Mycophenolate mofetil, with cyclosporine and prednisone, reduces early rejection while allowing the use of less antilymphocytic agent induction and cyclosporine in renal recipients with delayed graft function.

Antilymphocytic agent induction (ALAI), with antithymocyte globulin or monoclonal antibody, is generally used in renal transplantation (TX) to spare renal allografts with poor initial function from the toxic effects of cyclosporine (CsA) and/or to augment immunosuppression (IS) in the patient at a high risk for early rejection. ALAI, unfortunately, increases the cost of TX and the risk to the patient, having been associated with many adverse side effects. An IS protocol, which results in a low incidence of early rejection while using less CsA and ALAI, is a worthwhile goal. We compare our experience with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), CsA, and prednisone (MMFCP; n = 62) to our azathioprine (AZA), CsA, and prednisone (AZACP; n = 50) triple-drug IS, with and without ALAI. The patient characteristics for age, race, first TX, cadaveric donor, pediatric recipient, and dialysis in the first post-op week (DGF) were not different for the MMFCP versus AZACP groups. There were more females in the MMFCP group (51.6% versus 30.0%, p = 0.022). We report that rejection-free survival at 6 months (RF6) was better in the MMFCP versus AZACP group (83.9% versus 60.0%, p = 0.005). Less ALAI and CsA were used in the MMFCP patients. At 1 year, actuarial graft survival was 91.9% in the MMFCP group and 81.9% in the AZACP group (p = 0.116). Actuarial 1-year patient survivals were not different in the two patient groups. In the sub-population of patients with DGF, the RF6 in the MMFCP (n = 13) group was 92.3% versus 57.1% in the AZACP (n = 14) group (p = 0.041). The reduction in early rejection episodes in the patients on MMFCP with DGF was accomplished while using half as much ALAI and lower CsA doses and levels. The African-American recipient sub-population on MMFCP also demonstrated an improvement in RF6 while using less ALAI and CsA (78.6% versus 48.0%, p = 0.022). We conclude that the use of MMF-based triple-drug IS results in fewer rejection episodes while allowing for lower CsA levels and less ALAI, even in patients with delayed graft function.

A randomized trial of sevelamer hydrochloride (RenaGel) with and without supplemental calcium. Strategies for the control of hyperphosphatemia and hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously shown sevelamer hydrochloride (RenaGel) to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of RenaGel alone and RenaGel with calcium, using the serum phosphorus concentration and intact parathyroid hormone (PTH) as the principal outcomes of interest. Calcium (900 mg elemental) was provided as a once-nightly dose on an empty stomach. 71 patients were randomized and included in the intent-to-treat population; 55 completed the 16-week study period (2 weeks washout, 12 weeks treatment, 2 weeks washout). 49% of subjects were taking vitamin D metabolites. RESULTS: Serum phosphorus and PTH rose significantly when patients stopped their phosphate binders during both washout periods. RenaGel and RenaGel with calcium were equally effective at reducing serum phosphorus (mean change -2.4 mg/dL vs. -2.3 mg/dL). RenaGel with calcium was associated with a small increase in serum calcium (mean change 0.3 mg/dL vs. 0.0 mg/dL in RenaGel group, P = 0.09) that was not statistically significant. During the treatment phase, the reduction in PTH tended to be greater in the RenaGel with calcium group (median change -67.0 vs. -22.5 pg/mL in RenaGel group, P = 0.07). Non-users of vitamin D metabolites treated with RenaGel with calcium experienced a significant decrease in PTH (median change -114.5 vs. -22 pg/mL in RenaGel group, P = 0.006). Adverse events were seen with equal frequency in both groups, being generally mild in intensity, and rarely attributable to the drugs. CONCLUSION: We conclude that RenaGel and RenaGel with calcium are similarly effective in the treatment of ESRD-related hyperphosphatemia. Provision of supplemental calcium or metabolites of vitamin D with RenaGel may enhance control of hyperparathyroidism.

Effect of RenaGel, a non-absorbed, calcium- and aluminium-free phosphate binder, on serum phosphorus, calcium, and intact parathyroid hormone in end-stage renal disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Control of dietary phosphate absorption in end-stage renal disease patients is essential to prevent the deleterious sequelae of phosphorus retention. Efficacy of currently available calcium- and aluminium-containing phosphate binders is constrained by the side-effects associated with the absorption of calcium and aluminium. The current study examined the efficacy of RenaGel, a calcium- and aluminium-free, polymeric phosphate binder, in end-stage renal disease patients. METHODS: Administration of calcium- or aluminium-containing phosphate binders ceased during a 2-week washout period. RenaGel, at starting doses of one, two, or three 500-mg capsules three times per day with meals, was administered for 8 weeks. RenaGel dose was titrated up 1 capsule per meal at the end of each 2-week period if necessary to achieve phosphorus control. A second 2-week washout period followed the end of RenaGel treatment. RESULTS: Mean serum phosphorus rose from a pre-washout level of 6.9 mg/dl (2.23 mmol/l) to 8.1 mg/dl (2.62 mmol/l) at the end of the initial 2-week washout. With RenaGel treatment, serum phosphorus declined and returned to pre-washout levels after 4 weeks. Serum phosphorus reached a nadir of 6.5 mg/dl (2.10 mmol/l) after 7 weeks of RenaGel treatment. Serum phosphorus rose to 8.2 mg/dl (2.65 mmol/l) 2 weeks after cessation of RenaGel treatment. As anticipated, calcium declined during the initial washout period when calcium-based phosphate binders were stopped for the majority of patients. The rise in serum phosphorus and decline in serum calcium during washout resulted in an increase in median intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) levels from 292 pg/ml to 395 pg/ml. iPTH fell to 283 pg/ml after 6 weeks of RenaGel treatment despite a persistently lower serum calcium. RenaGel treatment also reduced serum total and LDL cholesterol by 25 mg/dl (0.65 mmol/l) and 23 mg/dl (0.59 mmol/l) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RenaGel appears to be an effective phosphate binder free of calcium and aluminium. Phosphorus control with two to four RenaGel capsules per meal appears to result in comparable phosphorus lowering seen with calcium- or aluminium-based phosphate binders. RenaGel may offer an alternative for the control of phosphorus retention in end-stage renal disease patients.

Safety and tolerability of cyclosporine microemulsion versus cyclosporine: two-year data in primary renal allograft recipients: a report of the Neoral Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The new microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine (CsA-ME) is more bioavailable than cyclosporine (CsA) in de novo renal transplant patients. Therefore, it was of interest to compare the safety profile of each formulation in such patients. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 101 renal transplant recipients were randomized after transplantation to receive either CsA (n=50) or CsA-ME (n=51) capsules twice daily for 2 years. Of these patients, 54 (CsA, n=26; CsA-ME, n=28) completed 1 year of the study and entered the second-year, double-blind extension. Initial dose at the time of transplantation was 5 mg/kg b.i.d.; doses were titrated to target trough levels. METHODS: The mean (+/- SD) doses at the end of 2 years were 4.6 +/- 1.8 and 3.8 +/- 1.1 mg/kg per day for CsA- and CsA-ME-treated patients, respectively. The mean (+/- SD) CsA trough levels at end point were 187 +/- 63 and 210 +/- 95 ng/ml for CsA- and CsA-ME-treated patients, respectively. At least one adverse event was reported by 25/26 (96%) of CsA- and 27/28 (96%) of CsA-ME-treated patients. No patient discontinued the study because of adverse events. No deaths occurred during the study. Renal function, as measured by serum creatinine levels, and blood pressure were comparable over time in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in safety and tolerability between CsA- and CsA-ME-treated kidney recipients for 2 years after transplantation.

Assessing the clinical need for short-term conversion from oral to parenteral angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in hypertensive patients. A quinapril to quinaprilat placebo-controlled model.

UNLABELLED: RATIONALE AND STUDY DESIGN: This study assesses safety and efficacy when hypertensive patients convert from an oral angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, quinapril, to its intravenous counterpart, quinaprilat, and evaluates the need for short-term conversion from oral to parenteral therapy. Blood pressure was measured by clinical measurements using a sphygmomanometer and by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. During a placebo-baseline phase, patients blood pressure had to increase within 3 days in the absence of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. Responding patients were stabilized on oral quinapril and then randomized to 3 days of double-blind treatment with one 5 ml or 10 ml injection twice daily of quinaprilat or placebo. RESULTS: Overall response to quinaprilat in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and clinic blood pressure measurements was not statistically or clinically different from the response to oral quinapril therapy during baseline. Withdrawal from quinapril resulted in clinically significant increases in all blood pressure measurements compared with baseline therapy; the differences between placebo and quinaprilat therapy were statistically and clinically significant. Two patients treated with quinaprilat withdrew due to hypotension; one patient required a dosage reduction. Parenteral quinaprilat safely maintained blood pressure control whereas placebo control did not during the 72-h interruption of quinapril.

Poly[allylamine hydrochloride] (RenaGel): a noncalcemic phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic renal failure.

Dietary phosphate restriction and the oral administration of calcium and aluminum salts have been the principal means of controlling hyperphosphatemia in individuals with end-stage renal disease over the past decade. Although relatively well-tolerated, a large fraction of patients treated with calcium develop hypercalcemia, particularly when administered concurrently with calcitriol, despite a lowering of the dialysate calcium concentration. We evaluated the efficacy of cross-linked poly[allylamine hydrochloride] (RenaGel; Geltex Pharmaceuticals, Waltham, MA), a nonabsorbable calcium- and aluminum-free phosphate binder, in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of 36 maintenance hemodialysis patients followed over an 8-week period. RenaGel was found to be as effective as calcium carbonate or acetate as a phosphate binder. The reduction in serum phosphorus was significantly greater after 2 weeks of treatment with RenaGel (6.6 +/- 2.1 mg/dL to 5.4 +/- 1.5 mg/dL) compared with placebo (7.0 +/- 2.1 mg/dL to 7.2 +/- 2.4 mg/dL; P = 0.037). There was no significant change in serum calcium concentration in either treatment group. The total serum cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol fraction were significantly reduced in RenaGel-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients (P = 0.013 and P = 0.003, respectively) without a concomitant reduction in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P = 0.93). There was no difference among recipients of RenaGel and placebo in terms of adverse events. RenaGel is a safe and effective alternative to oral calcium for the management of hyperphosphatemia in end-stage renal disease.

The pharmacokinetics of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in primary renal allograft recipients. The Neoral Study Group.

This study was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week comparison of the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of two cyclosporine (CsA) formulations, cyclosporine emulsion capsules and oral solution for microemulsion and cyclosporine, in the postoperative management of renal transplant patients. Of the 101 patients, aged 18 to 65, who entered the study, 89 were evaluable for pharmacokinetics. Initial dosage was 10 mg/kg per day, administered twice daily in two equal doses. Dosages were adjusted to achieve target CsA concentrations. The pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters (dose-normalized) of greatest interest were maximum blood concentration (C(max)/dose), time to reach maximum concentration (t(max), area under the blood concentration-vs.-time curve (AUC/dose), and trough blood concentrations (Co h/dose). The relative CsA bioavailabilty was found to be significantly enhanced with cyclosporine emulsion compared with cyclosporine with a 16% to 31% increase in AUC and a 32% to 42% increase in C(max). Intrapatient variability of PK parameters was significantly lower with cyclosporine emulsion than with cyclosporine for AUC, C(oh), t(max), and C(max) in many instances. This indicates a more consistent, rapid, and more complete total absorption of CsA. Despite higher CsA C(max) levels and AUCs with cyclosporine emulsion, safety and tolerability (detailed in a parallel report) were comparable to those of cyclosporine. The PK advantages of cyclosporine emulsion over cyclosporine are either independent of food conditions or possibly reflective of more consistent absorption of CsA with cyclosporine emulsion. The findings suggest that de novo use of cyclosporine emulsion may simplify and improve management of organ transplant recipients and that the PK advantages of cyclosporine emulsion may translate into clinical benefits.

The safety and tolerability of cyclosporine emulsion versus cyclosporine in a randomized, double-blind comparison in primary renal allograft recipients. The Neoral Study Group.

A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter pharmacokinetics study was conducted to compare the clinical safety and tolerability of cyclosporine capsules and oral solution for microemulsion and cyclosporine in 101 primary renal transplant recipients Cyclosporine emulsion has more complete absorption and improved bioavailability compared with cyclosporine, and dosing of both cyclosporine formulations was adjusted to achieve comparable whole-blood trough levels. Mean serum creatinine values were higher in the cyclosporine emulsion group at baseline, 8, and 12 weeks (P<0.05). The incidence of acute rejection was similar in both treatment groups although fewer patients required monoclonal antibody therapy in the cyclosporine group (31% vs. 82%, respectively). Despite the increased bioavailability of cyclosporine emulsion, no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed; the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of cyclosporine emulsion and cyclosporine were comparable.

Reduced inter- and intrasubject variability in cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients treated with a microemulsion formulation in conjunction with fasting, low-fat meals, or high-fat meals.

This cross-over study compared the pharmacokinetic parameters obtained from cyclosporine (CsA) concentration-time profiles after administration of the corn oil-based soft gel cap (CsA-GC) with those with the microemulsion (CsA-ME) gel cap. Neither the fasting state nor the coadministration of a low- or high-fat breakfast affected the pharmacokinetics of CsA presented in either formulation. Comparisons of the three sets of pharmacokinetic parameters--namely, after fasting or after low-fat or after high-fat diets--demonstrated the CsA-ME formulation to display greater intraindividual reproducibility of the C0 and C12 trough levels (TLs), Cmax, tmax, and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) than the CsA-GC formulation. Although the degree of interindividual variation in AUC, Cmax and tmax after CsA-ME administration was slightly, but significantly, less than after CsA-GC administration, there was no difference between the two formulations in terms of the customarily monitored C0 or C12 TL values. CsA-ME showed higher correlation coefficients of drug exposure (AUC) with C12 than CsA-GC (0.910 versus 0.712). However, CsA-ME administration resulted in only modest improvement over CsA-GC administration in the relationships between drug dose and C0, C12, or AUC--namely, 0.645 versus 0.496, 0.611 versus 0.517, and 0.700 versus 0.501, respectively. Correlation analysis between individual timed samples and AUC determinations revealed that CsA-ME requires significantly less frequent blood monitoring for prediction of total drug exposure than does CsA-GC. Although the clinical utility of this reproducible pharmacokinetic behavior remains to be demonstrated in the de novo transplant setting, the markedly reduced intraindividual variation produced by administration of CsA-ME will likely improve the accuracy of pretransplant prediction of, and reduce the frequency of subsequent adjustments in, CsA doses.

Amlodipine versus atenolol in essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of amlodipine (2.5-10 mg) once daily was compared with atenolol (50-100 mg) once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. A total of 125 patients were randomly allocated at the end of a 4-week run-in placebo period to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The placebo group had small mean changes in supine and standing blood pressure compared with baseline. The mean blood pressure changes from baseline 24 hours postdose in the amlodipine group (mean daily dose 8.8 mg) were -12.8/-10.1 mm Hg for supine blood pressure and -11.5/-9.8 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (p < 0.001 compared with placebo), and for the atenolol group (mean daily dose 83.7 mg) the changes were -11.3/-11.7 mm Hg for supine blood pressure and -13.3/-12.3 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (p < 0.001 compared with placebo). There were no statistically significant blood pressure differences between active treatments. The responder rates for amlodipine, atenolol, and placebo were 61.1, 64.9, and 11.1%, respectively. The blood pressure values taken over the 24-hour period at final visit revealed that amlodipine and atenolol maintained the supine blood pressure < or = 140/90 mm Hg throughout the period of observation; the corresponding time-effect curve for the placebo group was clearly in the hypertensive range. Both amlodipine and atenolol were well tolerated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in patients with essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of amlodipine (2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg) once daily was compared with atenolol (50 mg to 100 mg) once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. One hundred and twenty-five patients were randomly allocated at the end of a 4-week run-in placebo period to 8 weeks' double-blind treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The mean changes from baseline in blood pressure 24 h postdose for amlodipine (mean daily dose 8.8 mg) were -12.8/-10.1 mm Hg for supine and -11.5/-9.8 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (P < .001). For atenolol (mean daily dose 83.7 mg) the changes were -11.3/-11.7 mm Hg for supine and -13.3/-12.3 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between treatments. The responder rates for amlodipine, atenolol, and placebo were 61.1%, 64.9%, and 11.1%, respectively. Determinations taken over the 24-h period at the final visit revealed that amlodipine and atenolol maintained the group mean supine blood pressure at or below 140/90 mm Hg throughout the period of observation; the corresponding time-effect curve for the placebo group was clearly in the hypertensive range. Heart rate was significantly lowered by atenolol only. Both amlodipine and atenolol were well-tolerated. Only one patient was withdrawn because of the development of peripheral edema, arthralgia, and fatigue after treatment with amlodipine. This study demonstrates that once-daily administration of amlodipine or atenolol to mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients was well-tolerated and provided adequate blood pressure control throughout the 24-h dosing interval.

Once-daily fosinopril in the treatment of hypertension.

This multicenter, dose-ranging study evaluated the antihypertensive effectiveness of once-daily administration of fosinopril sodium in 220 patients with supine diastolic blood pressure of 95-115 mm Hg. After a 4-week placebo period, patients were randomly assigned to double-blind therapy with either placebo or 10, 40, or 80 mg fosinopril once daily for 4 weeks. If treatment goals were not met, chlorthalidone 25 mg/day was added for weeks 5 to 8. Thereafter, patients could enter the long-term, open-label phase and receive 10-80 mg/day fosinopril plus chlorthalidone, if needed. After 4 weeks of monotherapy, the average decreases in supine diastolic blood pressure were 9% (10 mg), 11.5% (40 mg), and 12.5% (80 mg) compared with 6% in the placebo group. After 8 weeks, the average decreases, with or without diuretic therapy, were 12.5-18.2%, compared with 10.8% with placebo. Blood pressure continued to be well controlled, and the patients showed no evidence of tachyphylaxis or tolerance through 12-15 months of treatment. Fosinopril was well tolerated. During the short-term phase, no patient withdrew because of adverse events possibly related to fosinopril; during the long-term phase, nine of 148 patients (6.1%) withdrew for that reason. In patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, once-daily fosinopril (40 and 80 mg) provided significant antihypertensive effects with or without diuretic therapy. The 10 mg dose was effective in some patients and may be considered a starting dose.

Effect of doxazosin monotherapy on blood pressure and plasma lipids in patients with essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of doxazosin (DOX) for the treatment of hypertension was investigated. A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel design was employed. A 4-week placebo runin period was followed by a 9-week double-blind period during which patients were randomly assigned to placebo or 2, 4, or 8 mg doxazosin. Blood pressures (BP) and heart rates (HR) were measured 24 hours postdose. The mean changes in standing BP (mmHg) were -6.2/-6.9 (2-mg regimen), -5.7/-5.8 (4-mg regimen), -8.5/-7.7 (8-mg regimen) for DOX patients and 0.7/-2.9 for placebo patients. The mean changes in supine BP (mmHg) were -3.2/-4.7 (2-mg regimen), -4.0/-5.1 (4-mg regimen), -4.6/-5.6 (8-mg regimen) for DOX patients and -0.5/-3.3 for placebo patients. There was no evidence of a dose-response relationship for DOX; however, DOX serum levels were linearly related to the dose. Responder rate for the combined DOX patients was 38% (32/84) and for the placebo patients 27% (8/30). HR (24 hours postdose) was not modified by DOX. Patients in the 8-mg regimen had a significantly higher gain in mean body weight (+ 1.3 +/- 0.3 kg; P less than 0.05) compared to the 2-mg regimen, 4-mg regimen, and placebo groups. Plasma norepinephrine was not significantly modified by DOX. DOX had a favorable effect on plasma lipids. DOX lowered LDL cholesterol (P less than 0.05), total cholesterol, and apoprotein B and increased HDL/(LDL + VLDL) ratio (0.05 less than or equal to P less than 0.1) compared to placebo. Dropout rate and treatment-related side effects were equally distributed among the DOX and placebo groups. No patients had the dose of medication reduced because of side effects. Three DOX patients were withdrawn because of postural dizziness.

A randomized placebo-controlled comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in mild to moderate systemic hypertension.

Amlodipine, a new long-acting dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, was compared with placebo and atenolol in 125 patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension [supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90-114 mm Hg]. Patients received placebo for 4 weeks, followed by a random allocation to an 8-week double-blind, once-daily treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The changes in 24-h post-dose blood pressure (BP) from baseline to final visit for amlodipine (mean daily dose 8.8 mg, range 5-10 mg) were -12.8 +/- 2.0/ -10.1 +/- 1.2 mm Hg in supine BP and -11.5 +/- 2.3/-9.8 +/- 1.1 mm Hg in standing BP (p less than 0.001); for atenolol (mean daily dose 83.7 mg, range 50-100 mg), the changes from baseline were -11.3 +/- 2.3/-11.7 +/- 1.3 mm Hg in supine BP and -13.3 +/- 3.1/-12.3 +/- 1.5 mm Hg in standing BP (p less than 0.001); for placebo, the changes from baseline were -0.9 +/- 2.8/-3.5 +/- 0.9 mm Hg in supine BP and -1.6 +/- -2.6/-4.0 +/- 1.0 mm Hg in standing BP. In the study, goal response was defined as a supine DBP of less than 90 mm Hg or its decrease by greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg. The response rates were similar for atenolol (65%) and amlodipine (61%). Both active therapies were significantly more effective than placebo. Heart rate was significantly lowered by atenolol only.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)