Search

In an open-label, 24-month trial, 721 de novo heart transplant recipients were randomized to everolimus 1.5 mg or 3.0 mg with reduced-dose cyclosporine, or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 3 g/day with standard-dose cyclosporine (plus corticosteroids ± induction). Primary efficacy endpoint was the 12-month composite incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, acute rejection associated with hemodynamic compromise, graft loss/retransplant, death or loss to follow-up. Everolimus 1.5 mg was noninferior to MMF for this endpoint at month 12 (35.1% vs. 33.6%; difference 1.5% [97.5% CI: -7.5%, 10.6%]) and month 24. Mortality to month 3 was higher with everolimus 1.5 mg versus MMF in patients receiving rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induction, mainly due to infection, but 24-month mortality was similar (everolimus 1.5 mg 10.6% [30/282], MMF 9.2% [25/271]). Everolimus 3.0 mg was terminated prematurely due to higher mortality. The mean (SD) 12-month increase in maximal intimal thickness was 0.03 (0.05) mm with everolimus 1.5 mg versus 0.07 (0.11) mm with MMF (p < 0.001). Everolimus 1.5 mg was inferior to MMF for renal function but comparable in patients achieving predefined reduced cyclosporine trough concentrations. Nonfatal serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus 1.5 mg versus MMF. Everolimus 1.5 mg with reduced-dose cyclosporine offers similar efficacy to MMF with standard-dose cyclosporine and reduces intimal proliferation at 12 months in de novo heart transplant recipients.

The most advantageous combination of immunosuppressive agents for cardiac transplant recipients has not yet been established. Between November 2001 and June 2003, 343 de novo cardiac transplant recipients were randomized to receive steroids and either tacrolimus (TAC) + sirolimus (SRL), TAC + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclosporine (CYA) + MMF. Antilymphocyte induction therapy was allowed for up to 5 days. The primary endpoint of ≥3A rejection or hemodynamic compromise rejection requiring treatment showed no significant difference at 6 months (TAC/MMF 22.4%, TAC/SRL 24.3%, CYA/MMF 31.6%, p = 0.271) and 1 year (p = 0.056), but it was significantly lower in the TAC/MMF group when compared only to the CYA/MMF group at 1 year (23.4% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.029). Differences in the incidence of any treated rejection were significant (TAC/SRL = 35%, TAC/MMF = 42%, CYA/MMF = 59%; p < 0.001), as were median levels of serum creatinine (TAC/SRL = 1.5 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 1.3 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 1.5 mg/dL; p = 0.032) and triglycerides (TAC/SRL = 162 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 126 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 154 mg/dL; p = 0.028). The TAC/SRL group encountered fewer viral infections but more fungal infections and impaired wound healing. These secondary endpoints suggest that the TAC/MMF combination appears to offer more advantages than TAC/SRL or CYA/MMF in cardiac transplant patients, including fewer ≥3A rejections or hemodynamic compromise rejections and an improved side-effect profile.