Department of Nephrology, University Hospital Center of Nice, Nice, France.
Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Ann Transplant. 2020 May 29;25:e920041. doi: 10.12659/AOT.920041.
BACKGROUND This post hoc analysis of data from the prospective OSAKA study evaluated the efficacy and safety of prolonged- and immediate-release tacrolimus in patients who received kidneys from extended-criteria (ECD) and standard-criteria (SCD) donors. MATERIAL AND METHODS Within the ECD and SCD groups, patients were randomized to one of 4 tacrolimus-based regimens (initial dose): Arm 1, immediate-release tacrolimus (0.2 mg/kg/day); Arm 2, prolonged-release tacrolimus (0.2 mg/kg/day); Arm 3, prolonged-release tacrolimus (0.3 mg/kg/day); Arm 4, prolonged-release tacrolimus (0.2 mg/kg/day) plus basiliximab. All patients received mycophenolate mofetil and bolus corticosteroids; Arms 1-3 also received tapered corticosteroids. ECDs met the definition: living/deceased donors aged ≥60 years, or 50-60 years with ≥1 other risk factor, and donation after circulatory death. Primary composite endpoint: graft loss, biopsy-confirmed acute rejection or renal dysfunction by Day 168. Outcomes were compared across treatment arms with the chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS A total of 1198 patients were included in the analysis (ECD: n=620 [51.8%], SCD: n=578 [48.2%]). Patients with kidneys from ECDs were older versus SCDs (mean age, 55.7 vs. 44.5 years, p<0.0001). A higher proportion of patients with kidneys from ECDs versus SCDs met the primary composite endpoint (56.8% vs. 32.4%, p<0.0001). However, no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes or the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events were seen between treatment arms within each donor group. CONCLUSIONS Worse outcomes were experienced in patients who received kidneys from ECDs versus SCDs. Prolonged-release tacrolimus provided similar graft survival to the immediate-release formulation, with a manageable tolerability profile.
这项来自前瞻性 OSAKA 研究的数据事后分析评估了延长释放和速释他克莫司在接受来自扩展标准(ECD)和标准标准(SCD)供体的肾脏的患者中的疗效和安全性。
在 ECD 和 SCD 组内,患者随机分配至 4 种基于他克莫司的方案(初始剂量)之一:第 1 组,速释他克莫司(0.2mg/kg/天);第 2 组,延长释放他克莫司(0.2mg/kg/天);第 3 组,延长释放他克莫司(0.3mg/kg/天);第 4 组,延长释放他克莫司(0.2mg/kg/天)加巴利昔单抗。所有患者均接受霉酚酸酯和冲击性皮质类固醇治疗;第 1-3 组还接受了逐渐减少剂量的皮质类固醇治疗。ECD 符合以下定义:年龄≥60 岁的活体/已故供者,或年龄在 50-60 岁且有≥1 个其他危险因素,以及死后循环死亡供者。主要复合终点:第 168 天发生移植物丢失、活检证实的急性排斥反应或肾功能障碍。使用卡方检验或 Fisher 确切概率法比较各治疗组间的结局。
共有 1198 例患者纳入分析(ECD:n=620 [51.8%],SCD:n=578 [48.2%])。与 SCD 相比,ECD 患者的年龄更大(平均年龄,55.7 岁 vs. 44.5 岁,p<0.0001)。与 SCD 相比,ECD 患者的主要复合终点比例更高(56.8% vs. 32.4%,p<0.0001)。然而,在每个供体组内,各治疗组间并未观察到临床结局或治疗中出现的不良事件发生率存在统计学差异。
与 SCD 相比,接受 ECD 肾脏的患者预后更差。与速释制剂相比,延长释放他克莫司提供了相似的移植物存活率,且具有可管理的耐受性。