Randomized trial comparing neoral and tacrolimus immunousuppression for recipients of renal transplants procured from different donor groups

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.

OBJECTIVES

To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled.

FUTURE WORK

High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome.

CONCLUSION

Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,(®) Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport(®) (Sandoz); Capexion(®) (Mylan); Modigraf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Perixis(®) (Accord Healthcare); Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Tacni(®) (Teva); Vivadex(®) (Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,(®) Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,(®) Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip(®) (Zentiva), CellCept(®) (Roche Products), Myfenax(®) (Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,(®) Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost).

REVIEW METHODS

Titles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.

RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC.

LIMITATIONS

The RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

TAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Indirect treatment comparison of belatacept versus tacrolimus from a systematic review of immunosuppressive therapies for kidney transplant patients

OBJECTIVE

End-stage renal disease is the final and irreversible stage in chronic kidney disease, leading to patient mortality, unless managed by dialysis or transplantation (the treatment of choice). This study aimed to compare a currently recommended immunosuppressive treatment, tacrolimus, against a newer treatment, belatacept, using indirect treatment comparison (ITC) techniques since no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tacrolimus against belatacept currently exist.

METHODS

ITC was employed to calculate estimates for the relative risks and mean difference of tacrolimus against belatacept. The choice of the Bucher ITC model was driven by the available data and the simple indirect treatment comparison involving three treatments was considered appropriate.

RESULTS

The results of the indirect analysis showed no significant differences between belatacept and tacrolimus treatments for mortality and graft loss. The acute rejection rate was significantly lower with tacrolimus (Prograf* and Advagraf (*) ) compared with belatacept (0.22 [0.13, 0.39] to 0.44 [0.20, 0.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that tacrolimus is significantly superior to belatacept in terms of acute rejection outcomes but comparable for graft and patient survival. Further research should include a properly designed clinical trial comparing tacrolimus against belatacept directly.

LIMITATIONS

These include variations in terms of clinical and design differences among the trials, weaknesses in the Bucher method and the lack of long-term clinical trial data with tacrolimus to compare with the recent long-term (7 years) belatacept trial data.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Standard protocols in use typically involve three drug groups each directed to a site in the T-cell activation or proliferation cascade which are central to the rejection process: calcineurin inhibitors (e.g. cyclosporin, tacrolimus), anti-proliferative agents (e.g. azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil) and steroids (prednisolone). It remains unclear whether new regimens are more specific or simply more potent immunosuppressants.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of tacrolimus with cyclosporin as primary therapy for kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Renal Group's specialist register and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility, quality and extracted data independently.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs where tacrolimus was compared with cyclosporin for the initial treatment of kidney transplant recipients

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were synthesised (random effects model) and results expressed as relative risk (RR), values <1 favouring tacrolimus, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to examine potential effect modification by differences in trial design and immunosuppressive co-interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

123 reports from 30 trials (4102 patients) were included. At six months graft loss was significantly reduced in tacrolimus-treated recipients (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.86), and this effect was persistent up to three years. Meta-regression showed that this benefit diminished as higher trough levels of tacrolimus were targeted (P = 0.04), after allowing for differences in cyclosporin formulation (P = 0.97) and cyclosporin target trough level (P = 0.38). At one year, tacrolimus patients suffered less acute rejection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79), and less steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64), but more insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus (RR 1.86, 1.11 to 3.09), tremor, headache, diarrhoea, dyspepsia and vomiting. Cyclosporin-treated recipients experienced significantly more constipation and cosmetic side-effects. We demonstrated no differences in infection or malignancy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus is superior to cyclosporin in improving graft survival and preventing acute rejection after kidney transplantation, but increases post-transplant diabetes, neurological and gastrointestinal side effects. Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin would avoid 12 suffering acute rejection, two losing their graft but cause an extra five to become insulin-requiring diabetics.

Cyclosporine: advantages versus disadvantages vis-à-vis tacrolimus

Despite a different molecular structure and biochemical properties, cyclosporine and tacrolimus--by inhibiting calcineurin activity--have been shown in the previous two decades of solid organ transplantation to be well tolerated and effective immunosuppressants. Initial randomized clinical trials showed a lower incidence of acute rejection in tacrolimus than in cyclosporine-treated patients, in combination with steroids and azathioprine. But in conjunction with mycophenolate mofetil, the difference in the incidence of acute rejection episodes is less clear. In general, short- and medium-term outcome variables (1-year serum creatinine, graft and patient survival) with cyclosporine and tacrolimus are excellent, and (almost) identical, with both substances having the same intrinsic nephrotoxic potential. On the other hand, cyclosporine and tacrolimus have a different impact on cardiovascular risk factors with tacrolimus having a better profile on arterial tension and lipid metabolism and cyclosporine on glucose metabolism. However, at present no data are available to discern that these differences in risk profile alter patient or graft survival or long-term cardiovascular morbidity/mortality. Therefore, prospective long-term trials are needed to study the quantitative impact of different immunosuppressive agents and concomitant cardiovascular risk factors on long-term patient and graft survival, before evidence-based (patient, graft, or cardiovascular) risk reduction can be firmly claimed by tailoring calcineurin inhibitors.

Cyclosporin: an updated review of the pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy and tolerability of a microemulsion-based formulation (neoral)1 in organ transplantation

Cyclosporin is a lipophilic cyclic polypeptide immunosuppressant that interferes with the activity of T cells chiefly via calcineurin inhibition. The original oil-based oral formulation of this drug (Sandimmun)l was characterised by high intra- and interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, with poor bioavailability in many patients; a novel microemulsion formulation (Neoral)1 was therefore developed to circumvent these problems. Studies show increases, attributable chiefly to improved absorption in patients who absorb the drug only poorly from the original formulation, in mean systemic exposure to cyclosporin with the microemulsion, with no clinically significant differences in tolerability or drug interaction profiles. Cyclosporin microemulsion is at least as effective as the oil-based formulation in renal, liver and heart transplant recipients, with trends towards decreased incidence of acute rejection with the microemulsion formulation in some (statistically significant in a few) trials. Cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus appear to have similar efficacy in preventing acute rejection episodes in most renal, pancreas-kidney, liver and heart transplant recipients. However, there are indications of superior efficacy for tacrolimus in some trials, particularly in the prevention of severe acute rejection and in Black transplant recipients. Current 12-month data also indicate equivalent efficacy of sirolimus in renal transplantation. Conversion from the oil-based to microemulsion formulation in stable renal, liver and heart transplant recipients is achievable with no change in acute rejection rates. The addition of an anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody and/or mycophenolate mofetil to cyclosporin microemulsion plus corticosteroids decreases rates of acute rejection; corticosteroid withdrawal without increased acute rejection rates was also achieved on the addition of these agents in some trials. Pharmacoeconomic analyses have shown savings in direct healthcare costs in kidney or liver transplantation when cyclosporin microemulsion is used in preference to the oil-based formulation, although studies incorporating indirect costs or expressing costs in terms of therapeutic outcomes are currently unavailable.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of cyclosporin microemulsion has consolidated the place of the drug as a mainstay of therapy in all types of solid organ transplantation; research into optimisation of outcomes through more effective therapeutic monitoring in patients receiving this formulation is ongoing. Several novel immunosuppressants have been introduced in recent years: further clinical and pharmacoeconomic research will be needed to clarify the relative positioning of these agents, particularly with respect to specific patient groups. Other new drugs (basiliximab/daclizumab and mycophenolate mofetil) offer particular advantages when used in combination with cyclosporin.

Cyclosporine microemulsion and tacrolimus are associated with decreased chronic allograft failure and improved long-term graft survival as compared with sandimmune

Tacrolimus and cyclosporine in the microemulsion formulation Neoral have demonstrated improvements in acute rejection rates after renal transplantation compared with conventional cyclosporine formulation, Sandimmune. To evaluate whether these drugs are also associated with improvements in chronic allograft failure (CAF) rates, we retrospectively analyzed 32,040 primary renal allograft recipients reported to the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) between 1994 and 1997. Graft loss secondary to CAF was defined as graft loss beyond 6 months post-transplant, censored for death, acute rejection, thrombosis, infections and noncompliance. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to investigate the relationship between graft loss secondary to CAF and the use of conventional cyclosporine formulation, as opposed to cyclosporine microemulsion and tacrolimus (Prograf). The analysis was corrected for confounding variables, such as acute rejection, sex, race, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch, % panel reactive antibodies (PRA), delayed graft function (DGF), cold ischemia time, induction therapy, dialysis time, etiology of end-stage renal disease, cytomegalovirus (CMV) risk group, donor source, era effect, and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use. Cyclosporine microemulsion use was associated with a significantly lower relative risk (RR = 0.6, Cl = 0.5-0.7) for CAF as opposed to conventional cyclosporine formulation. Likewise tacrolimus as compared with conventional cyclosporine formulation was associated with a significantly lower relative risk (RR = 0.7, CI = 0.6-0.8) for CAF. Conventional cyclosporine formulation treatment was associated with a 87.6% adjusted CAF-free survival rate at 4 years. Both tacrolimus and cyclosporine microemulsion were associated with a significantly better adjusted CAF-free survival at 4years (91.4 and 92.4%, respectively). Both cyclosporine microemulsion and tacrolimus are associated with improved graft survival and a decreased relative risk for CAF when compared with the older conventional cyclosporine formulation. This association is independent of the use of MMF or changes in era.