Search

ObjectivesLiving donor kidney transplantation is currently the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. The psychosocial evaluation of kidney donor candidates relies mostly on the clinical viewpoint of transplant professionals because evidence-based guidelines for psychosocial donor eligibility are currently lacking. However, the accuracy of these clinical risk judgements and the potential added value of a systematic self-reported screening procedure are as yet unknown. The current study examined the effectiveness of the psychosocial evaluation by transplant professionals and the potential value of donor self-report measures in optimising the donor evaluation. Based on the stress-vulnerability model, the predictive value of predonation, intradonation and postdonation factors to impaired longer term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of kidney donors was studied.DesignAn observational prospective multicentre study.SettingSeven Dutch transplantation centres.Participants588 potential donors participated, of whom 361 donated. Complete prospective data of 230 donors were available. Also, 1048 risk estimation questionnaires were completed by healthcare professionals.MethodsTransplant professionals (nephrologists, coordinating nurses, social workers and psychologists) filled in risk estimation questionnaires on kidney donor candidates. Furthermore, 230 kidney donors completed questionnaires (eg, on HRQoL) before and 6 and 12 months after donation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresHRQoL, demographic and preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative health characteristics, perceived support, donor cognitions, recipient functioning and professionals risk estimation questionnaires.ResultsOn top of other predictors, such as the transplant professionals’ risk assessments, donor self-report measures significantly predicted impaired longer term HRQoL after donation, particularly by poorer predonation physical (17%–28% explained variance) and psychological functioning (23%).ConclusionsThe current study endorses the effectiveness of the psychosocial donor evaluation by professionals and the additional value of donor self-report measures in optimising the psychosocial evaluation. Consequently, systematic screening of donors based on the most prominent risk factors provide ground for tailored interventions for donors at risk.

Background There is an unmet need for treatment options for generalised myasthenia gravis that are effective, targeted, well tolerated, and can be used in a broad population of patients. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of efgartigimod (ARGX-113), a human IgG1 antibody Fc fragment engineered to reduce pathogenic IgG autoantibody levels, in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis.Methods ADAPT was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centres in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. Patients aged at least 18 years with generalised myasthenia gravis were eligible to participate in the study, regardless of anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody status, if they had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (>50% non-ocular), and were on a stable dose of at least one treatment for generalised myasthenia gravis. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive response technology (1:1) to efgartigimod (10 mg/kg) or matching placebo, administered as four infusions per cycle (one infusion per week), repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle. Patients, investigators, and clinical site staff were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was proportion of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive patients who were MG-ADL responders (>= 2-point MG-ADL improvement sustained for >= 4 weeks) in the first treatment cycle. The primary analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population of all acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive patients who had a valid baseline MG-ADL assessment and at least one post-baseline MG-ADL assessment. The safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose or part dose of efgartigimod or placebo. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03669588); an open-label extension is ongoing (ADAPT+, NCT03770403).Findings Between Sept 5, 2018, and Nov 26, 2019, 167 patients (84 in the efgartigimod group and 83 in the placebo group) were enrolled, randomly assigned, and treated. 129 (77%) were acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive. Of these patients, more of those in the efgartigimod group were MG-ADL responders (44 [68%] of 65) in cycle 1 than in the placebo group (19 [30%] of 64), with an odds ratio of 4.95 (95% CI 2.21-11.53, p

ObjectiveTo investigate safety and explore efficacy of efgartigimod (ARGX-113), an anti-neonatal Fc receptor immunoglobulin G1 Fc fragment, in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) with a history of anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibodies, who were on stable standard-of-care myasthenia gravis (MG) treatment.MethodsA phase 2, exploratory, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 15-center study is described. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 4 doses over a 3-week period of either 10 mg/kg IV efgartigimod or matched placebo combined with their standard-of-care therapy. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included efficacy (change from baseline to week 11 of Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis, and Myasthenia Gravis Composite disease severity scores, and of the revised 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life scale), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity.ResultsOf the 35 screened patients, 24 were enrolled and randomized: 12 received efgartigimod and 12 placebo. Efgartigimod was well-tolerated in all patients, with no serious or severe adverse events reported, no relevant changes in vital signs or ECG findings observed, and no difference in adverse events between efgartigimod and placebo treatment. All patients treated with efgartigimod showed a rapid decrease in total immunoglobulin G (IgG) and anti-AChR autoantibody levels, and assessment using all 4 efficacy scales consistently demonstrated that 75% showed a rapid and long-lasting disease improvement.ConclusionsEfgartigimod was safe and well-tolerated. The correlation between reduction of levels of pathogenic IgG autoantibodies and disease improvement suggests that reducing pathogenic autoantibodies with efgartigimod may offer an innovative approach to treat MG.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that efgartigimod is safe and well-tolerated in patients with gMG.