI and severe GFR impairment remains to be investigated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mira Choi
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Friederike Bachmann
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Kaiyin Wu
- Department of Pathology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Nils Lachmann
- Tissue Typing Laboratory, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Danilo Schmidt
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Susanne Brakemeier
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Duerr
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Andreas Kahl
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Kai-Uwe Eckardt
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Klemens Budde
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Peter Nickel
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
Costimulation between T cells and antigen-presenting cells is essential for the regulation of an effective alloimmune response and is not targeted with the conventional immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplantation. Costimulation blockade therapy with biologicals allows precise targeting of the immune response but without non-immune adverse events. Multiple costimulation blockade approaches have been developed that inhibit the alloimmune response in kidney transplant recipients with varying degrees of success. Belatacept, an immunosuppressive drug that selectively targets the CD28-CD80/CD86 pathway, is the only costimulation blockade therapy that is currently approved for kidney transplant recipients. In the last decade, belatacept therapy has been shown to be a promising therapy in subgroups of kidney transplant recipients; however, the widespread use of belatacept has been tempered by an increased risk of acute kidney transplant rejection. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the costimulation blockade therapies that are currently in use or being developed for kidney transplant indications.
Collapse
|
13
|
Jorgenson MR, Descourouez JL, Brady BL, Bowman L, Hammad S, Kaiser TE, Laub MR, Melaragno JI, Park JM, Chandran MM. Alternatives to immediate release tacrolimus in solid organ transplant recipients: When the gold standard is in short supply. Clin Transplant 2020; 34:e13903. [DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13903] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2020] [Revised: 04/25/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Bethany L. Brady
- Pharmacy Department Indiana University Health University Hospital Indianapolis IN USA
| | - Lyndsey Bowman
- Department of Pharmacy Tampa General Hospital Tampa FL USA
| | - Sara Hammad
- Department of Pharmacy University of Maryland Medical Center Baltimore MD USA
| | - Tiffany E. Kaiser
- Department of Pharmacy University of Cincinnati Medical Center Cincinnati OH USA
| | - Melissa R. Laub
- Department of Pharmacy Augusta University Medical Center Augusta GA USA
| | | | - Jeong M. Park
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy University of Michigan College of Pharmacy Ann Arbor MI USA
| | - Mary M. Chandran
- Department of Pharmacy Children's Hospital of Colorado Aurora CO USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Noble J, Jouve T, Janbon B, Rostaing L, Malvezzi P. Belatacept in kidney transplantation and its limitations. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2019; 15:359-367. [DOI: 10.1080/1744666x.2019.1574570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Johan Noble
- Service de Néphrologie, Hémodialyse, Aphérèses et Transplantation Rénale, CHU Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France
- Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
| | - Thomas Jouve
- Service de Néphrologie, Hémodialyse, Aphérèses et Transplantation Rénale, CHU Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France
- Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
| | - Bénédicte Janbon
- Service de Néphrologie, Hémodialyse, Aphérèses et Transplantation Rénale, CHU Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France
| | - Lionel Rostaing
- Service de Néphrologie, Hémodialyse, Aphérèses et Transplantation Rénale, CHU Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France
- Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
| | - Paolo Malvezzi
- Service de Néphrologie, Hémodialyse, Aphérèses et Transplantation Rénale, CHU Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Pérez-Sáez MJ, Yu B, Uffing A, Murakami N, Borges TJ, Azzi J, El Haji S, Gabardi S, Riella LV. Conversion from tacrolimus to belatacept improves renal function in kidney transplant patients with chronic vascular lesions in allograft biopsy. Clin Kidney J 2018; 12:586-591. [PMID: 31384452 PMCID: PMC6671390 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfy115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2018] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Conversion from tacrolimus to belatacept has been shown to be beneficial for an increasing number of kidney transplant (KT) patients. Predicting factors for favorable outcomes are still unknown. We aimed to investigate whether histological vascular lesions at the time of conversion might correlate with greater improvement in renal function post-conversion. Methods The study was conducted on a retrospective cohort of 34 KT patients converted from tacrolimus to belatacept. All patients underwent an allograft biopsy prior to conversion. We analyzed the evolution of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 3 and 12 months after conversion. Results Median time to conversion was 6 (2–37.2) months post-transplant. About 52.9% of patients had moderate-to-severe chronic vascular lesions (cv2–3). We observed an increase in eGFR in the whole cohort from 35.4 to 41 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 3 months (P = 0.032) and 43.7 at 12 months (P = 0.013). Nine patients experienced acute rejection post-conversion, with one graft loss observed beyond the first year after conversion. Patients with cv2–3 had significant improvement in eGFR at 12 months (+8.6 mL/min/1.73 m2; 31.6 to 40.2 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = 0.047) compared with those without these lesions (+6.8 mL/min/1.73 m2; 40.9 to 47.7 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = 0.148). Conclusions Conversion from tacrolimus to belatacept has a beneficial effect in terms of renal function in KT patients. This benefit might be more significant in patients with cv in the biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- María José Pérez-Sáez
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Nephrology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Bryant Yu
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Audrey Uffing
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Naoka Murakami
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Thiago J Borges
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jamil Azzi
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Sandra El Haji
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Steve Gabardi
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Leonardo V Riella
- Renal Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Zwart TC, Gokoel SRM, van der Boog PJM, de Fijter JW, Kweekel DM, Swen JJ, Guchelaar HJ, Moes DJAR. Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in outpatient renal transplant recipients using a volumetric dried blood spot sampling device. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2018; 84:2889-2902. [PMID: 30176064 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13755] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2018] [Revised: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 08/28/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIMS Tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid dosing after renal transplantation is individualized through therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Home-based dried blood spot (DBS) sampling has the potential to replace conventional TDM sampling at the clinic. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay was developed to quantify tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in DBS and clinically validated for abbreviated area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) monitoring using an innovative volumetric DBS sampling device. METHODS Clinical validation was performed by direct comparison of paired DBS and whole blood (WB) (tacrolimus) and plasma (mycophenolic acid) concentrations and AUCs. Agreement was evaluated using Passing-Bablok regression, Bland-Altman analysis and DBS-to-WB predictive performance. TDM dosing recommendations based on both methods were compared to assess clinical impact. RESULTS Paired tacrolimus (n = 200) and mycophenolic acid (n = 192) DBS and WB samples were collected from 65 kidney(-pancreas) transplant recipients. Differences for tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid were within ±20% for 84.5% and 76.6% of concentrations and 90.5% and 90.7% of AUCs, respectively. Tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid dosing recommendation differences occurred on 44.4% and 4.7% of occasions. Tacrolimus DBS dosing recommendations were 0.35 ± 0.14 mg higher than for WB and 8 ± 3% of the initial dose. Mycophenolic acid DBS dosing recommendations were 23.3 ± 31.9 mg lower than for plasma and 2 ± 3.5% of the initial dose. CONCLUSIONS Tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid TDM for outpatient renal transplant recipients, based on abbreviated AUC collected with a DBS sampling device, is comparable to conventional TDM based on WB sampling. Patient training and guidance on good blood-spotting practices is essential to ensure method feasibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom C Zwart
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Sumit R M Gokoel
- Department of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Paul J M van der Boog
- Department of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Johan W de Fijter
- Department of Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Dina M Kweekel
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Jesse J Swen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Henk-Jan Guchelaar
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Dirk Jan A R Moes
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|