-
Health Technology Assessment... Aug 2016End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antilymphocyte Serum; Azathioprine; Basiliximab; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Everolimus; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Models, Economic; Mycophenolic Acid; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Sirolimus; Tacrolimus; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 27557331
DOI: 10.3310/hta20610 -
Transplantation Reviews (Orlando, Fla.) Dec 2023Recommendations of the use of antibody induction treatments in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are based on moderate quality and historical studies. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recommendations of the use of antibody induction treatments in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are based on moderate quality and historical studies. This systematic review aims to reevaluate, based on actual studies, the effects of different antibody preparations when used in specific KTR subgroups.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL and selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies looking at different antibody preparations used as induction in KTR. Comparisons were categorized into different KTR subgroups: standard, high risk of rejection, high risk of delayed graft function (DGF), living donor, and elderly KTR. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven RCT and 99 observational studies were finally included. Compared to anti-interleukin-2-receptor antibodies (IL2RA), anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) reduced the risk of acute rejection at two years in standard KTR (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.61-0.89) and high risk of rejection KTR (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.72), but without decreasing the risk of graft loss. We did not find significant differences comparing ATG vs. alemtuzumab or different ATG dosages in any KTR group.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite many studies carried out on induction treatment in KTR, their heterogeneity and short follow-up preclude definitive conclusions to determine the optimal induction therapy. Compared with IL2RA, ATG reduced rejection in standard-risk, highly sensitized, and living donor graft recipients, but not in high DGF risk or elderly recipients. More studies are needed to demonstrate beneficial effects in other KTR subgroups and overall patient and graft survival.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Antilymphocyte Serum; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Alemtuzumab; Antibodies; Graft Rejection; Lymphocytes; Transplant Recipients; Graft Survival
PubMed: 37774445
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2023.100795 -
Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia 2015The combination of immunosuppressive drugs is part of the treatment regimen of patients undergoing kidney transplantation (RT). Thymoglobulin®, a rabbit immunoglobulin... (Review)
Review
The combination of immunosuppressive drugs is part of the treatment regimen of patients undergoing kidney transplantation (RT). Thymoglobulin®, a rabbit immunoglobulin directed against human thymocytes, is the most commonly agent used for induction therapy in RT in the US. In Brazil, Thymoglobulin® is approved by ANVISA for the use in patients who underwent kidney transplantation and despite being widely used, there are controversies regarding the drug administration. We prepared a systematic review of the literature, evaluating studies that used Thymoglobulin® for induction and for acute rejection treatment in patients undergoing RT. The review used the computadorized databases of EMBASE, LILACS and MedLine. Data were extracted from the studies concerning general features, methodological characteristics and variables analyzed in each study. From the results, a practical guide was prepared analyzing various aspects on the use of Thymoglobulin® in patients submitted to RT.
Topics: Antilymphocyte Serum; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 26154644
DOI: 10.5935/0101-2800.20150036 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine May 2021When it comes to the treatment of aplastic anemia fever, the Guidelines for Aplastic Anemia regards Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) combined with eltrombopag as the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
When it comes to the treatment of aplastic anemia fever, the Guidelines for Aplastic Anemia regards Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) combined with eltrombopag as the standard immunosuppressive treatment plan, and ATG is the main mode to treat severe aplastic anemia. A large number of prospective studies and clinical trials have confirmed the clinical application value of eltrombopag in aplastic anemia. Although ATG combined with eltrombopag brings satisfactory treatment results, the safety of long-term use is still unclear. Therefore, more clinical trial studies are needed to verify its safety.
METHODS
Literature in the Chinese and English medical databases was searched using the following search terms: "Antithymocyte globulin", "severed aplastic anemia" and "eltrombopag". Patients in the experimental group were administered ATG combined with eltrombopag and patients in the control group received ATG treatment alone. Rev Man5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 16 references were included in this meta-analysis. Heterogeneity tests examining total effective rate demonstrated that Chi2 =4.48, df =15, I2=0%<50%, and P=1.00>0.01. The effective rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, with odds ratio (OR) =1.90 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 2.68 (Z=3.70, P=0.0002). The heterogeneity test results of the survival rate within 2 years were Chi2 =3.09, df =7, I2=0%<50%, and P=0.88>0.01. The survival rate of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, with OR =2.54, and 95% CI: 1.58 to 4.09 (Z=3.84, P=0.0001). The heterogeneity test results of the mortality rate were Chi2 =3.49, df =6, I2=0%<50%, and P=0.75>0.01. The mortality rate of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group, with OR =0.48 and 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.70 (Z=3.84, P=0.0001). The heterogeneity test results of the occurrence of side effects were Chi2 =0.12, df =3, I2=0%<50%, P=0.99>0.01. The incidence of side effects in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group, with OR =0.74, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.17 (Z=1.29, P=0.20).
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that the combination of ATG with eltrombopag in the treatment of SAA is safer and more effective than ATG alone.
Topics: Anemia, Aplastic; Antilymphocyte Serum; Benzoates; Humans; Hydrazines; Prospective Studies; Pyrazoles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34107711
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1049 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Most 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Abatacept; Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antilymphocyte Serum; Basiliximab; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Cyclosporine; Graft Rejection; Graft Survival; Humans; Immunoconjugates; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Lymphoproliferative Disorders; Mycophenolic Acid; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Sirolimus; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 25416857
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010699.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is an established treatment for many malignant and non-malignant haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is an established treatment for many malignant and non-malignant haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a condition frequently occurring after an allogeneic SCT, is the result of host tissues being attacked by donor immune cells. It affects more than half of the patients after transplant either as acute and or chronic GVHD. One strategy for the prevention of GVHD is the administration of anti-thymocyte globulins (ATGs), a set of polyclonal antibodies directed against a variety of immune cell epitopes, leading to immunosuppression and immunomodulation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of ATG used for the prevention of GVHD in patients undergoing allogeneic SCT with regard to overall survival, incidence and severity of acute and chronic GVHD, incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality, graft failure and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, trial registers and conference proceedings on the 18th November 2022 along with reference checking and contacting study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of ATG on GVHD prophylaxis in adults suffering from haematological diseases and undergoing allogeneic SCT. The selection criteria were modified from the previous version of this review. Paediatric studies and studies where patients aged < 18 years constituted more than 20 % of the total number were excluded. Treatment arms had to differ only in the addition of ATG to the standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration for data collection, extraction and analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update we included seven new RCTs, leading to a total of ten studies investigating 1413 participants. All patients had a haematological condition which warranted an allogeneic SCT. The risk of bias was estimated as low for seven and unclear for three studies. ATG probably has little or no influence on overall survival (HR (hazard ratio) 0.93 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13, nine studies, n = 1249, moderate-certainty evidence)). Estimated absolute effect: 430 surviving people per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 456 people surviving per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 385 to 522 per 1000 people). ATG results in a reduction in acute GVHD II to IV with relative risk (RR) 0.68 (95 % CI 0.60 to 0.79, 10 studies, n = 1413, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 418 acute GVHD II to IV per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 285 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 251 to 331 per 1000 people). Addition of ATG results in a reduction of overall chronic GvHD with a RR of 0.53 (95 % CI 0.45 to 0.61, eight studies, n = 1273, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 506 chronic GVHD per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 268 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 228 to 369 per 1000 people). Further data on severe acute GVHD and extensive chronic GVHD are available in the manuscript. ATG probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse with a RR of 1.21 (95 % CI 0.99 to 1.49, eight studies, n =1315, moderate-certainty evidence). Non relapse mortality is probably slightly or not affected by ATG with an HR of 0.86 (95 % CI 0.67 to 1.11, nine studies, n=1370, moderate-certainty evidence). ATG prophylaxis may result in no increase in graft failure with a RR of 1.55 (95 % CI 0.54 to 4.44, eight studies, n = 1240, low-certainty evidence). Adverse events could not be analysed due to the serious heterogeneity in the reporting between the studies, which limited comparability (moderate-certainty evidence) and are reported in a descriptive manner. Subgroup analyses on ATG types, doses and donor type are available in the manuscript.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review suggests that the addition of ATG during allogeneic SCT probably has little or no influence on overall survival. ATG results in a reduction in the incidence and severity of acute and chronic GvHD. ATG intervention probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse and probably does not affect the non relapse mortality. Graft failure may not be affected by ATG prophylaxis. Analysis of data on adverse events was reported in a narrative manner. A limitation for the analysis was the imprecision in reporting between the studies thereby reducing the confidence in the certainty of evidence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Bone Marrow Transplantation; Antilymphocyte Serum; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome
PubMed: 37341189
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009159.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Prolonging kidney transplant survival is an important clinical priority. Induction immunosuppression with antibody therapy is recommended at transplantation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prolonging kidney transplant survival is an important clinical priority. Induction immunosuppression with antibody therapy is recommended at transplantation and non-depleting interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibodies (IL2Ra) are considered first line. It is suggested that recipients at high risk of rejection should receive lymphocyte-depleting antibodies but the relative benefits and harms of the available agents are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to: evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different antibody preparations (except IL2Ra) when used as induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients; determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each antibody preparation; determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody preparation; and determine whether the benefits and harms vary in specific subgroups of recipients (e.g. children and sensitised recipients).
SEARCH METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies with placebo, no treatment, or other antibody therapy in adults and children who had received a kidney transplant.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies with placebo, no treatment, or other antibody therapy in adults and children who had received a kidney transplant.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 99 studies (269 records; 8956 participants; 33 with contemporary agents). Methodology was incompletely reported in most studies leading to lower confidence in the treatment estimates.Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) prevented acute graft rejection (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78). The benefits of ATG on graft rejection were similar when used with (12 studies: RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76) or without (5 studies: RR 0.65, 0.43 to 0.98) calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) treatment. ATG (with CNI therapy) had uncertain effects on death (3 to 6 months, 3 studies: RR 0.41, 0.13 to 1.22; 1 to 2 years, 5 studies: RR 0.75, 0.27 to 2.06; 5 years, 2 studies: RR 0.94, 0.11 to 7.81) and graft loss (3 to 6 months, 4 studies: RR 0.60, 0.34 to 1.05; 1 to 2 years, 3 studies: RR 0.65, 0.36 to 1.19). The effect of ATG on death-censored graft loss was uncertain at 1 to 2 years and 5 years. In non-CNI studies, ATG had uncertain effects on death but reduced death-censored graft loss (6 studies: RR 0.55, 0.38 to 0.78). When CNI and older non-CNI studies were combined, a benefit was seen with ATG at 1 to 2 years for both all-cause graft loss (7 studies: RR 0.71, 0.53 to 0.95) and death-censored graft loss (8 studies: RR 0.55, 0.39 to 0.77) but not sustained longer term. ATG increased cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (6 studies: RR 1.55, 1.24 to 1.95), leucopenia (4 studies: RR 3.86, 2.79 to 5.34) and thrombocytopenia (4 studies: RR 2.41, 1.61 to 3.61) but had uncertain effects on delayed graft function, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), and new onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT).Alemtuzumab was compared to ATG in six studies (446 patients) with early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or steroid minimisation. Alemtuzumab plus steroid minimisation reduced acute rejection compared to ATG at one year (4 studies: RR 0.57, 0.35 to 0.93). In the two studies with ESW only in the alemtuzumab arm, the effect of alemtuzumab on acute rejection at 1 year was uncertain compared to ATG (RR 1.27, 0.50 to 3.19). Alemtuzumab had uncertain effects on death (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.06 to 2.42; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.95), graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.13 to 1.30; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.06), and death-censored graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.38, 0.08 to 1.81; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 2.45, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.97) compared to ATG. Creatinine clearance was lower with alemtuzumab plus ESW at 6 months (2 studies: MD -13.35 mL/min, -23.91 to -2.80) and 2 years (2 studies: MD -12.86 mL/min, -23.73 to -2.00) compared to ATG plus triple maintenance. Across all 6 studies, the effect of alemtuzumab versus ATG was uncertain on all-cause infection, CMV infection, BK virus infection, malignancy, and PTLD. The effect of alemtuzumab with steroid minimisation on NODAT was uncertain, compared to ATG with steroid maintenance.Alemtuzumab plus ESW compared with triple maintenance without induction therapy had uncertain effects on death and all-cause graft loss at 1 year, acute rejection at 6 months and 1 year. CMV infection was increased (2 studies: RR 2.28, 1.18 to 4.40). Treatment effects were uncertain for NODAT, thrombocytopenia, and malignancy or PTLD.Rituximab had uncertain effects on death, graft loss, acute rejection and all other adverse outcomes compared to placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ATG reduces acute rejection but has uncertain effects on death, graft survival, malignancy and NODAT, and increases CMV infection, thrombocytopenia and leucopenia. Given a 45% acute rejection risk without ATG induction, seven patients would need treatment to prevent one having rejection, while incurring an additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every 12 treated. Excluding non-CNI studies, the risk of rejection was 37% without induction with six patients needing treatment to prevent one having rejection.In the context of steroid minimisation, alemtuzumab prevents acute rejection at 1 year compared to ATG. Eleven patients would require treatment with alemtuzumab to prevent 1 having rejection, assuming a 21% rejection risk with ATG.Triple maintenance without induction therapy compared to alemtuzumab combined with ESW had similar rates of acute rejection but adverse effects including NODAT were poorly documented. Alemtuzumab plus steroid withdrawal would cause one additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every six patients treated compared to no induction and triple maintenance, in the absence of any clinical benefit. Overall, ATG and alemtuzumab decrease acute rejection at a cost of increased CMV disease while patient-centred outcomes (reduced death or lower toxicity) do not appear to be improved.
Topics: Acute Disease; Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antilymphocyte Serum; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Muromonab-CD3; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Interleukin-2; Steroids
PubMed: 28073178
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004759.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Registry data shows that the incidence of acute rejection has been steadily falling. Approximately 10% to 35% of kidney recipients will undergo treatment for at least... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Registry data shows that the incidence of acute rejection has been steadily falling. Approximately 10% to 35% of kidney recipients will undergo treatment for at least one episode of acute rejection within the first post-transplant year. Treatment options include pulsed steroid therapy, the use of an antibody preparation, the alteration of background immunosuppression, or combinations of these options. Over recent years, new treatment strategies have evolved, and in many parts of the world there has been an increase in use of tacrolimus and mycophenolate and a reduction in the use of cyclosporin and azathioprine use as baseline immunosuppression to prevent acute rejection. There are also global variations in use of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies to treat acute rejection. This is an update of a review published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to: (1) to evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different classes of antibody preparation in preventing graft loss and resolving cellular or humoral rejection episodes when used as a treatment for first episode of rejection in kidney transplant recipients; (2) evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different classes of antibody preparation in preventing graft loss and resolving cellular or humoral rejection episodes when used as a treatment for steroid-resistant rejection in kidney transplant recipients; (3) determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each type of antibody preparation; and (4) determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody within each type.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 18 April 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing all mono- and polyclonal antibody preparations, given in combination with any other immunosuppressive agents, for the treatment of cellular or humoral graft rejection, when compared to any other treatment for acute rejection were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 new studies (18 reports, 346 participants) in this update, bring the total number of included studies to 31 (76 reports, 1680 participants). Studies were generally small, incompletely reported, especially for potential harms, and did not define outcome measures adequately. The risk of bias was inadequate or unclear risk for random sequence generation (81%), allocation concealment (87%) and other bias (87%). There were, however, a predominance of low risk of bias for blinding (75%) and incomplete outcome data (80%) across all the studies. Selective reporting had a mixture of low (58%), high (29%), and unclear (13%) risk of bias.Seventeen studies (1005 participants) compared therapies for first acute cellular rejection episodes. Antibody therapy was probably better than steroid in reversing acute cellular rejection (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82; moderate certainty) and preventing subsequent rejection (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; moderate certainty), may be better for preventing graft loss (death censored: (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.12; low certainty) but there was little or no difference in death at one year. Adverse effects of treatment (including fever, chills and malaise following drug administration) were probably reduced with steroid therapy (RR 23.88, 95% CI 5.10 to 111.86; I = 16%; moderate certainty).Twelve studies (576 patients) investigated antibody treatment for steroid-resistant rejection. There was little or no benefit of muromonab-CD3 over ATG or ALG in reversing rejection, preventing subsequent rejection, or preventing graft loss or death. Two studies compared the use of rituximab for treatment of acute humoral rejection (58 patients). Muromonab-CD3 treated patients suffered three times more than those receiving either ATG or T10B9, from a syndrome of fever, chills and malaise following drug administration (RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.87 to 5.21; I = 31%), and experienced more neurological side effects (RR 13.10 95% CI 1.43 to 120.05; I = 36%) (low certainty evidence).There was no evidence of additional benefit from rituximab in terms of either reversal of rejection (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.64), or graft loss or death 12 months (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.35). Rituximab plus steroids probably increases the risk of urinary tract infection/pyelonephritis (RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.80 to 18.21).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In reversing first acute cellular rejection and preventing graft loss, any antibody is probably better than steroid, but there is little or no difference in subsequent rejection and patient survival. In reversing steroid-resistant rejection there was little or no difference between different antibodies over a period of 12 months, with limited data beyond that time frame. In treating acute humoral rejection, there was no evidence that the use of antibody therapy conferred additional benefit in terms of reversal of rejection, or death or graft loss.Although this is an updated review, the majority of newer included studies provide additional evidence from the cyclosporin/azathioprine era of kidney transplantation and therefore conclusions cannot necessarily be extrapolated to patients treated with more contemporary immunosuppressive regimens which include tacrolimus/mycophenolate or sirolimus. However, many kidney transplant centres around the world continue to use older immunosuppressive regimes and the findings of this review remain strongly relevant to their clinical practice.Larger studies with standardised reproducible outcome criteria are needed to investigate the outcomes and risks of antibody treatments for acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients receiving contemporary immunosuppressive regimes.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antibodies; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antilymphocyte Serum; Drug Resistance; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Muromonab-CD3; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rituximab
PubMed: 28731207
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004756.pub4 -
Medicine Jul 2017Alemtuzumab (ALEM) is widely used as an induction therapy for organ transplantation, and numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to evaluate its... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Alemtuzumab (ALEM) is widely used as an induction therapy for organ transplantation, and numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to evaluate its efficacy and safety in kidney transplantation as compared with antithymocyte globulin (ATG). The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits and safety of ALEM with those of ATG for induction therapy.A systematic literature search in three electronic databases, including PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library, since inception through October 2016, was conducted to identify potential RCTs for inclusion. Trials that investigated the risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), mortality, graft failure, delayed graft function (DGF), chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN), infections, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections, new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplant (NODAT), and granulocyte colony stimulation factor (GCSF) use in kidney transplant recipients who received ALEM or ATG as an induction therapy were included. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.Six RCTs involving 446 kidney transplantation patients were included in this meta-analysis. The effects of ALEM therapy were not significantly different from those of ATG therapy, including the incidence of BPAR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51-1.18; P = .229), mortality (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.30-1.39; P = .263), graft failure (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.49-1.33; P = .411), DGF (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.60-1.67; P = .999), CAN (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.44-4.57; P = .556), infections (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.74-1.35; P = .989), CMV infections (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.38-1.30; P = .263), NODAT (RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.18-1.36; P = .174), and GCSF use (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.81-1.66; P = .413). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the overall analysis for all effects except CAN, suggesting that the risk of CAN might be higher with ALEM therapy than ATG therapy (RR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.02-5.94; P = .046).The findings of this study suggest that the beneficial effects of ALEM therapy are greater than those of ATG therapy in kidney transplantation patients; however, the effects were not statistically significant because of the limited number of trials. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to verify the treatment effects of ALEM.
Topics: Alemtuzumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antilymphocyte Serum; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Kidney Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28700465
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007151 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Aug 2021With the increasing number of non-matched donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantations (HSCTs) has come increasing evidence regarding factors affecting graft outcomes.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
With the increasing number of non-matched donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantations (HSCTs) has come increasing evidence regarding factors affecting graft outcomes. One factor affecting graft outcomes currently being evaluated is anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSAs). In this, we analyzed the clinical relevance of anti-HLA DSAs in patients who have undergone HSCT at a population level by conducting a systematic review of existing literature. A comprehensive search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science from inception to January 1, 2021. A meta-analysis was performed of the association between anti-HLA DSAs and primary graft failure (PGF) with further subgroup analyses. The search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 920 eligible citations were identified, out of which 15 studies were included in the final meta-analyses after application of rigorous selection criteria and independent review. A total of 2436 patients were included in these 15 studies. Patients with anti-HLA DSAs prior to undergoing HSCT had a 7.47-fold increased risk of PGF failure compared with patients without anti-HLA DSAs (odds ratio, 7.47; 95% confidence interval, 4.54 to 12.28, P < .001; I= 28.91%, P = .1315). In subgroup and meta-regression analyses, area, Newcastle Ottawa Scale score, mean fluorescence intensity cutoff, primary disease, HSCT type, graft source, and pretransplantation desensitization did not affect the impact of anti-HLA DSAs on PGF. There also was no significant difference in impact between HLA class I and II on PGF. We conclude that the prior presence of anti-HLA DSAs has a negative impact on graft outcomes in recipients of haploidentical and umbilical cord blood HSCT.
Topics: Antibodies; Antilymphocyte Serum; HLA Antigens; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Tissue Donors
PubMed: 33989833
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2021.04.030