BioDrugs

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 271–279

Meta-Analysis of Basiliximab for Immunoprophylaxis in Renal Transplantation

  • Paul A. Keown
  • Robert Balshaw
  • Shideh Khorasheh
  • Mei Chong
  • Carlo Marra
  • Zoltan Kalo
  • Alex Korn
Original Research Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Basiliximab is a high-affinity chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against the α-chain of the interleukin (IL)-2 receptor. Individual studies have shown that it is highly effective in preventing acute rejection and causes no measurable incremental toxicity. However, incorporation of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis into routine practice depends upon the demonstration of benefit across treatment regimens and quantitation of the treatment effect.

Methods

This study employed a meta-analysis to examine the clinical benefit of basiliximab. Parameter estimates were derived from four randomised prospective double-blind studies conducted in 93 renal transplant centres in 18 countries. A total of 1185 adult primary allograft recipients were randomised within the centres to receive either basiliximab 20mg intravenously on days 0 and 4 or placebo, in addition to double or triple immunosuppression consisting of cyclosporin-microemulsion (Neoral®1), corticosteroids, and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil. Key clinical events included patient and graft survival, graft rejection and complications. Analysis was performed using a variable model; odds ratios and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) to benefit or to harm one patient were calculated for each principal outcome at 6 or 12 months post-transplant.

Results

Basiliximab reduced the relative risk (RR) and absolute risk (AR) of clinical and biopsy-proven acute graft rejection across all treatment regimens. The overall RR of clinical acute graft rejection was decreased by 35% in patients receiving basiliximab. AR was reduced by 15.6% (pooled incidence: 28.8% vs 44.4%, p < 0.0001), and the NNT for efficacy was six. The reduction in RR of biopsy-proven rejection was similar (32%) with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 11.7% (pooled incidence: 25.1% vs 36.8%, p < 0.0001) and NNT of nine over 6 months. There was a concomitant reduction in the risk of graft loss which did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.14). The RR of graft loss was reduced by 26% with an AR reduction of 2.3% (pooled incidence: 6.4% vs 8.7%) and an NNT of 42 over 6 months. The risk of death was unchanged.

Conclusions

Immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab produces a significant reduction in the RR and AR of clinical and biopsy-proven acute graft rejection with a trend towards a concomitant reduction in the risk of graft loss. The magnitude of protection provided by basiliximab, the fact that it is observed across treatment regimens and the safety of this therapy are arguments for its routine use in renal transplantation.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Organ Replacement Registry. Dialysis and renal transplantation (1981-1996): 1998 Report, Vol. 1. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 1998Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1725–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N, et al. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 235–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dew MA, Switzer GE, Goycoolea JM, et al. Does transplantation produce quality of life benefits? A quantitative analysis of the literature. Transplantation 1997; 64: 1261–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evans RW, Kitzmann DJ. An economic analysis of renal transplantation. Surg Clin North Am 1998; 78: 149–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, et al. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 605–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canadian Organ Replacement Registry. Organ donation and transplantation (1981-1996): 1998 Report, Vol. 2. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 1988Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feld LG, Stablein D, Fivush B, et al. Renal transplantation in children from 1987–1996: the 1996 Annual Report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study. Pediatr Transplant 1997; 1: 146–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keown PA. New immunosuppressive strategies. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1998; 7: 659–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keown P, Niese D. Cyclosporine microemulsion increases drug exposure and reduces acute rejection without incremental toxicity in de novo renal transplantation: International Sandimmun Neoral Study Group. Kidney Int 1998; 54: 938–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halloran P, Mathew T, Tomlanovich S, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: a pooled efficacy analysis of three randomized, double-blind, clinical studies in prevention of rejection: The International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplant Study Groups. Transplantation 1997; 63: 39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rush DN, Karpinski ME, Nickerson P, et al. Does subclinical rejection contribute to chronic rejection in renal transplant patients? Clin Transplant 1999; 13: 441–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ishikawa A, Flechner SM, Goldfarb DA, et al. Quantitative assessment of the first acute rejection as a predictor of renal transplant outcome. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1318–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Humar A, Kerr S, Gillingham KJ, et al. Features of acute rejection that increase risk for chronic rejection. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1200–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Onrust SV, Wiseman LR. Basiliximab. Drags 1999; 57: 207–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kovarik JM, Rawlings E, Sweny P, et al. Pharmacokinetics and immunodynamics of chimeric IL-2 receptor monoclonal antibody SDZ CHI 621 in renal allograft recipients. Transpl Int 1996; 9Suppl. 1: S32–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovarik J, Wolf P, Cisterne JM, et al. Disposition of basiliximab, an interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in recipients of mismatched cadaver renal allografts. Transplantation 1997; 64: 1701–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kovarik JM, Moore R, Wolf P, et al. Screening for basiliximab exposure-response relationships in renal allotransplantation. Clin Transplant 1999; 13: 32–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nashan B, Moore R, Amlot P, et al. Randomised trial of basiliximab versus placebo for control of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients: CHIB 201 International Study Group. Lancet 1997; 350: 1193–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahan BD, Rajagopalan PR, Hall M. Reduction of the occurrence of acute cellular rejection among renal allograft recipients treated with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2-receptor monoclonal antibody: United States Simulect® Renal Study Group. Transplantation 1999; 67: 276–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Baladi J-F. A comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 6: 182–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baladi J-F, Menon D, Otten N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: 2 years’ experience in Canada. Health Econ 1998; 7: 221–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Andersson F. Why is the pharmaceutical industry investing increasing amounts in health economic evaluations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11: 750–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16: 62–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ponticelli C, Yussim A, Cambi V, et al. Basiliximab significantly reduces acute rejection in renal transplant patients given triple therapy with azathioprine. Transplant Proc 2001; 33: 1009–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ponticelli C, Yussim A, Cambi V, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial of basiliximab immunoprophylaxis plus triple therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2001; 72: 1261–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lawen JG, Davies EA, Mourad G, et al. Randomized double-blind study of immunoprophylaxis with basiliximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody, in combination with mycophenolate mofetil-containing triple therapy in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003; 75: 37–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schulzer M, Mancini GB. ’Unqualified success’ and ‘’unmitigated failure’: number-needed-to-treat-related concepts for assessing treatment efficacy in the presence of treatment-induced adverse effects. Int J Epidemiol 1996; 25: 704–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norman DJ, Kahana L, Stuart FP, et al. A randomized clinical trial of induction therapy with OKT3 in kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1993; 55: 44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sollinger H, Kaplan B, Pescovitz MD, et al. Basiliximab versus antithymocyte globulin for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 2001; 72: 1915–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacDonald AS, RAPAMUNE Global Study Group. A worldwide phase III randomized, controlled, safety and efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary mismatched renal allografts. Transplantation 2001; 71: 271–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The RAPAMUNE US Study Group. Efficacy of sirolimus compared with azathioprine for reduction of acute renal allograft rejection: a randomized multicentre study. Lancet 2000; 356: 194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keown PA, Balshaw R, Krueger H, et al. Economic analysis of basiliximab in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 71: 1573–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parsons DS, Harris DC. A review of quality of life in chronic renal failure. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12: 140–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Painter PL, Luetkemeier MJ, Moore GE, et al. Health-related fitness and quality of life in organ transplant recipients. Transplantation 1997; 64: 1795–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 238–44PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul A. Keown
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert Balshaw
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shideh Khorasheh
    • 2
  • Mei Chong
    • 2
  • Carlo Marra
    • 1
  • Zoltan Kalo
    • 4
  • Alex Korn
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Syreon CorporationVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsSimon Fraser UniversityVancouverCanada
  4. 4.Novartis Pharma AGBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.Immunology LaboratoryVancouver General HospitalVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations