Early Conversion From Calcineurin Inhibitor‐ to Everolimus‐Based Therapy Following Kidney Transplantation: Results of the Randomized ELEVATE Trial

In a 24‐month, multicenter, open‐label, randomized trial, 715 de novo kidney transplant recipients were randomized at 10–14 weeks to convert to everolimus (n = 359) or remain on standard calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy (n = 356; 231 tacrolimus; 125 cyclosporine), all with mycophenolic acid and steroids. The primary endpoint, change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from randomization to month 12, was similar for everolimus versus CNI: mean (standard error) 0.3(1.5) mL/min/1.73² versus ?1.5(1.5) mL/min/1.73² (p = 0.116). Biopsy‐proven acute rejection (BPAR) at month 12 was more frequent under everolimus versus CNI overall (9.7% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.014) and versus tacrolimus‐treated patients (2.6%, p < 0.001) but similar to cyclosporine‐treated patients (8.8%, p = 0.755). Reporting on de novo donor‐specific antibodies (DSA) was limited but suggested more frequent anti‐HLA Class I DSA under everolimus. Change in left ventricular mass index was similar. Discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent with everolimus (23.6%) versus CNI (8.4%). In conclusion, conversion to everolimus at 10–14 weeks posttransplant was associated with renal function similar to that with standard therapy overall. Rates of BPAR were low in all groups, but lower with tacrolimus than everolimus.     

Everolimus (Certican) 12-month safety and efficacy versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is a proliferation inhibitor designed to target chronic rejection, including prevention of acute rejection. Everolimus blocks growth factor-mediated transduction signals, preventing organ rejection by a mechanism different than that of calcineurin inhibitors and of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). METHODS.: Everolimus (1.5 mg or 3 mg daily) was compared with MMF (2 g daily) in a randomized, multicenter, multinational, 12-month double-blind, double-dummy and 2-year open-label, phase 3 trial in de novo renal allograft recipients (n = 588) who also received cyclosporine and corticosteroids as part of a triple immunosuppressive regimen. RESULTS: At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences between doses of 1.5 and 3 mg/day everolimus and MMF (2 g/day) in incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (23.2%, 19.7%, and 24.0%, respectively), graft loss (4.6%, 10.6%, and 9.2%), or death (5.2%, 4.0%, and 2.6%), respectively. Everolimus 1.5 mg/day and MMF were generally equally well tolerated. Both were better tolerated than everolimus 3 mg/day. The incidence of cytomegalovirus infection was significantly lower in patients receiving either 1.5 or 3 mg/day everolimus than in those receiving MMF (5.2% and 7.6% vs. 19.4%, respectively) (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus is effective in preventing acute rejection and graft loss in de novo renal allograft recipients receiving a triple immunosuppressive regimen. Prevention of acute rejection, along with reduction in cytomegalovirus infection, addresses two factors known to contribute to chronic rejection in such patients.     

Everolimus Plus Reduced‐Exposure CsA versus Mycophenolic Acid Plus Standard‐Exposure CsA in Renal‐Transplant Recipients

Everolimus allows calcineurin‐inhibitor reduction without loss of efficacy and may improve renal‐transplant outcomes. In a 24‐month, open‐label study, 833 de novo renal‐transplant recipients were randomized to everolimus 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day (target troughs 3–8 and 6–12 ng/mL, respectively) with reduced‐exposure CsA, or mycophenolic acid (MPA) 1.44 g/day plus standard‐exposure CsA. Patients received basiliximab ± corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was composite efficacy failure (treated biopsy‐proven acute rejection, graft loss, death or loss to follow‐up) and the main safety endpoint was renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD]) at Month 12 (last‐observation‐carried‐forward analyses). Month 12 efficacy failure rates were noninferior in the everolimus 1.5 mg (25.3%) and 3.0 mg (21.9%) versus MPA (24.2%) groups. Mean eGFR at Month 12 was noninferior in the everolimus groups versus the MPA group (54.6 and 51.3 vs 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m² in the everolimus 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg and MPA groups, respectively; 95% confidence intervals for everolimus 1.5 mg and 3.0 mg vs MPA: ?1.7, 6.4 and ?5.0, 3.2, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups. The use of everolimus with progressive reduction in CsA exposure, up to 60% at 1 year, resulted in similar efficacy and renal function compared with standard‐exposure CsA plus MPA.     

Fibrosis Progression According to Epithelial‐Mesenchymal Transition Profile: A Randomized Trial of Everolimus Versus CsA

Markers of epithelial‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) may identify patients at high risk of graft fibrogenesis who could benefit from early calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) withdrawal. In a randomized, open‐label, 12‐month trial, de novo kidney transplant patients received cyclosporine, enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium (EC‐MPS) and steroids to month 3. Patients were stratified as EMT+ or EMT? based on month 3 biopsy, then randomized to start everolimus with half‐dose EC‐MPS (720 mg/day) and cyclosporine withdrawal (CNI‐free) or continue cyclosporine with standard EC‐MPS (CNI). The primary endpoint was progression of graft fibrosis (interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy [IF/TA] grade increase ≥1 between months 3–12) in EMT+ patients. 194 patients were randomized (96 CNI‐free, 98 CNI); 153 (69 CNI‐free, 84 CNI) were included in histological analyses. Fibrosis progression occurred in 46.2% (12/26) CNI‐free EMT+ patients versus 51.6% (16/31) CNI EMT+ patients (p = 0.68). Biopsy‐proven acute rejection (BPAR, including subclinical events) occurred in 25.0% and 5.1% of CNI‐free and CNI patients, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, early CNI withdrawal with everolimus initiation does not prevent interstitial fibrosis. Using this CNI‐free protocol, in which everolimus exposure was relatively low and administered with half‐dose EC‐MPS, CNI‐free patients were overwhelmingly under‐immunosuppressed and experienced an increased risk of BPAR.

     

FTY720 versus MMF with Cyclosporine in de novo Renal Transplantation: A 1-Year, Randomized Controlled Trial in Europe and Australasia

FTY720 is a novel immunomodulator investigated in de novo renal transplantation and other therapeutic areas including multiple sclerosis. This 1-year multicenter, randomized, phase III study in 668 de novo renal transplant patients compared FTY720 2.5 mg plus full-dose cyclosporine (FDC) or FTY720 5.0 mg plus reduced-dose cyclosporine (RDC), with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus FDC. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite incidence of first treated biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death or premature study discontinuation at month 12. Primary efficacy with FTY720 2.5 mg and MMF (32.4% and 30.2%; p = NS), plus mortality and BPAR incidence, were comparable. Patients receiving FTY720 5.0 mg plus RDC were discontinued from treatment due to increased risk of acute rejection (primary endpoint incidence 47.3%). FTY720 was associated with lower creatinine clearance (month 12: 53.1, 56.0 vs. 65.1 mL/min; p < 0.001) and more macular edema cases (2.2% and 1.3% vs. 0%), whereas cytomegalovirus infections were higher with MMF (6.2% and 10.6% vs. 18.1% p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0139, respectively). FTY720 2.5 mg provided comparable rejection prophylaxis over 12 months versus MMF; however, FTY720 5.0 mg did not support a 50% reduction in cyclosporine exposure. The cause of macular edema cases and lower creatinine clearance with FTY720 in de novo transplantation needs further investigation.     

Three-Year Efficacy and Safety Results from a Study of Everolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in de novo Renal Transplant Patients

Everolimus 1.5 or 3 mg/day was compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 2 g/day in a randomized, multicenter 36-month trial in de novo renal allograft recipients (n = 588) receiving cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA) and corticosteroids. The study was double-blind until all patients had completed 12 months, then open-label. By 36 months, graft loss occurred in 7.2, 16.7 and 10.7% of patients in the everolimus 1.5, 3 mg/day, and MMF groups, respectively (p = 0.0048 for everolimus 1.5 mg/day vs. 3 mg/day); efficacy failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death or lost to follow-up) occurred in 33.0, 38.9 and 37.2% of patients (p = 0.455 overall), respectively. Mortality and incidence of BPAR were comparable in all groups. Creatinine values were higher in everolimus groups, requiring a protocol amendment that recommended lower CsA exposure. Diarrhea, lymphocele, peripheral edema and hyperlipidemia were more common among everolimus-treated patients, whereas viral infections, particularly cytomegalovirus infection, increased in the MMF group. Overall safety and tolerability were better with MMF and everolimus 1.5 mg/day than with everolimus 3 mg/day. In conclusion, at 36 months, an immunosuppressive regimen containing everolimus 1.5 mg/day had equivalent patient, and graft survival and rejection rates compared with MMF in de novo renal transplant recipients, whereas everolimus 3 mg/day had inferior graft survival. Renal dysfunction in everolimus cohorts necessitates close monitoring.     

CD25 blockade in kidney transplant patients randomized to standard‐dose or high‐dose basiliximab with cyclosporine,or high‐dose basiliximab in a calcineurin inhibitor‐free regimen

An increased basiliximab dose may saturate T‐cell CD25 receptors in kidney transplant patients receiving calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)‐free immunosuppression. In a 12‐week study, 16 de novo kidney transplant patients were randomized to (i) 40 mg basiliximab with cyclosporine [n = 3] (controls), (ii) 80 mg basiliximab with cyclosporine [n = 6], or (iii) 80 mg basiliximab with everolimus (CNI‐free) [n = 7], all with mycophenolic acid and steroids. Recruitment was stopped prematurely due to increased biopsy‐proven acute rejection (BPAR) in the basiliximab 80 mg CNI‐free group. BPAR occurred in 1/3, 1/6, and 4/7 patients in the three treatment groups, respectively. The primary endpoint, area under the effect curve of CD25 saturation to week 12, was 8.4(1.6) % × weeks in the control group, 11.1(1.1) % × weeks with basiliximab 80 mg + cyclosporine, and 9.7(0.7) % × weeks in the basiliximab 80 mg CNI‐free group (P = 0.020 for basiliximab 80 mg + cyclosporine versus controls; P = 0.119 for basiliximab 80 mg CNI‐free versus controls). Although small patient numbers prohibit robust conclusions, these results suggest that doubling the cumulative basiliximab dose to 80 mg does not provide adequate immunosuppression during the first 3 months after kidney transplantation in the absence of CNI therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01596062).     

Everolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil De Novo After Lung Transplantation: A Prospective,Randomized, Open‐Label Trial

The role of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in de novo immunosuppression after lung transplantation is not well defined. We compared Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in an investigator‐initiated single‐center trial in Hannover, Germany. A total of 190 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 on day 28 posttransplantation to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or Everolimus combined with cyclosporine A (CsA) and steroids. Patients were followed up for 2 years. The primary endpoint was freedom from bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). The secondary endpoints were incidence of acute rejections, infections, treatment failure and kidney function. BOS‐free survival in intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis was similar in both groups (p = 0.174). The study protocol was completed by 51% of enrolled patients. The per‐protocol analysis shows incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS): 1/43 in the Everolimus group and 8/54 in the MMF group (p = 0.041). Less biopsy‐proven acute rejection (AR) (p = 0.005), cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia (p = 0.005) and lower respiratory tract infection (p = 0.003) and no leucopenia were seen in the Everolimus group. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decreased in both groups about 50% within 6 months. Due to a high withdrawal rate, the study was underpowered to prove a difference in BOS‐free survival. The dropout rate was more pronounced in the Everolimus group. Secondary endpoints indicate potential advantages of Everolimus‐based protocols but also a potentially higher rate of drug‐related serious adverse events.     

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Everolimus in Heart Transplant Recipients Based on Exposure–Effect Modeling

Everolimus, a proliferation signal inhibitor, is an immunosuppressant that targets the primary causes of progressive allograft dysfunction, thus improving the long-term outcome after heart transplantation. The present study investigated whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of everolimus would benefit heart transplant patients. Data from a twelve-month phase III trial comparing everolimus (1.5 or 3 mg daily) with azathioprine were used to evaluate everolimus pharmacokinetics, exposure-efficacy/safety and TDM prognostic simulations. Everolimus trough levels were stable in the first year post-transplant and averaged 5.2 +/- 3.8 and 9.4 +/- 6.3 ng/mL in patients treated with 1.5 and 3 mg/day, respectively. Cyclosporine trough levels were similar in all treatment groups. Biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) was reduced with everolimus trough levels > or =3 ng/mL. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) analysis showed evidence of reduced vasculopathy at 12 months with increasing everolimus exposure. Unlike cyclosporine, increasing everolimus exposure was not related to a higher rate of renal dysfunction. The TDM simulation, which was based on two everolimus dose adjustments and an initial starting dose of 1.5 mg/day, showed that the simulated BPAR rate (with TDM) was 21% versus 26% in the group with fixed dosing. Therefore, TDM in heart transplantation could optimize immunosuppressive efficacy and reduce treatment-related toxicity.     

12-month safety and efficacy of everolimus with reduced exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal transplant recipients

The proliferation signal inhibitor everolimus (Certican), has demonstrated efficacy with full-dose cyclosporine (CsA) (Neoral). Two multicenter randomized controlled studies were performed to compare 12-month efficacy and safety of everolimus 1.5 and 3.0 mg/day with reduced-dose CsA. Study 1 enrolled 237 de novo renal allograft recipients, randomizing 222 nonblack patients to either everolimus 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day, with the Neoral) dose guided by C(2) (monitoring of CsA concentration 2 h after dosing). Study 2 had a similar protocol, with basiliximab included, enrolling 256 recipients and randomizing 243 nonblack patients. In Study 1, there was a lower incidence of acute rejection in nonblack patients on 3 mg/day (16.4%) compared with 1.5 mg/day (25.9%), P = 0.08. In Study 2, the inclusion of basiliximab lowered the overall incidence of acute rejection; 14.3% of nonblack patients (3 mg/day) and 13.6% of nonblack patients (1.5 mg/day) had acute rejection by 12 months (P =0.891). Renal function was preserved throughout the study, with no differences observed between groups within studies. Everolimus was well tolerated with no significant differences between doses. Everolimus, in combination with reduced-dose Neoral), demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated. Basiliximab allows for utilization of lower doses of everolimus with reduced dosing of Neoral).     

Efficacy and safety of conversion from cyclosporine to everolimus in living‐donor kidney transplant recipients: an analysis from the ZEUS study

Conversion of living‐donor kidney transplant patients from calcineurin inhibitor therapy to an mTOR inhibitor is poorly documented. In the prospective, multicentre ZEUS study, 300 kidney transplant recipients without prior rejection (Banff grade >1) and serum creatinine ≤265 μmol/l were randomized to continue cyclosporine or convert to everolimus at 4.5 months post‐transplant. In a post hoc analysis of 80 living‐donor recipients, adjusted estimated GFR (Nankivell) at month 12 (the primary endpoint) was 74.3 (95% CI [70.7, 77.9]) ml/min/1.73 m² with everolimus versus 63.8 (95% CI [60.0, 67.7]) ml/min/1.73 m²) with cyclosporine, a difference of 10.5 ml/min/1.73 m² in favour of everolimus (P < 0.001). From randomization to month 12, adjusted estimated GFR increased by a mean of 9.8 (95% CI [6.2, 13.4]) ml/min/1.73 m² with everolimus versus ?0.7 (95% CI [?4.6, 3.1]) ml/min/1.73 m²) (P < 0.001) with cyclosporine. There were six biopsy‐proven acute rejection episodes in everolimus‐treated patients (five Banff grade I) and one episode in cyclosporine‐treated patients (Banff grade 1). Overall safety profile was similar between groups. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in three everolimus patients (7.1%) and five cyclosporine patients (13.2%) between randomization and month 12. Initiation of everolimus with early elimination of calcineurin therapy is associated with a significant renal benefit at 12 months post‐transplant that is observed in both living and deceased‐donor recipients. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT00154310)     

Everolimus in de novo cardiac transplantation: pharmacokinetics, therapeutic range, and influence on cyclosporine exposure.

We evaluated exposure, safety, and efficacy data from an international Phase 3 trial of everolimus in de novo heart transplantation to characterize the longitudinal pharmacokinetics of everolimus and cyclosporine and to identify a therapeutic concentration range for everolimus.We randomized 634 patients to receive either 0.75 mg everolimus twice daily, 1.5 mg everolimus twice daily, or azathioprine in addition to corticosteroids and cyclosporine. At 8 visits during the first 6 months after transplantation, we obtained 2,328 everolimus trough levels (Cmin) and 129 area-under-the-curve (AUC) profiles over the dosing interval in patients treated with everolimus; we collected 3,258 cyclosporine trough concentrations and 174 profiles in all 3 treatment arms. We used median-effect analysis to characterize exposure-response associations between everolimus average Cmin vs freedom from biopsy-confirmed acute rejection; maximum cholesterol, low density lipoprotein, triglyceride, and creatinine levels; and minimum leukocyte and platelet counts.Everolimus Cmins averaged 5.2 +/- 3.8 ng/ml and 9.4 +/- 6.3 ng/ml at the lower and upper dose levels. A 17% underproportionality was noted in Cmins; however, peak exposure and AUC were consistent with dose proportionality. Everolimus exposure was stable during the 6-month period. Interindividual variability was 37% for AUC and 40% for Cmin. The latter parameter was not influenced to a clinically relevant extent by sex, age, or weight. The Cmin was well correlated with AUC (r2 = 0.81). Everolimus Cmin was significantly related to freedom from rejection (p = 0.02) with 3 ng/ml being an informative lower threshold for efficacy. Thrombocytopenia, defined as <75 x 10(9)/liter, was related significantly to Cmin (p = 0.03); however, the incidence in this study was too low to establish an upper end for the therapeutic range. Lower doses of cyclosporine (by 15% to 19%) were used in patients treated with everolimus to achieve cyclosporine Cmins and AUCs similar to those in patients treated with azathioprine.Everolimus exposure was dose proportional and stable during the first 6 months after transplantation. Interindividual pharmacokinetic variability was high but not influenced by common demographic covariates. We observed a significantly increased risk of acute rejection at everolimus trough levels <3 ng/ml, which constitutes the lower therapeutic concentration limit when everolimus is used with conventionally dosed cyclosporine. Everolimus-related adverse events were manageable up to the highest troughs (22 ng/ml) observed in this population. We could not derive a precise upper therapeutic concentration limit from these data.     

Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus Plus Low‐Dose Tacrolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil Plus Standard‐Dose Tacrolimus in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: 12‐Month Data

In this 12‐month, multicenter, randomized, open‐label, noninferiority study, de novo renal transplant recipients (RTxRs) were randomized (1:1) to receive everolimus plus low‐dose tacrolimus (EVR+LTac) or mycophenolate mofetil plus standard‐dose Tac (MMF+STac) with induction therapy (basiliximab or rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin). Noninferiority of composite efficacy failure rate (treated biopsy‐proven acute rejection [tBPAR]/graft loss/death/loss to follow‐up) in EVR+LTac versus MMF+STac was missed by 1.4%, considering the noninferiority margin of 10% (24.6% vs. 20.4%; 4.2% [?3.0, 11.4]). Incidence of tBPAR (19.1% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.05) was significantly higher, while graft loss (1.3% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.05) and composite of graft loss/death/lost to follow‐up (6.1% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.05) were significantly lower in EVR+LTac versus MMF+STac groups, respectively. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was similar between EVR+LTac and MMF+STac groups (63.1 [22.0] vs. 63.1 [19.5] mL/min/1.73 m²) and safety was comparable. In conclusion, EVR+LTac missed noninferiority versus MMF+STac based on the 10% noninferiority margin. Further studies evaluating optimal immunosuppression for improved efficacy will guide appropriate dosing and target levels of EVR and LTac in RTxRs.     

Economic evaluation of everolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in de novo heart transplantation

Both the proliferation signal inhibitor everolimus (1.5 mg/day) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (3 g/day) have shown superior efficacy versus azathioprine in de novo heart transplantation. The cost-effectiveness of everolimus and MMF versus azathioprine was assessed to 6 months posttransplantation. METHODS: The evaluation was performed from the German health insurance payer perspective. The composite efficacy endpoint in the everolimus trial was death, graft loss/retransplantation, biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) grade>or=3A, rejection with hemodynamic compromise, and loss to follow-up. The composite endpoint in the MMF trial included only death, retransplantation, and BPAR with hemodynamic compromise. To mimic the everolimus endpoint, an estimated number of patients with BPAR>or=3A was added to the MMF trial results, using two mapping scenarios. RESULTS: The incremental 6-month cost versus azathioprine was euro2535 for everolimus and euro3007 for MMF. The absolute reduction in efficacy failure versus azathioprine was 10.4% for everolimus and 9.8% and 10.1% for MMF, respectively, using scenarios 1 and 2. The incremental cost per efficacy failure avoided (ie, the incremental cost versus azathioprine divided by the reduction in efficacy failure) was euro24,457 for everolimus, and euro30,628 and euro29,912 for MMF in scenarios 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on findings from two clinical trials, suggested that everolimus was more cost-effective than MMF versus azathioprine in the first 6 months after heart transplantation. Data from a head-to-head trial are required to confirm these results.     

Therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus in kidney transplantation using 12-month exposure, efficacy, and safety data

The aims of the current study were to determine whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) might benefit kidney transplant recipients receiving everolimus, and to establish dosage recommendations when everolimus is used in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. The analysis was based on data from 779 patients enrolled in two 12-month trials. Everolimus trough concentrations >/=3 ng/mL were associated with a reduced incidence in biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) in the first month (p = 0.0001) and the first 6 months (p = 0.0001), and reduced graft loss compared with lower concentrations (4% vs. 20%, respectively). By contrast, cyclosporine in the standard concentration range had no impact on BPAR within the same timeframes. Most patients receiving everolimus 1.5 or 3 mg/d achieved trough concentrations above the therapeutic threshold of 3 ng/mL, regardless of reductions in cyclosporine dose. TDM simulation showed that just two dose adjustments would achieve median everolimus trough values >/=3 ng/mL in 95% of patients during the first 6 months. This investigation indicates that improved efficacy is likely when TDM is considered as an integral component of the immunosuppressive strategy of everolimus.     

Everolimus With Reduced Tacrolimus Improves Renal Function in De Novo Liver Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

In a prospective, multicenter, open‐label study, de novo liver transplant patients were randomized at day 30±5 to (i) everolimus initiation with tacrolimus elimination (TAC Elimination) (ii) everolimus initiation with reduced‐exposure tacrolimus (EVR+Reduced TAC) or (iii) standard‐exposure tacrolimus (TAC Control). Randomization to TAC Elimination was terminated prematurely due to a higher rate of treated biopsy‐proven acute rejection (tBPAR). EVR+Reduced TAC was noninferior to TAC Control for the primary efficacy endpoint (tBPAR, graft loss or death at 12 months posttransplantation): 6.7% versus 9.7% (?3.0%; 95% CI ?8.7, 2.6%; p<0.001 for noninferiority [12% margin]). tBPAR occurred in 2.9% of EVR+Reduced TAC patients versus 7.0% of TAC Controls (p = 0.035). The change in adjusted estimated GFR from randomization to month 12 was superior with EVR+Reduced TAC versus TAC Control (difference 8.50 mL/min/1.73 m², 97.5% CI 3.74, 13.27 mL/min/1.73 m², p<0.001 for superiority). Drug discontinuation for adverse events occurred in 25.7% of EVR+Reduced TAC and 14.1% of TAC Controls (relative risk 1.82, 95% CI 1.25, 2.66). Relative risk of serious infections between the EVR+Reduced TAC group versus TAC Controls was 1.76 (95% CI 1.03, 3.00). Everolimus facilitates early tacrolimus minimization with comparable efficacy and superior renal function, compared to a standard tacrolimus exposure regimen 12 months after liver transplantation.     

Differential pharmacokinetic interaction of tacrolimus and cyclosporine on everolimus

OBJECTIVE: We characterized the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus and everolimus in a combined immunosuppressive regimen. METHODS: This was an open-label exploratory trial in eight maintenance renal transplant patients with calcineurin inhibitor intolerance initially receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus. At enrollment, MMF was discontinued and replaced with everolimus 1.5 mg twice a day in study period 1 (days 1 to 10). In period 2 (day 11 to month 3), tacrolimus dose was reduced by half. RESULTS: At study entry tacrolimus trough level (C0) was 7.9 +/- 3.9 ng/mL and area under the curve over a dosing interval (AUC) was 132 +/- 56 ng x h/mL. The addition of everolimus in period 1 did not change tacrolimus exposure: C0 8.4 +/- 4.0 ng/mL, AUC 134 +/- 70 ng x h/mL. Everolimus pharmacokinetics in the presence of tacrolimus in period 1 were: C0 3.3 +/- 1.2 ng/mL, Cmax 10.4 +/- 5.1 ng/mL, AUC 58 +/- 20 ng x h/mL. When compared to pharmacokinetic data from a previous study in 47 renal transplant patients receiving everolimus at the same fixed dose (1.5 mg twice a day) with cyclosporine, everolimus exposure was 2.5-fold higher with cyclosporine relative to the data in this study with tacrolimus. After tacrolimus dose reduction in period 2, there was no clinically relevant change in everolimus exposure: C0 3.0 +/- 1.1 ng/mL, Cmax 8.2 +/- 1.3 ng/mL, AUC 49 +/- 10 ng x h/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus appears to have a minimal effect on everolimus blood levels compared with the influence of cyclosporine. The dose of everolimus when combined with tacrolimus needs to be higher than when combined with cyclosporine in order to reach a given everolimus blood level.     

Everolimus Versus Azathioprine in Maintenance Lung Transplant Recipients: An International, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Everolimus is a proliferation signal inhibitor with immunosuppressive activity that may reduce the rate of progression of chronic rejection, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), after lung transplantation. In a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 213 BOS-free maintenance patients received everolimus (3 mg/day) or azathioprine (AZA, 1-3 mg/kg/day) in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. The prospectively defined primary endpoint was the incidence of efficacy failure (decline in FEV1 >15%[deltaFEV1 >15%], graft loss, death or loss to follow-up) at 12 months. Incidence of efficacy failure at 12 months was significantly lower in the everolimus group than AZA (21.8% vs. 33.9%; p = 0.046); at 24 months, rates of efficacy failure became similar between the groups. At 12 months, the everolimus group had significantly reduced incidences of deltaFEV1 >15%, deltaFEV1 >15% with BOS, and acute rejection. At 24 months, only incidence of acute rejection remained significantly less in the everolimus group. Treatment discontinuations (particularly due to adverse events), serious adverse events and high serum creatinine values were more common with everolimus. For the first time, a drug has demonstrated significant slowing of loss in lung function, suggesting that patients kept on prolonged maintenance treatment with everolimus may benefit from replacing AZA with everolimus 3 months after lung transplantation.     

Improved Renal Function After Early Conversion From a Calcineurin Inhibitor to Everolimus: a Randomized Trial in Kidney Transplantation

In an open‐label, multicenter trial, de novo kidney transplant recipients at low to medium immunological risk were randomized at week 7 posttransplant to remain on CsA (n = 100, controls) or convert to everolimus (n = 102), both with enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint, change in measured GFR (mGFR) from week 7 to month 12, was significantly greater with everolimus than controls: 4.9 (11.8) mL/min versus 0.0 (12.9) mL/min (p = 0.012; analysis of covariance [ANCOVA]). Per protocol analysis demonstrated a more marked difference: an increase of 8.7 (11.2) mL/min with everolimus versus a decrease of 0.4 (12.0) mL/min in controls (p < 0.001; ANCOVA). There were no differences in graft or patient survival. The 12‐month incidence of biopsy‐proven acute rejection (BPAR) was 27.5% (n = 28) with everolimus and 11.0% (n = 11) in controls (p = 0.004). All but two episodes of BPAR in each group were mild. Adverse events occurred in 95.1% of everolimus patients and 90.0% controls (p = 0.19), with serious adverse events in 53.9% and 38.0%, respectively (p = 0.025). Discontinuation because of adverse events was more frequent with everolimus (25.5%) than controls (3.0%; p = 0.030). In conclusion, conversion from CsA to everolimus at week 7 after kidney transplantation was associated with a greater improvement in mGFR at month 12 versus CNI‐treated controls but discontinuations and BPAR were more frequent.     

The Effect of Everolimus Initiation and Calcineurin Inhibitor Elimination on Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy in De Novo Recipients: One‐Year Results of a Scandinavian Randomized Trial

Early initiation of everolimus with calcineurin inhibitor therapy has been shown to reduce the progression of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in de novo heart transplant recipients. The effect of de novo everolimus therapy and early total elimination of calcineurin inhibitor therapy has, however, not been investigated and is relevant given the morbidity and lack of efficacy of current protocols in preventing CAV. This 12‐month multicenter Scandinavian trial randomized 115 de novo heart transplant recipients to everolimus with complete calcineurin inhibitor elimination 7–11 weeks after HTx or standard cyclosporine immunosuppression. Ninety‐five (83%) patients had matched intravascular ultrasound examinations at baseline and 12 months. Mean (± SD) recipient age was 49.9 ± 13.1 years. The everolimus group (n = 47) demonstrated significantly reduced CAV progression as compared to the calcineurin inhibitor group (n = 48) (ΔMaximal Intimal Thickness 0.03 ± 0.06 and 0.08 ± 0.12 mm, ΔPercent Atheroma Volume 1.3 ± 2.3 and 4.2 ± 5.0%, ΔTotal Atheroma Volume 1.1 ± 19.2 mm³ and 13.8 ± 28.0 mm³ [all p‐values ≤ 0.01]). Everolimus patients also had a significantly greater decline in levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor‐1 as compared to the calcineurin inhibitor group (p = 0.02). These preliminary results suggest that an everolimus‐based CNI‐free can potentially be considered in suitable de novo HTx recipients.