Pediatric Lung Transplant Outcomes Based on Immunosuppressive Regimen at Discharge: Retrospective Cohort Study Using Real-World Evidence From the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective analysis of the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was undertaken to obtain real-world evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus-based immunosuppression in pediatric lung transplant recipients to support a supplemental New Drug Application. METHODS: Overall, 725 pediatric recipients of a primary deceased-donor lung transplant between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2017, were followed for up to 3 years post-transplant based on an immunosuppressive regimen at hospital discharge: immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC)+mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), TAC+azathioprine (AZA), cyclosporine (CsA)+MMF, or CsA+AZA. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of graft failure or death (all-cause) at 1 year post-transplant, calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: The use of TAC+MMF increased over time. During 2010 to 2017, 91.7% of pediatric lung transplant recipients were receiving TAC+MMF at the time of discharge. The proportion of recipients continuing their discharge regimen at 1 year post-transplant was 83.7% with TAC+MMF and 40.4% to 59.7% with the other regimens. Cumulative incidence of the composite endpoint of graft failure or death at 1 year post-transplant was 7.7% with TAC+MMF, 13.9% with TAC+AZA, 8.9% with CsA+MMF, and 9.1% with CsA+AZA. There was no significant difference in the risk of graft failure or death at 1 year post-transplant between groups from 1999 to 2005 (the only era when adequate numbers on each regimen allowed statistical comparison). No increase in hospitalization for infection or malignancy was seen with TAC+MMF. CONCLUSION: The real-world evidence from the US database of transplant recipients supported the Food and Drug Administration's approval of tacrolimus-based maintenance immunosuppression in pediatric lung transplant recipients.

Muscarinic-3-receptor positive allosteric modulator ASP8302 in patients with underactive bladder. A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate safety and efficacy of ASP8302, a novel positive allosteric modulator for the muscarinic M3 receptor (M3-PAM), in patients with underactive bladder (UAB). METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study was performed in adult male/female subjects with UAB, defined as incomplete bladder emptying (postvoid residual volume [PVR] > 100 ml) without significant bladder outlet obstruction and/or overactive bladder. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive 4-week oral once-daily administration of 100 mg ASP8302 or matching placebo. Primary endpoint was a change from baseline in PVR measured by catheterization after standardized bladder filling (PVRC2 ). Other endpoints included PVR and bladder voiding efficiency (BVE) measured in various ways, uroflowmetry, bladder diary, and questionnaires. Pressure-flow studies were performed in a subgroup. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients were randomized (ASP8302 group: 65 patients, placebo group: 70 patients). The median change in PVRC2 was -40.0 ml (ASP8302) versus -35.0 ml (placebo) and the difference between groups was -5.0 ml (p = 0.960). In males, functional and symptomatic outcomes improved, for example, maximum urine flow rate (Qmax ) and detrusor pressure at Qmax (Pdet.Qmax ) increased (mean difference in change ASP8302 vs. placebo: 3.8 ml/s, p = 0.031 and 12.7 cm H2 O, p = 0.034, respectively). Urinary incontinence episodes/24 h decreased in males with preexisting incontinence (mean difference: -0.35; p = 0.028). The incidence of adverse events was similar between study groups (ASP8302: 33.3%, placebo: 31.4%). In the included subjects, both baseline urine flow and bladder voiding pressure was low. Compared with PVR, simultaneous BVE measurements were more consistent between various methods (spontaneous vs. standardized bladder filling, catheterization vs. ultrasound [US]). CONCLUSIONS: ASP8302 was safe and well tolerated in patients with UAB identified by nonurodynamic clinical criteria, but it did not show efficacy in the primary endpoint. However, in males it showed improvement of symptoms and functional parameters. BVE (using US) is a more optimal outcome measure than PVR in UAB.

Lung Transplant Outcomes in Adults in the United States: Retrospective Cohort Study Using Real-world Evidence from the SRTR.

BACKGROUND: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was retrospectively analyzed to provide real-world evidence of the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimens in adult lung transplant recipients in the United States. METHODS: Adult recipients (N = 25 355; ≥18 y) of a primary deceased-donor lung transplant between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2017, were followed for 3 y posttransplant based on immunosuppressive regimen at discharge: immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), TAC + azathioprine (AZA), cyclosporine (CsA) + MMF, or CsA + AZA. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of graft failure or death (all-cause) at 1 y posttransplant (calculated via a modified Kaplan-Meier method). RESULTS: Discharge immunosuppressive regimens in lung transplant recipients changed over time, with a substantial increase in the use of TAC + MMF. TAC + MMF was the most common immunosuppressive regimen (received by 61.0% of individuals at discharge). The cumulative incidence of graft failure or death at 1 y posttransplant in adult lung transplant patients receiving TAC + MMF was 8.6% (95% confidence interval 8.1-9.1). Risk of graft failure or death was significantly higher in adults receiving CsA + MMF or CsA + AZA compared with TAC + MMF, with no significant difference seen between TAC + MMF and TAC + AZA. TAC + MMF had the highest continued use at 1 y posttransplant (72.0% versus 35.4%-51.5% for the other regimens). There was no increase in the rate of infection or malignancy in the TAC + MMF group. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence from the most comprehensive database of transplant recipients in the United States supports the use of TAC in combination with MMF or AZA as maintenance immunosuppression in adult lung transplant recipients.

Long-term follow-up of a phase III clinical trial comparing tacrolimus extended-release/MMF, tacrolimus/MMF, and cyclosporine/MMF in de novo kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III, open-label, comparative, noninferiority study, 638 subjects receiving de novo kidney transplants were randomized to one of three treatment arms: tacrolimus extended-release (Astagraf XL) qd, tacrolimus (Prograf) bid, or cyclosporine (CsA) bid. All subjects received basiliximab induction, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids. Safety and efficacy follow-up data through 4 years are reported. METHODS: Evaluations included patient and graft survival, study drug discontinuations, laboratory values including renal function and development of new-onset diabetes after transplantation, concomitant medications, and adverse events. RESULTS: At study termination, 129 Astagraf XL, 113 Prograf, and 79 CsA patients had continued follow-up. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar in all arms. Four-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient survival in the Astagraf XL, Prograf, and CsA groups were 93.2, 91.2, and 91.7%, respectively, while graft survival was 84.7, 82.7, and 83.9%, respectively. At least one serious adverse event was reported in the majority of patients in each group during the study (65.9% Astagraf XL, 69.8% Prograf, and 65.6% CsA). Renal function was not significantly different between Astagraf XL and Prograf. HgbA1c levels were collected every 6 months; the 4-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for incidence of HgbA1c levels ≥ 6.5% was significantly higher for both tacrolimus formulations compared to CsA; 41.1% (Astagraf XL), 33.6% (Prograf), and 21.3% (CsA). CONCLUSIONS: In this 4-year follow-up report, patients receiving Astagraf XL and Prograf showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles, with a higher incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplantation but superior renal function compared to patients receiving CsA.

New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT): an evaluation of definitions in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) occurs commonly. Prior NODAT definitions have been inconsistent. Based on the American Diabetic Association criteria, we propose a new approach to defining NODAT. METHODS: Analysis of 1416 at-risk transplant recipients was performed. Data from three de novo Astellas registration transplant studies (two kidney and one liver) evaluated NODAT in 634 at-risk patients receiving tacrolimus, 630 at-risk patients receiving tacrolimus extended release, and 152 at-risk patients receiving cyclosporine. NODAT was defined as a composite endpoint consisting of first occurrence of one of four parameters: (i) two fasting plasma glucose levels ≥ 126 mg/dL (≥ 7.0 mmol/L) ≥ 30 days apart, (ii) oral hypoglycemic agent use for ≥ 30 consecutive days, (iii) insulin therapy for ≥ 30 consecutive days, and (iv) hemoglobin A1c ≥ 6.5%. We evaluated each of the above parameters, as well as the composite endpoint, in an attempt to establish an appropriate clinical approach to the diagnosis of NODAT. RESULTS: The composite definition results in a 1-year NODAT incidence of 30% to 37% in kidney and 44% to 45% in liver transplant recipients treated with tacrolimus. NODAT incidence was significantly higher with tacrolimus than cyclosporine; there was no difference between the two tacrolimus formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these analyses, the proposed composite definition for NODAT, incorporating broader criteria, is recommended for clinical trials. Appropriate definitions of NODAT allow for a better understanding of the incidence of this complication and may result in earlier initiation of therapy with improved long-term outcomes.

Alemtuzumab induction in renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There are few comparisons of antibody induction therapy allowing early glucocorticoid withdrawal in renal-transplant recipients. The purpose of the present study was to compare induction therapy involving alemtuzumab with the most commonly used induction regimens in patient populations at either high immunologic risk or low immunologic risk. METHODS: In this prospective study, we randomly assigned patients to receive alemtuzumab or conventional induction therapy (basiliximab or rabbit antithymocyte globulin). Patients were stratified according to acute rejection risk, with a high risk defined by a repeat transplant, a peak or current value of panel-reactive antibodies of 20% or more, or black race. The 139 high-risk patients received alemtuzumab (one dose of 30 mg, in 70 patients) or rabbit antithymocyte globulin (a total of 6 mg per kilogram of body weight given over 4 days, in 69 patients). The 335 low-risk patients received alemtuzumab (one dose of 30 mg, in 164 patients) or basiliximab (a total of 40 mg over 4 days, in 171 patients). All patients received tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil and underwent a 5-day glucocorticoid taper in a regimen of early steroid withdrawal. The primary end point was biopsy-confirmed acute rejection at 6 months and 12 months. Patients were followed for 3 years for safety and efficacy end points. RESULTS: The rate of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection was significantly lower in the alemtuzumab group than in the conventional-therapy group at both 6 months (3% vs. 15%, P<0.001) and 12 months (5% vs. 17%, P<0.001). At 3 years, the rate of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection in low-risk patients was lower with alemtuzumab than with basiliximab (10% vs. 22%, P=0.003), but among high-risk patients, no significant difference was seen between alemtuzumab and rabbit antithymocyte globulin (18% vs. 15%, P=0.63). Adverse-event rates were similar among all four treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: By the first year after transplantation, biopsy-confirmed acute rejection was less frequent with alemtuzumab than with conventional therapy. The apparent superiority of alemtuzumab with respect to early biopsy-confirmed acute rejection was restricted to patients at low risk for transplant rejection; among high-risk patients, alemtuzumab and rabbit antithymocyte globulin had similar efficacy. (Funded by Astellas Pharma Global Development; INTAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00113269.).

Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus following topical application of tacrolimus ointment in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus after topical application in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis from all clinical trials in which tacrolimus blood levels were obtained. METHODS: Tacrolimus ointment 0.03% or 0.1% was applied twice daily. In the adult and pediatric pharmacokinetic studies, serial blood samples were obtained after single and repeated topical application. During the 12 clinical efficacy trials of tacrolimus ointment, single blood samples were obtained at various times relative to tacrolimus ointment application. RESULTS: In the pharmacokinetic studies, 89% to 95% of tacrolimus whole blood concentration samples were less than 1 ng/mL; mean maximum concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 1.6 ng/mL and mean area under the blood concentration-time curves (0-12 hours) ranged from 1.4 to 13.1 ng x hr/mL. Likewise, in the clinical efficacy trials, the majority (85%-99%) of tacrolimus concentration samples were less than 1 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus ointment is associated with minimal systemic absorption and no evidence of systemic accumulation in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and extensive disease.