Long-Term Outcomes in Belatacept- Versus Cyclosporine-Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT-EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study

In the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-Line Immunosuppression Trial-Extended Criteria Donors (BENEFIT-EXT), extended criteria donor kidney recipients were randomized to receive belatacept-based (more intense [MI] or less intense [LI]) or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. In prior analyses, belatacept was associated with significantly better renal function compared with cyclosporine. In this prospective analysis of the intent-to-treat population, efficacy and safety were compared across regimens at 7 years after transplant. Overall, 128 of 184 belatacept MI-treated, 138 of 175 belatacept LI-treated and 108 of 184 cyclosporine-treated patients contributed data to these analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) comparing time to death or graft loss were 0.915 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.625-1.339; p = 0.65) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.927 (95% CI 0.634-1.356; p = 0.70) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) plus or minus standard error at 7 years was 53.9 ± 1.9, 54.2 ± 1.9, and 35.3 ± 2.0 mL/min per 1.73 m² for belatacept MI, belatacept LI and cyclosporine, respectively (p < 0.001 for overall treatment effect). HRs comparing freedom from death, graft loss or eGFR <20 mL/min per 1.73 m² were 0.754 (95% CI 0.536-1.061; p = 0.10) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.706 (95% CI 0.499-0.998; p = 0.05) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Acute rejection rates and safety profiles of belatacept- and cyclosporine-based treatment were similar. De novo donor-specific antibody incidence was lower for belatacept (p ≤ 0.0001). Relative to cyclosporine, belatacept was associated with similar death and graft loss and improved renal function at 7 years after transplant and had a safety profile consistent with previous reports.

Three-year outcomes from BENEFIT-EXT: a phase III study of belatacept versus cyclosporine in recipients of extended criteria donor kidneys

Recipients of extended-criteria donor (ECD) kidneys have poorer long-term outcomes compared to standard-criteria donor kidney recipients. We report 3-year outcomes from a randomized, phase III study in recipients of de novo ECD kidneys (n = 543) assigned (1:1:1) to either a more intensive (MI) or less intensive (LI) belatacept regimen, or cyclosporine. Three hundred twenty-three patients completed treatment by year 3. Patient survival with a functioning graft was comparable between groups (80% in MI, 82% in LI, 80% in cyclosporine). Mean calculated GFR (cGFR) was 11 mL/min higher in belatacept-treated versus cyclosporine-treated patients (42.7 in MI, 42.2 in LI, 31.5 mL/min in cyclosporine). More cyclosporine-treated patients (44%) progressed to GFR <30 mL/min (chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage 4/5) than belatacept-treated patients (27-30%). Acute rejection rates were similar between groups. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) occurrence was higher in belatacept-treated patients (two in MI, three in LI), most of which occurred during the first 18 months; four additional cases (3 in LI, 1 in cyclosporine) occurred after 3 years. Tuberculosis was reported in two MI, four LI and no cyclosporine patients. In conclusion, at 3 years after transplantation, immunosuppression with belatacept resulted in similar patient survival, graft survival and acute rejection, with better renal function compared with cyclosporine. As previously reported, PTLD and tuberculosis were the principal safety findings associated with belatacept in this study population.

A phase III study of belatacept versus cyclosporine in kidney transplants from extended criteria donors (BENEFIT-EXT study)

Recipients of extended criteria donor (ECD) kidneys are at increased risk for graft dysfunction/loss, and may benefit from immunosuppression that avoids calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity. Belatacept, a selective costimulation blocker, may preserve renal function and improve long-term outcomes versus CNIs. BENEFIT-EXT (Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-line Immunosuppression Trial-EXTended criteria donors) is a 3-year, Phase III study that assessed a more (MI) or less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept versus cyclosporine in adult ECD kidney transplant recipients. The co-primary endpoints at 12 months were composite patient/graft survival and a composite renal impairment endpoint. Patient/graft survival with belatacept was similar to cyclosporine (86% MI, 89% LI, 85% cyclosporine) at 12 months. Fewer belatacept patients reached the composite renal impairment endpoint versus cyclosporine (71% MI, 77% LI, 85% cyclosporine; p = 0.002 MI vs. cyclosporine; p = 0.06 LI vs. cyclosporine). The mean measured glomerular filtration rate was 4-7 mL/min higher on belatacept versus cyclosporine (p = 0.008 MI vs. cyclosporine; p = 0.1039 LI vs. cyclosporine), and the overall cardiovascular/metabolic profile was better on belatacept versus cyclosporine. The incidence of acute rejection was similar across groups (18% MI; 18% LI; 14% cyclosporine). Overall rates of infection and malignancy were similar between groups; however, more cases of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) occurred in the CNS on belatacept. ECD kidney transplant recipients treated with belatacept-based immunosuppression achieved similar patient/graft survival, better renal function, had an increased incidence of PTLD, and exhibited improvement in the cardiovascular/metabolic risk profile versus cyclosporine-treated patients.

Risk factors for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in kidney transplant recipients: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze risk factors for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in kidney transplant recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

In a case-control study, 17 PCP cases diagnosed between July 1994 and July 2000 were matched with two controls each (previous and subsequent kidney transplant recipients who did not develop PCP during the same follow-up period). Demographics, organ origin, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches, use of poly- or monoclonal anti-CD3 antibodies (Po/MoAb) for induction or rejection treatment, rejection episodes, cumulative steroid dose for rejection treatment, immunosuppressive regimens, and other infections were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were seen in gender (male 10 vs. 15), mean age (39.7 vs. 35.4 years), organ origin (cadaver donor 13 vs. 19), HLA mismatches, or Po/MoAb use in induction treatment. Significant differences were observed in PCP cases for rejection history (P=0.02), and median and total number of rejection episodes (P=0.0018). The relative risks for PCP for 1, 2, and > or =3 rejection treatments vs. no such treatment were 1, 1.05, and 6.30, respectively (P=0.021). The relative risk for PCP for steroid-resistant rejection was 4.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-18.89) (P=0.019), and that for the use of Po/MoAb for rejection treatment was 7.23 (95% CI, 1.28-49.34) (P=0.006). The relative risk for PCP for 0, 1, and > or =2 previous or concomitant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection vs. no such infections were 1.0, 2.32, and 13.0, respectively (P=0.012). The relative risks for PCP for tuberculosis (TB) was 18 (95% CI, 1.76-852.03), that for bacterial pneumonia was 14.22 (95% CI, 2.16-150.23), and that for hepatitis C virus infection was 5.25 (95% CI, 1.03-28.91). Immunosuppressive regimens with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), steroids (P=0.06), and MMF as a single variable (P=0.05) were more frequently used in cases. Primary trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis failure was observed in 12 patients in association with heavy immunosuppression and concomitant infections.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of PCP in kidney transplant recipients is related to the number and type of rejection treatments. It is also related to the occurrence of CMV infection, and to other immunomodulating infections such as TB and hepatitis C, and might also be increased with the use of newer and more potent immunosuppressive agents. Primary prophylaxis failure may occur in association with some of these risk factors.