Title |
Long‐term outcomes of thoracic transplant recipients following conversion to everolimus with reduced calcineurin inhibitor in a multicenter, open‐label, randomized trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Transplant International, May 2016
|
DOI | 10.1111/tri.12783 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lars Gullestad, Hans Eiskjaer, Finn Gustafsson, Gerdt C Riise, Kristjan Karason, Göran Dellgren, Göran Rådegran, Lennart Hansson, Einar Gude, Øystein Bjørtuft, Kjell Jansson, Hans Henrik Schultz, Dag Solbu, Martin Iversen |
Abstract |
The NOCTET study randomized 282 patients ≥1 year after heart or lung transplantation to continue conventional calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy or to start everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI. Last follow-up, at ≥5 years post-randomization (mean 5.6 years) was attended by 72/140 everolimus patients (51.4%) and 91/142 controls (64.1%). Mean measured GFR remained stable in the everolimus group from randomization (51.3mL/min) to last visit (51.4mL/min) but decreased in controls (from 50.5mL/min to 45.3mL/min), and was significantly higher with everolimus at last follow-up (p=0.004). The least squares mean (SE) change from randomization was -1.5 (1.7)mL/min with everolimus versus -7.2 (1.7)mL/min for controls (difference 5.7 [95% CI 1.7; 9.6]mL/min; p=0.006). The difference was accounted for by heart transplant patients (difference 6.9 [95% 2.3; 11.5]mL/min; p=0.004). Lung transplant patients showed no between-group difference at last follow-up. Rates of rejection, death and major cardiac events were similar between groups, as was graft function. Pneumonia was more frequent with everolimus (18.3% versus 6.4%). In conclusion, introducing everolimus in maintenance heart transplant patients, with reduced CNI, achieves a significant improvement in renal function which is maintained for at least five years, but an early renal benefit in lung transplant patients was lost. Long-term immunosuppressive efficacy was maintained. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 9% |
Canada | 1 | 9% |
Norway | 1 | 9% |
Unknown | 8 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 36% |
Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
Researcher | 7 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
Other | 6 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
Other | 10 | 15% |
Unknown | 23 | 35% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 42% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Unknown | 26 | 39% |