Dataset Information

Rationale and design of the OPTIMIZE trial: OPen label multicenter randomized trial comparing standard IMmunosuppression with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil with a low exposure tacrolimus regimen In combination with everolimus in de novo renal transplantation in Elderly patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 2019, more than 30 % of all newly transplanted kidney transplant recipients in The Netherlands were above 65 years of age. Elderly patients are less prone to rejection, and death censored graft loss is less frequent compared to younger recipients. Elderly recipients do have increased rates of malignancy and infection-related mortality. Poor kidney transplant function in elderly recipients may be related to both pre-existing (i.e. donor-derived) kidney damage and increased susceptibility to nephrotoxicity of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) in kidneys from older donors. Hence, it is pivotal to shift the focus from prevention of rejection to preservation of graft function and prevention of over-immunosuppression in the elderly. The OPTIMIZE study will test the hypothesis that reduced CNI exposure in combination with everolimus will lead to better kidney transplant function, a reduced incidence of complications and improved health-related quality of life for kidney transplant recipients aged 65 years and older, compared to standard immunosuppression.

Methods

This open label, randomized, multicenter clinical trial will include 374 elderly kidney transplant recipients (≥ 65 years) and consists of two strata. Stratum A includes elderly recipients of a kidney from an elderly deceased donor and stratum B includes elderly recipients of a kidney from a living donor or from a deceased donor < 65 years. In each stratum, subjects will be randomized to a standard, tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen with mycophenolate mofetil and glucocorticoids or an adapted immunosuppressive regimen with reduced CNI exposure in combination with everolimus and glucocorticoids. The primary endpoint is 'successful transplantation', defined as survival with a functioning graft and an eGFR ≥ 30 ml/min per 1.73 m² in stratum A and ≥ 45 ml/min per 1.73 m² in stratum B, after 2 years, respectively.

Conclusions

The OPTIMIZE study will help to determine the optimal immunosuppressive regimen after kidney transplantation for elderly patients and the cost-effectiveness of this regimen. It will also provide deeper insight into immunosenescence and both subjective and objective outcomes after kidney transplantation in elderly recipients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03797196 , registered January 9th, 2019. EudraCT: 2018-003194-10, registered March 19th, 2019.

SUBMITTER: de Boer SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8172178 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe 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 findingsATHENA, 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. Between-group donor and recipient characteristics, donor/recipient mismatches, and follow-up CsA blood levels were similar. During a median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow-up 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.ConclusionsIn 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494741; EUDRACT 2006-005604-14.