-
Health Technology Assessment... Aug 2016End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.
OBJECTIVES
To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (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), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation.
METHODS
Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.
RESULTS
Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY.
LIMITATIONS
For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled.
FUTURE WORK
High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome.
CONCLUSION
Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Abatacept; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antilymphocyte Serum; Basiliximab; Bayes Theorem; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Everolimus; Graft Rejection; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Models, Economic; Mycophenolic Acid; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Sirolimus; Tacrolimus; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 27578428
DOI: 10.3310/hta20620 -
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 -
Biology of Blood and Marrow... Dec 2017Since 2000, various phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the efficacy of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) in patients following allogeneic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Since 2000, various phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the efficacy of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) in patients following allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Comparisons of different ATG formulations are lacking, however. Our aim was to synthesize all published efficacy evidence to enable a comparison of all available formulations of rabbit ATG in the allo-SCT setting. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all available phase III RCT evidence. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and the website www.ClinicalTrials.gov. In addition, a trial presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology 2016 was added to include the most recent evidence. We identified a total of 6 RCTs, including 2 formulations: anti-T lymphocyte globulin (ATLG; Grafalon, Neovii Biotech, Lexington, MA) and polyclonal globulin immunized with human thymocytes (Thymoglobulin [Thymo]; Genzyme-Sanofi, Cambridge, MA). The evidence was synthesized using a conventional network meta-analysis (NMA). The best treatment for preventing graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was ATLG, which had a more favorable hazard ratio (HR) compared with standard treatment (chronic GVHD: HR, .42; 95% confidence interval [CI], .31 to .56; acute GVHD grade II-IV: HR, .54; 95% CI, .39 to .73; acute GVHD grade III-IV: HR, .50; 95% CI, .29 to .86), whereas both ATLG and Thymo were at least similarly effective in terms of transplantation-related mortality (TRM) (ATLG: HR, .90; 95% CI, .61 to 1.32; Thymo: HR, .90; 95% CI, .56 to 1.44). Thymo tended to be the better treatment option regarding overall survival (OS) (HR, .86; 95% CI, .59 to 1.26). Our NMA provides the first report of the relative efficacy of all available rabbit ATG formulations in patients undergoing allo-SCT. Until additional data from randomized head-to-head comparisons are available, based on the present analysis, ATLG seems to be the best option to prevent chronic and acute GVHD. Both formulations show similar efficacy in terms of TRM, whereas Thymo appears to be the better treatment option in terms of OS.
Topics: Animals; Antilymphocyte Serum; Graft vs Host Disease; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Rabbits; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stem Cell Transplantation; Survival Rate; Transplantation, Homologous
PubMed: 28864138
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.08.027 -
Haematologica Jan 2020Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is one therapy option for treatment of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, the use of several different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is one therapy option for treatment of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, the use of several different immunosuppressive regimens, the lack of high-quality studies, and the absence of validated predictive biomarkers pose important challenges. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and searched MEDLINE PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, COCHRANE registry of clinical trials (CENTRAL), and the Web of Science without language restriction from inception through September 2018, as well as relevant conference proceedings and abstracts, for prospective cohort studies or clinical trials investigating IST in MDS. Fixed and Random-effects models were used to pool response rates. We identified nine prospective cohort studies and 13 clinical trials with a total of 570 patients. Overall response rate was 42.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 36.1-49.2%] including a complete remission rate of 12.5% (95%CI: 9.3-16.6%) and red blood cell transfusion independence rate of 33.4% (95% CI: 25.1-42.9%). The most commonly used forms of IST were anti-thymocyte globulin alone or in combination with cyclosporin A with a trend towards higher response rates with combination therapy. Progression rate to acute myeloid leukemia was 8.6% per patient year (95%CI: 3.3-13.9%). Overall survival and adverse events were only inconsistently reported. We were unable to validate any biomarkers predictive of a therapeutic response to IST. IST for treatment of lower-risk MDS patients can be successful to alleviate transfusion burden and associated sequelae.
Topics: Antilymphocyte Serum; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Immunosuppressive Agents; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 31004015
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2019.219345 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2020Thymoglobulin (THG) and antithymocyte globulin-Fresenius (ATG-F) have not been compared directly as induction therapies in kidney transplantation. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Thymoglobulin (THG) and antithymocyte globulin-Fresenius (ATG-F) have not been compared directly as induction therapies in kidney transplantation. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare THG with ATG-F by pooling direct and indirect evidence. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were used to compare the superiority of one method over the other. A total of 27 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. Efficacy endpoints, as well as safety indicators, were statistically comparable. For efficacy endpoints, THG seemed inferior to ATG-F in preventing delayed graft function [odds ratio (OR): 1.27; SUCRA: 78% vs. 58%], patient deaths (OR: 2.78; SUCRA: 83% vs. 34%), and graft loss (OR: 1.40; SUCRA: 83% vs. 59%), but superior to ATG-F in biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR; OR: 0.59; SUCRA: 78% vs. 39%) and steroid-resistant BPAR prevention (OR: 0.61; SUCRA: 76% vs. 49%) within the first year. For safety endpoints, THG was associated with higher risk of infection (OR: 1.49, SUCRA: 79% vs. 54%), cytomegalovirus infection (OR: 1.04; SUCRA: 40% vs. 37%), diabetes (OR: 1.10; SUCRA: 90% vs. 30%), and malignancy (OR: 8.40; SUCRA: 89% vs. 6%) compared to ATG-F. A subgroup analysis of patients at high risk for immunologic complications revealed similar results, but THG performed better for graft loss (OR: 0.82; SUCRA: 68% vs. 54%). ATG-F seemed to be more effective than THG in improving the short-term kidney transplantation outcomes. Prospective head-to-head comparison of THG and ATG-F with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up is still required.
Topics: Antilymphocyte Serum; Bayes Theorem; Delayed Graft Function; Graft Rejection; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32318057
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00457