Belatacept-based regimens versus a cyclosporine A-based regimen in kidney transplant recipients: 2-year results from the BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT studies

Abstract

Background: At 1 year, belatacept was associated with similar patient/graft survival, better renal function, and an improved cardiovascular/metabolic risk profile versus cyclosporine A (CsA) in the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as Firstline Immunosuppression Trial (BENEFIT) and Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as Firstline Immunosuppression Trial-EXTended criteria donors (BENEFIT-EXT) studies. Acute rejection was more frequent with belatacept in BENEFIT. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD)--specifically central nervous system PTLD--was observed more frequently in belatacept-treated patients. This analysis assesses outcomes from BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT after 2 years of treatment.

Methods: Patients received a more intensive (MI) or a less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept or a CsA-based regimen.

Results: Four hundred ninety-three of 666 patients (74%) in BENEFIT and 347 of 543 (64%) in BENEFIT-EXT completed 2 years of treatment. The proportion of patients who survived with a functioning graft was similar across groups (BENEFIT: 94% MI, 95% LI, and 91% CsA; BENEFIT-EXT: 83% MI, 84% LI, and 83% CsA). Belatacept's renal benefits were sustained, as evidenced by a 16 to 17 mL/min (BENEFIT) and an 8 to 10 mL/min (BENEFIT-EXT) higher calculated glomerular filtration rate in the belatacept groups versus CsA. There were few new acute rejection episodes in either study between years 1 and 2. Because PTLD risk was highest in Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (-) patients, an efficacy analysis of EBV (+) patients was performed and was consistent with the overall population results. There were two previously reported cases of PTLD in each study between years 1 and 2 in the belatacept groups. The overall balance of safety and efficacy favored the LI over the MI regimen.

Conclusions: At 2 years, belatacept-based regimens sustained better renal function, similar patient/graft survival, and an improved cardiovascular/metabolic risk profile versus CsA; outcomes that were maintained in EBV (+) patients. No new safety signals emerged.