Beneficial effect of belatacept on health-related quality of life and perceived side effects: results from the BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT trials

Kidney Transplantation Improves Health-Related Quality of Life in Older Recipients

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment for kidney failure in older patients. However, little is known regarding changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from before to after transplantation and determinants of HRQoL in older kidney transplant recipients (KTR). We studied both, using data of older (≥65 years) patients waitlisted for kidney transplantation and older KTR 1 year after transplantation from the TransplantLines Biobank and Cohort Study. HRQoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. We included 145 older waitlisted patients (68% male, age 70 ± 4 years) and 115 older KTR at 1 year after transplantation (73% male, age 70 ± 4 years). Both mental (48.5 ± 8.4 versus 51.2 ± 7.7, p = 0.009) and physical (47.4 ± 8.5 versus 52.1 ± 7.2, p < 0.001) HRQoL were higher among included KTR, compared to the waitlisted patients. In paired analyses among 46 patients with HRQoL-data both before and after transplantation, there was a trend towards increased mental HRQoL (49.1 ± 8.4 to 51.6 ± 7.5, p = 0.054), and significantly increased physical HRQoL (48.1 ± 8.0 to 52.4 ± 6.7, p = 0.001) after transplantation. Among all assessed factors, the number of patient-reported immunosuppressive drug-related side effects was most strongly negatively associated with both mental and physical HRQoL. In conclusion, HRQoL is significantly higher among older KTR after kidney transplantation compared to older waitlisted patients.

Costimulatory Blockade and Solid Organ Transplantation: The Past, Present, and Future

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.

Novel Endpoints in Solid Organ Transplantation: Targeting Patient-reported Outcome Measures

Although solid organ transplantation improves survival and quality of life in many patients with organ failure, treatment complications and side effects can have debilitating consequences for patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture how patients feel and function, including quality of life, symptoms, and side effects that are assessed directly by patients. Yet, they remain infrequently reported in trials in solid organ transplantation. Barriers to implementing PROMs in trials include uncertainty in selecting appropriate PROMs, concerns about resources limitations, patient burden, and limited evidence to support the psychometric robustness of measures for use in transplant recipients. In recent years, there have been increasing efforts to include patient-reported outcomes that are important to patients in trials to ensure that trials provide patient-centered information for decision-making. This article will provide an overview of PROMs, discuss PROs that are important to solid organ transplant recipients and those that are used in trials in solid organ transplantation, and outline approaches for selecting PROMs for clinical trials.

Belatacept in Kidney Transplantation: What Are the True Benefits? A Systematic Review

The current gold standard to prevent allograft rejection for maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation currently consists in glucocorticoids, an antiproliferative agent and a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI), with better outcome for tacrolimus than cyclosporin. Although, CNI drastically improved early graft survival, so far, CNI have failed to significantly improve long-term survival mainly because of nephrotoxicity. In addition, CNI carry several other side effects such as an increased risk for cardiovascular events and for diabetes mellitus. Therefore, seeking alternatives to CNI remains of paramount importance in kidney transplantation. Belatacept is a fusion protein composed of the human IgG1 Fc fragment linked to the modified extracellular domain of cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen 4. In kidney transplant recipients, pivotal phase III randomized studies suggested clinical benefits of belatacept as an initial maintenance regimen, as compared with cyclosporine, mainly on kidney function. Recently, a randomized study also suggested a clinical benefit on renal function of a conversion from a CNI-based to a belatacept-based maintenance regimen in patients. However, conversion from CNIs to belatacept is probably associated with an increased risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection and should prompt close clinical surveillance. On the other hand, other studies suggest a decrease in de novo humoral transplant immunization. Belatacept is probably associated with an increase in both risk and severity of some infectious diseases, including EBV-linked post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorders, and with a decreased response to vaccines. Most studies on belatacept are observational, retrospective, and non-comparative. Consequently, high-quality data about the safety and efficacy profile of belatacept, as compared with the current gold standard for maintenance regimens (tacrolimus-based), is uncertain. Our review will therefore focus on the most recent published data aiming at evaluating the evidence-based or the “true” benefits and risks of belatacept-based regimens in kidney transplantation.

Immunosuppression-related neurological disorders in kidney transplantation

A large number of neurological disorders can affect renal transplant recipients, potentially leading to disabling or life-threatening complications. Prevention, early diagnosis and appropriate management of these conditions are critical to avoid irreversible lesions. A pivotal role in the pathogenesis of common post-transplant neurological disorders is played by immunosuppressive therapy. The most frequently administered regimen consists of triple immunosuppression, which comprises a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI), a purine synthesis inhibitor and glucocorticoids. Some of these immunosuppressive drugs may lead to neurological signs and symptoms through direct neurotoxic effects, and all of them may be responsible for the development of tumors or opportunistic infections. In this review, after a brief summary of neurotoxic pathogenetic mechanisms encompassing recent advances in the field, we focus on the clinical presentation of more common and severe immunosuppression-related neurological complications, classifying them by characteristics of urgency and anatomic site. Our goal is to provide a general framework that addresses such clinical issues with a multidisciplinary approach, as these conditions require.

A Canadian Survey on Adverse Symptoms Experienced by Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

INTRODUCTION

Adverse symptoms experienced by solid organ transplant recipients remain largely unexplored despite their purported frequency.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize patient perspectives on adverse symptoms, identifying the most problematic symptoms and the perceived cause and treatability, and to evaluate their impact on quality of life (QoL) and medication adherence.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Canadian Transplant Association, to characterize perceptions on symptom experience (Modified Transplant Symptom Occurrence and Distress Scale), and QoL (Short Form-12), medication adherence (Basel Assessment of Adherence to Immunosuppressive Medications Scale), demographics, and clinical situation.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was distributed to 249 solid organ transplant recipients and achieved a 51% response rate (N = 127). Respondents reported a mean of 25 (standard deviation 10) adverse symptoms each. In women, the most prevalent and distressing symptoms were tiredness, lack of energy, sleep difficulties, difficulty concentrating or memory problems, diarrhea, joint pain, and depression. In men, they were tiredness, flatulence, lack of energy, sleep difficulties, and erectile problems. With the exception of flatulence, these symptoms were more often perceived to be caused by medical conditions rather than by immunosuppressants or other medications. Quality of life was similar to the general public, with mean physical and mental component scores of 47.4 (9.9) and 52.1 (8.2), respectively (relative to a US average of 50 [10]). However, QoL scores inversely correlated to the number of symptoms reported and were higher in patients who perceived all symptoms to be treatable.

CONCLUSION

Adverse symptoms may impact patient well-being. Perceived cause and treatability should be further explored.

Trajectories of health-related quality of life among renal transplant patients associated with graft failure and symptom distress: Analysis of the BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT trials

Understanding the correlation between transplant symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and graft outcomes is needed to support patient-focused drug development and posttransplant management. A post-hoc analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the Phase III belatacept trials was conducted in order to investigate the interrelationship between trajectories of HRQoL, symptom experience, and allograft outcomes. HRQoL and symptom experience were evaluated using Short-Form 36 Survey (SF-36) and Modified Transplant Symptom Occurrence and Distress Scale (MTSOSD-59R), respectively. HRQoL was captured in 831 eligible renal transplant patients at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months posttransplant. Following transplantation, patients reported improvements in all SF-36 subscales compared to baseline. Latent class analysis revealed four trajectories in perceived general health, which were associated with graft failure after adjustment. Compared to patients with good perceived health, patients with fair and poor perceived health had 4.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-14.8, P < .01) and 19.8 (95% CI 5.9-66.0, P < .01) times the risk of graft failure, respectively. Using multinomial logistic regression, different sets of symptoms were associated with perceived general health at baseline and 12 months posttransplant. The study supports monitoring HRQoL and symptom experience to capture each patient's health perspective, improve drug development, and optimize posttransplant management.

The importance of drug safety and tolerability in the development of new immunosuppressive therapy for transplant recipients: The Transplant Therapeutics Consortium's position statement

The Transplant Therapeutics Consortium (TTC) is a public-private partnership between the US Food and Drug Administration and the transplantation community including the transplantation societies and members of the biopharmaceutical industry. The TTC was formed to accelerate the process of developing new medical products for transplant patients. The initial goals of this collaboration are the following: (a) To define which aspects of the kidney transplant drug-development process have clear needs for improvement from an industry and regulatory perspective; (b) to define which of the unmet needs in the process could be positively impacted through the development of specific drug-development tools based on available data; and (c) to determine the most appropriate pathway to achieve regulatory acceptance of the proposed process-accelerating tools. The TTC has identified 2 major areas of emphasis: new biomarkers or endpoints for determining the efficacy of new therapies and new tools to assess the safety or tolerability of new therapies. This article presents the rationale and planned approach to develop new tools to assess safety and tolerability of therapies for transplant patients. We also discuss how similar efforts might support the continued development of patient-reported outcome measures in the future.

Belatacept for maintenance immunosuppression in cardiothoracic transplantation: The potential frontier

Current immunosuppressive regimens with calcineurin inhibitors have improved the management of patients after transplantation. However, their adverse effects are linked to increased morbidity and limit the long-term survival of heart and lung transplant recipients. Belatacept, a costimulation inhibitor interfering with the interaction between CD28 on T cells and the B7 ligands on antigen presenting cells, has shown success and is currently approved for use in renal transplant recipients. Furthermore, it lacks many of the cardiovascular, metabolic, neurologic, and renal adverse of effects of calcineurin inhibitors that have the largest impact on long-term survival in cardiothoracic transplant. Additionally, it requires no therapeutic drug monitoring and is only administered once a month. Limitations to belatacept use have been observed that must be considered when comparing immunosuppression options. Despite this, maintenance immunosuppression with belatacept has the potential to improve outcomes in cardiothoracic transplant recipients, as it has with kidney transplant recipients. However, no large clinical trials investigating belatacept for maintenance immunosuppression in heart and lung transplant recipients exist. There is a large need for focused research of belatacept in cardiothoracic transplantation. Belatacept is a viable treatment option for maintenance immunosuppression, and it is reasonable to pursue more evidence in cardiothoracic transplant recipients.

The Role of Costimulation Blockade in Solid Organ and Islet Xenotransplantation

Pig-to-human xenotransplantation offers a potential bridge to the growing disparity between patients with end-stage organ failure and graft availability. Early studies attempting to overcome cross-species barriers demonstrated robust humoral immune responses to discordant xenoantigens. Recent advances have led to highly efficient and targeted genomic editing, drastically altering the playing field towards rapid production of less immunogenic porcine tissues and even the discussion of human xenotransplantation trials. However, as these humoral immune barriers to cross-species transplantation are overcome with advanced transgenics, cellular immunity to these novel xenografts remains an outstanding issue. Therefore, understanding and optimizing immunomodulation will be paramount for successful clinical xenotransplantation. Costimulation blockade agents have been introduced in xenotransplantation research in 2000 with anti-CD154mAb. Most recently, prolonged survival has been achieved in solid organ (kidney xenograft survival > 400 days with anti-CD154mAb, heart xenograft survival > 900 days, and liver xenograft survival 29 days with anti-CD40mAb) and islet xenotransplantation (>600 days with anti-CD154mAb) with the use of these potent experimental agents. As the development of novel genetic modifications and costimulation blocking agents converges, we review their impact thus far on preclinical xenotransplantation and the potential for future application.

Toward Establishing Core Outcome Domains For Trials in Kidney Transplantation: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation Consensus Workshops

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions in kidney transplantation requires patients and clinicians to weigh the benefits and harms of a broad range of medical and surgical interventions, but the heterogeneity and lack of patient-relevant outcomes across trials in transplantation makes these trade-offs uncertain, thus, the need for a core outcome set that reflects stakeholder priorities.

METHODS

We convened 2 international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation stakeholder consensus workshops in Boston (17 patients/caregivers; 52 health professionals) and Hong Kong (10 patients/caregivers; 45 health professionals). In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed the development and implementation of core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified. Reinforcing the paramount importance of graft outcomes encompassed the prevailing dread of dialysis, distilling the meaning of graft function, and acknowledging the terrifying and ambiguous terminology of rejection. Reflecting critical trade-offs between graft health and medical comorbidities was fundamental. Contextualizing mortality explained discrepancies in the prioritization of death among stakeholders-inevitability of death (patients), preventing premature death (clinicians), and ensuring safety (regulators). Imperative to capture patient-reported outcomes was driven by making explicit patient priorities, fulfilling regulatory requirements, and addressing life participation. Specificity to transplant; feasibility and pragmatism (long-term impacts and responsiveness to interventions); and recognizing gradients of severity within outcome domains were raised as considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders support the inclusion of graft health, mortality, cardiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, life participation) in a core outcomes set. Addressing ambiguous terminology and feasibility is needed in establishing these core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation.

Developing Consensus-Based Priority Outcome Domains for Trials in Kidney Transplantation: A Multinational Delphi Survey With Patients, Caregivers, and Health Professionals

BACKGROUND

Inconsistencies in outcome reporting and frequent omission of patient-centered outcomes can diminish the value of trials in treatment decision making. We identified critically important outcome domains in kidney transplantation based on the shared priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals.

METHODS

In a 3-round Delphi survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the importance of outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation on a 9-point Likert scale and provided comments. During rounds 2 and 3, participants rerated the outcomes after reviewing their own score, the distribution of the respondents' scores, and comments. We calculated the median, mean, and proportion rating 7 to 9 (critically important), and analyzed comments thematically.

RESULTS

One thousand eighteen participants (461 [45%] patients/caregivers and 557 [55%] health professionals) from 79 countries completed round 1, and 779 (77%) completed round 3. The top 8 outcomes that met the consensus criteria in round 3 (mean, ≥7.5; median, ≥8; proportion, >85%) in both groups were graft loss, graft function, chronic rejection, acute rejection, mortality, infection, cancer (excluding skin), and cardiovascular disease. Compared with health professionals, patients/caregivers gave higher priority to 6 outcomes (mean difference of 0.5 or more): skin cancer, surgical complications, cognition, blood pressure, depression, and ability to work. We identified 5 themes: capacity to control and inevitability, personal relevance, debilitating repercussions, gaining awareness of risks, and addressing knowledge gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

Graft complications and severe comorbidities were critically important for both stakeholder groups. These stakeholder-prioritized outcomes will inform the core outcome set to improve the consistency and relevance of trials in kidney transplantation.

The Effect of ASP2409, a Novel CD86-Selective Variant of CTLA4-Ig, on Renal Allograft Rejection in Nonhuman Primates

BACKGROUND

Blockade of CD28-mediated T cell costimulation by a modified cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4-Ig), belatacept, is a clinically effective immunosuppressive therapy for the prevention of renal allograft rejection. Use of belatacept-based calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression, however, has demonstrated an increased frequency of cellular rejection episodes and immunosuppression-related safety issues relative to conventional regimens. Furthermore, belatacept typically requires infusion for its administration chronically, which may present an inconvenience to patients. To address these issues, a novel CTLA4-Ig variant, ASP2409, with improved CD86 binding selectivity and affinity relative to belatacept was created using DNA shuffling directed evolution methods.

METHODS

We evaluated the immunosuppressive effect of ASP2409 on in vitro alloimmune T cell responses, in vivo tetanus toxoid (TTx)-induced immunological responses and renal transplantation in cynomolgus monkeys.

RESULTS

ASP2409 had 6.1-fold higher and 2.1-fold lower binding affinity to monkey CD86 and CD80 relative to belatacept, respectively. ASP2409 was 18-fold more potent in suppressing in vitro alloimmune T cell responses relative to belatacept. In a cynomolgus monkey TTx immunization model, ASP2409 inhibited anti-TTx immune responses at a 10-fold lower dose level than belatacept. In a cynomolgus monkey renal transplantation model, subcutaneous injection of 1 mg/kg ASP2409 prevented allograft rejection through complete CD86 and partial CD80 receptor occupancies and dramatically prolonged renal allograft survival in combination with tacrolimus or mycophenolate mofetil/methylprednisolone.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the potential of ASP2409 as an improved CTLA4-Ig for maintenance immunosuppression in organ transplantation.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Glomerular Disease

Incorporation of the patient perspective into research and clinical practice will enrich our understanding of the status and management of patients with glomerular disease and may result in therapies that better address patient needs. In recent years, the importance of the patient experience of glomerular disease has become clear, and significant efforts have been undertaken to systematically capture and describe the patient's disease experience. Patient-reported outcome instruments provide a means to assess the patient's experience in a quantitative manner, thus enabling for comparisons within and between patients. Patient-reported outcome assessments are solely on the basis of a patient report about the status of their health without amendment or interpretation by a clinician or others. Patient-reported outcome assessments provide an opportunity to incorporate the patient perspective into clinical care, research, and clinical trials. Our paper provides an overview of terminology and development methods for patient-reported outcomes and reviews (1) currently available patient-reported outcome instruments appropriate for use in glomerular disease, (2) existing patient-reported outcome data in glomerular disease, and (3) opportunities for incorporating patient-reported outcome instruments into clinical care and research.

Belatacept for the prophylaxis of organ rejection in kidney transplant patients: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Background

Belatacept is a novel immunosuppressive therapy designed to improve clinical outcomes associated with kidney transplant recipients while minimizing use of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs).

Methods

We searched for clinical trials related to administration of belatacept to kidney transplant patients compared to various immunosuppression regimens, as well as for studies that utilized data from belatacept trials to validate new surrogate measures. The purpose of this review is to consolidate the published evidence of belatacept’s effectiveness and safety in renal transplant recipients to better elucidate its place in clinical practice.

Results

Analysis of the results from the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Effi-cacy as First-Line Immunosuppressive Trial (BENEFIT) study, a de novo trial that compared cyclosporine (CsA)-based therapy to belatacept-based therapy in standard criteria donors, found a significant difference in mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 13–15 mL/min/1.73 m² and 23–27 mL/min/1.73 m² at 1 year and 7 years, respectively. The BENEFIT-EXT study was similarly designed with the exception that it included extended criteria donors. Renal function improved significantly for the more intensive belatacept group in all years of the BENEFIT-EXT study; however, it was not significant in the less intensive group until 5 years after transplant. Belatacept regimens resulted in lower blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplant compared to CsA-based regimens. Results from conversion of CNIs to belatacept therapy, dual therapy of belatacept with sirolimus, and belatacept with corticosteroid avoidance therapy are also included in this article.

Conclusion

The evidence reviewed in this article suggests that belatacept is an effective alternative in kidney transplant recipients. Compared to CNI-based therapy, belatacept-based therapy results in superior renal function and similar rates of allograft survival. In terms of safety, belatacept was shown to have lower incidence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes; however, incidence of posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder and the cost of belatacept may hinder use of this medication.

Conversion to Belatacept based regimen does not change T-cell phenotype and function in renal transplantation

Belatacept offers a new option for renal allograft recipients who are suffering from side effects of calcineurin inhibitors or mTOR inhibitors,which may result in renal and extrarenal benefits.We prospectively performed flow cytometric immunophenotyping with a T-cell panel. In total we were able to fully investigate the immunophenotypic change in 8 patients before and after conversion from calcineurin inhibitor (n = 5) or mTOR inhibitor (n=2) to Belatacept or additional administration (n=1). Cells were analysed pre conversion, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after first Belatacept administration. The percentage of central memory, naïve, effector memory and terminally differentiated effector memory CD4+ and CD4− T-cells was determined. CD28, CD25 and CD69 expression on CD4+ and CD4− T-cells was measured ex vivo and also after 3 days of mitogen stimulation. Intracellular cytokines IFNgamma and IL-2 were measured after polyclonal cellular stimulation. The expression of activation markers and intracellular cytokines as well as the percentage of T-cell subsets did not change significantly during the observation period compared to the time-point pre conversion. Therefore the conversion of calcineurin inhibitor or mTOR inhibitor to Belatacept seems to have no obvious impact on the immunophenotype of T-cells in patients after kidney transplantation.

Does belatacept improve outcomes for kidney transplant recipients? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Belatacept was intended to provide better outcomes for kidney transplant (KT) recipients by allowing minimization/withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and steroids.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult KT comparing belatacept with CNIs. Methodological quality was assessed. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included. Pooled analyses found no differences for acute rejection at any time point. Renal function [Calculated glomerular filtration rate (cGFR)] was better with belatacept at 12 and 24 months (MD = 11.7 and 13.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ). New onset diabetes after transplantation was lower with belatacept at 12 months (OR = 0.43). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower at 12 months (MD -7.2 and -3.1 mmHg) as were triglycerides at 12 and 24 months (MD = -32.9 and -41.7 mg/dl). Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were lower with belatacept at 24 months (MD = -19.8 and -10.6 mg/dl). There were no differences for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Limited available data suggest a potential benefit for belatacept by reducing the risk of CNI toxicity, especially renal function, without evidence of increased acute rejection. There were no safety issues apart from a possible risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in Epstein-barr virus-seronegative recipients. Further studies are required to confirm this benefit.

Belatacept for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Most people who receive a kidney transplant die from either cardiovascular disease or cancer before their transplant fails. The most common reason for someone with a kidney transplant to lose the function of their transplanted kidney necessitating return to dialysis is chronic kidney transplant scarring. Immunosuppressant drugs have side effects that increase risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic kidney transplant scarring. Belatacept may provide sufficient immunosuppression while avoiding unwanted side effects of other immunosuppressant drugs. However, high rates of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) have been reported when belatacept is used in particular kidney transplant recipients at high dosage.

OBJECTIVES

1) Compare the relative efficacy of belatacept versus any other primary immunosuppression regimen for preventing acute rejection, maintaining kidney transplant function, and preventing death. 2) Compare the incidence of several adverse events: PTLD; other malignancies; chronic transplant kidney scarring (IF/TA); infections; change in blood pressure, lipid and blood sugar control. 3) Assess any variation in effects by study, intervention and recipient characteristics, including: differences in pre-transplant Epstein Barr virus serostatus; belatacept dosage; and donor-category (living, standard criteria deceased, or extended criteria deceased).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 1 September 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared belatacept versus any other immunosuppression regimen in kidney transplant recipients were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data for study quality and transplant outcomes and synthesized results using random effects meta-analysis, expressed as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).  Subgroup analyses and univariate meta-regression were used to investigate potential heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies that compared belatacept and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) that reported data from a total of 1535 kidney transplant recipients. Of the five studies, three (478 participants) compared belatacept and cyclosporin and two (43 recipients) compared belatacept and tacrolimus. Co-interventions included basiliximab (4 studies, 1434 recipients); anti-thymocyte globulin (1 study, 89 recipients); alemtuzumab (1 study, 12 recipients); mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, 5 studies, 1509 recipients); sirolimus (1 study, 26 recipients) and prednisone (5 studies, 1535 recipients).Up to three years following transplant, belatacept and CNI-treated recipients were at similar risk of dying (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.44), losing their kidney transplant and returning to dialysis (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.38), and having an episode of acute rejection (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.86). Belatacept-treated kidney transplant recipients were 28% less likely to have chronic kidney scarring (3 studies, 1360 recipients: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94) and also had better graft function (measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (3 studies 1083 recipients): 10.89 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 4.01 to 17.77; estimated GFR (4 studies, 1083 recipients): MD 9.96 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 3.28 to 16.64) than CNI-treated recipients. Blood pressure was lower (systolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -7.51 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.57 to -4.46; diastolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -3.07 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.83 to -1.31, lipid profile was better (non-HDL (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -12.25 mg/dL, 95% CI -17.93 to -6.57; triglycerides (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -24.09 mg/dL, 95% CI -44.55 to -3.64), and incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplant was reduced by 39% (4 studies (1049 recipients): RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93) among belatacept-treated versus CNI-treated recipients.Risk of PTLD was similar in belatacept and CNI-treated recipients (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 12.66) and was no different among recipients who received different belatacept dosages (high versus low dosage: ratio of risk ratios (RRR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.80, test of difference = 0.96) or among those who were Epstein Barr virus seronegative compared with those who were seropositive before their kidney transplant (seronegative versus seropositive; RRR 1.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 14.76, test for difference = 0.73).The belatacept dose used (high versus low), type of donor kidney the recipient received (extended versus standard criteria) and whether the kidney transplant recipient received tacrolimus or cyclosporin made no difference to kidney transplant survival, incidence of acute rejection or estimated GFR. Selective outcome reporting meant that data for some key subgroup comparisons were sparse and that estimates of the effect of treatment in these groups of recipients remain imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of any difference in the effectiveness of belatacept and CNI in preventing acute rejection, graft loss and death, but treatment with belatacept is associated with less chronic kidney scarring and better kidney transplant function. Treatment with belatacept is also associated with better blood pressure and lipid profile and a lower incidence of diabetes versus treatment with a CNI. Important side effects (particularly PTLD) remain poorly reported and so the relative benefits and harms of using belatacept remain unclear. Whether short-term advantages of treatment with belatacept are maintained over the medium- to long-term or translate into better cardiovascular outcomes or longer kidney transplant survival with function remains unclear. Longer-term, fully reported and published studies comparing belatacept versus tacrolimus are needed to help clinicians decide which patients might benefit most from using belatacept.