Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Resumen estructurado de revisiones sistemáticas 4 Resúmenes estructurados de revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Este artículo incluye 5 Estudios primarios 4 Estudios primarios (5 referencias)
Estudio primario
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Revisión sistemática Revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Estudio primario
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Revisión sistemática Revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Resumen estructurado de revisiones sistemáticas 6 Resúmenes estructurados de revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Este artículo incluye 6 Estudios primarios 6 Estudios primarios (6 referencias)
Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of basiliximab versus antithymocyte globulin (ATG) for induction therapy in kidney transplantation. Methods: A literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CBMdisc, and Cochrane databases was used to identify randomized controlled trials that compared basiliximab and ATG for induction therapy in kidney transplantation. Inclusion criteria comprised: prospective randomized controlled clinical trials, follow-up time ≥12 months, randomized comparisons of ATG versus basiliximab as induction therapy in kidney transplantation. Meta-analytical techniques were applied to identify differences in outcomes between the two agents. Results: A total of six studies involving 853 patients were identified. No differences between ATG and basiliximab were seen in terms of biopsy-proven rejection (relative risk [RR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.52, P = .31), delayed graft function (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69-1.51, P = .93), graft loss (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.73-1.80, P = .55), and patient death (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.65-2.30, P = .54). But basiliximab had a lower incidence of infection (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97, P = .02) and neoplasm (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.97, P = .04). Conclusions: Basiliximab is as effective as ATG for induction therapy in kidney transplantation, whereas basiliximab has a lower incidence of infection. Basiliximab may be a safer and preferable option for induction therapy in kidney transplantation. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Este artículo incluye 6 Estudios primarios 6 Estudios primarios (6 referencias)
Revisión sistemática
No clasificado
Estudio primario
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Revisión sistemática Revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Este artículo no tiene resumen
Resumen estructurado de revisiones sistemáticas
No clasificado
Este artículo incluye 1 Revisión sistemática Revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Este artículo no tiene resumen
Estudio primario
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Revisión sistemática Revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
Este artículo no tiene resumen
Estudio primario
No clasificado
Este artículo está incluido en 1 Revisión sistemática Revisiones sistemáticas (1 referencia)
The immunosuppressant basiliximab--a chimeric monoclonal antibody specific to the interleukin-2 receptor on activated T-lymphocytes--significantly reduces the incidence of acute cellular rejection following renal transplantation. Screening for exposure-response relationships was performed within a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled efficacy trial in which patients received 40 mg basiliximab (20 mg on days 0 and 4) by intravenous infusion in addition to cyclosporine and corticosteroids. In a subset of patients, serum samples were collected pre-transplant and once in weeks 2, 3 and 4 for determination of basiliximab concentrations. A population pharmacostatistical model was used to derive individual empirical Bayes estimates of each patient's pharmacokinetic parameters. Biopsy-confirmed acute rejection episodes were recorded to month 6 post-transplant. Forty basiliximab-treated patients were evaluated, 30 men and 10 women, aged 48 +/- 12 yr (range, 24-73) and weighing 72.4 +/- 12.9 kg (range, 52.5-107.5). The basiliximab distribution volume was 7.5 +/- 1.7 L, the half-life 7.5 +/- 2.5 d and the clearance 33 +/- 12 mL/h. There was no clinically relevant influence of weight, age, or gender on basiliximab disposition. Receptor-saturating serum basiliximab concentrations (> 0.2 microgram/mL) were maintained for 41 +/- 23 d. Twenty-five patients remained rejection-free over the 6-month observation period, while a total of 26 biopsy-confirmed acute rejection episodes occurred in the remaining 14 patients. Of these episodes, 12 occurred during receptor blockade. No apparent relationship to basiliximab concentration on the day of onset was observed range, 0.1-9.0 microgram/mL) nor did the time of suppression offset represent a period of increased risk for rejection episodes. Fourteen rejection episodes occurred after basiliximab had cleared from the serum. The durations of receptor suppression preceding these events did not differ compared with those in patients who remained rejection-free: 32 +/- 11 versus 45 +/- 26 d, respectively (p = 0.1269). Given the durations of receptor saturation achieved with the chosen basiliximab regimen, this screen for exposure-response relationships did not identify the duration of receptor saturation in peripheral blood as a predictive factor for acute rejection episodes. Further exploration for exposure-effect relationships in a larger population is warranted.