TY - JOUR
T1 - Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in kidney transplant recipients on steroid-free, low-dose cyclosporine immunosuppression (ATHENA)
T2 - A pragmatic randomized trial
AU - Ruggenenti, Piero
AU - Cravedi, Paolo
AU - Gotti, Eliana
AU - Plati, Annarita
AU - Marasà, Maddalena
AU - Sandrini, Silvio
AU - Bossini, Nicola
AU - Citterio, Franco
AU - Minetti, Enrico
AU - Montanaro, Domenico
AU - Sabadini, Ettore
AU - Tardanico, Regina
AU - Martinetti, Davide
AU - Gaspari, Flavio
AU - Villa, Alessandro
AU - Perna, Annalisa
AU - Peraro, Francesco
AU - Remuzzi, Giuseppe
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright: © 2021 Ruggenenti et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - BackgroundAU : Pleaseconfirmthatallheadinglevelsarerepresentedcorrectly: We compared protection of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) against acute cellular rejection (ACR) and chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) in kidney transplant recipients on steroid-free, low-dose cyclosporine (CsA) microemulsion maintenance immunosuppression. Methods and findings ATHENA, a pragmatic, prospective, multicenter trial conducted by 6 Italian transplant centers, compared the outcomes of 233 consenting recipients of a first deceased donor kidney transplant induced with low-dose thymoglobulin and basiliximab and randomized to MMF (750 mg twice/day, n = 119) or AZA (75 to 125 mg/day, n = 114) added-on maintenance low-dose CsA microemulsion and 1-week steroid. In patients without acute clinical or subclinical rejections, CsA dose was progressively halved. Primary endpoint was biopsy-proven CAN. Analysis was by intention to treat. Participants were included between June 2007 and July 2012 and followed up to August 2016. BetweenAU -group: PleaseconfirmthattheeditstothesentenceBetween donor and recipient characteristics, donor/recipient groupdonorandrecipientcharacterist mismatches, and follow-up CsA blood levels were similar. During a median (interquartile range (IQR)) followup of 47.7 (44.2 to 48.9) months, 29 of 87 biopsied patients on MMF (33.3%) versus 31 of 88 on AZA (35.2%) developed CAN (hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.147 (0.691 to 1.904, p = 0.595). Twenty and 21 patients on MMF versus 34 and 14 on AZA had clinical [HR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.34 to 1.02); p = 0.057) or biopsy-proven subclinical [HR (95% CI): 1.49 (0.76 to 2.92); p = 0.249] ACR, respectively. Combined events [HR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.56 to 1.29); p = 0.438], patient and graft survival, delayed graft function (DGF), 3-year glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [53.8 (40.6;65.7) versus 49.8 (36.8;62.5) mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.50], and adverse events (AEs) were not significantly different between groups. Chronicity scores other than CAN predict long-term graft outcome. Study limitations include small sample size and unblinded design. Conclusions In this study, we found that in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients on low-dose CsA and no steroids, MMF had no significant benefits over AZA. This finding suggests that AZA, due to its lower costs, could safely replace MMF in combination with minimized immunosuppression.AU : Anabbreviationlisthasbeencompiledforthoseusedthroughoutthearticle:Pleasev Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494741; EUDRACT 2006-005604-14.
AB - BackgroundAU : Pleaseconfirmthatallheadinglevelsarerepresentedcorrectly: We compared protection of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) against acute cellular rejection (ACR) and chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) in kidney transplant recipients on steroid-free, low-dose cyclosporine (CsA) microemulsion maintenance immunosuppression. Methods and findings ATHENA, a pragmatic, prospective, multicenter trial conducted by 6 Italian transplant centers, compared the outcomes of 233 consenting recipients of a first deceased donor kidney transplant induced with low-dose thymoglobulin and basiliximab and randomized to MMF (750 mg twice/day, n = 119) or AZA (75 to 125 mg/day, n = 114) added-on maintenance low-dose CsA microemulsion and 1-week steroid. In patients without acute clinical or subclinical rejections, CsA dose was progressively halved. Primary endpoint was biopsy-proven CAN. Analysis was by intention to treat. Participants were included between June 2007 and July 2012 and followed up to August 2016. BetweenAU -group: PleaseconfirmthattheeditstothesentenceBetween donor and recipient characteristics, donor/recipient groupdonorandrecipientcharacterist mismatches, and follow-up CsA blood levels were similar. During a median (interquartile range (IQR)) followup of 47.7 (44.2 to 48.9) months, 29 of 87 biopsied patients on MMF (33.3%) versus 31 of 88 on AZA (35.2%) developed CAN (hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.147 (0.691 to 1.904, p = 0.595). Twenty and 21 patients on MMF versus 34 and 14 on AZA had clinical [HR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.34 to 1.02); p = 0.057) or biopsy-proven subclinical [HR (95% CI): 1.49 (0.76 to 2.92); p = 0.249] ACR, respectively. Combined events [HR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.56 to 1.29); p = 0.438], patient and graft survival, delayed graft function (DGF), 3-year glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [53.8 (40.6;65.7) versus 49.8 (36.8;62.5) mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.50], and adverse events (AEs) were not significantly different between groups. Chronicity scores other than CAN predict long-term graft outcome. Study limitations include small sample size and unblinded design. Conclusions In this study, we found that in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients on low-dose CsA and no steroids, MMF had no significant benefits over AZA. This finding suggests that AZA, due to its lower costs, could safely replace MMF in combination with minimized immunosuppression.AU : Anabbreviationlisthasbeencompiledforthoseusedthroughoutthearticle:Pleasev Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494741; EUDRACT 2006-005604-14.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108902688&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003668
DO - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003668
M3 - Article
C2 - 34166370
AN - SCOPUS:85108902688
SN - 1549-1277
VL - 18
JO - PLoS Medicine
JF - PLoS Medicine
IS - 6
M1 - e1003668
ER -