Skip Navigation

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2006 21(Supplement 3):iii9-iii13; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl295
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eisen, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eisen, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Long-term cardiovascular risk in transplantation—insights from the use of everolimus in heart transplantation

Howard Eisen

Cardiology Division, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Howard Eisen, Cardiology Division, Drexel University College of Medicine, 245 N. 15th Street MS #1012, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA. Email: heisen{at}drexelmed.edu

Everolimus is a potent immunosuppressive agent that has anti-proliferative activity. The benefits of everolimus vs azathioprine in de novo heart transplant recipients were assessed in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients (n = 634) were randomized to receive everolimus (1.5 mg/day or 3.0 mg/day) or azathioprine; all patients received steroids and full-dose ciclosporin (CsA). The primary endpoint was the incidence of efficacy failure [biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death or loss to follow-up]. The incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) was assessed by intravascular ultrasound. The incidence and hospitalization costs of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were assessed after 4 years. The incidence of efficacy failure was significantly reduced with everolimus compared with azathioprine at 12, 24 and 48 months (P < 0.05), largely because of a lower incidence of BPAR. An increase in serum creatinine levels was seen with everolimus compared with azathioprine, likely attributed to CsA nephrotoxicity. There was a significantly larger increase in vascular intimal thickness with azathioprine than with everolimus (P ≤ 0.01), which was accompanied by a significantly lower incidence of CAV in the everolimus groups. After 4 years, the incidence of MACE was higher with azathioprine than with either dose of everolimus. MACE-related treatment costs were estimated at $431 428 for azathioprine, $136 664 for everolimus 1.5 mg/day (68% saving) and $191 957 for everolimus 3.0 mg/day (56% saving). Everolimus is significantly more effective than azathioprine in preventing efficacy failure in de novo heart transplant recipients and is also associated with reduced incidence and severity of CAV and MACE at 4 years post-transplant. The reduced 4-year incidence of MACE is likely to lead to substantially reduced hospitalization costs. Since cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are important factors in the long-term survival of renal transplant recipients, applying lessons from the use of everolimus in heart transplantation may further improve the understanding of managing cardiovascular risk in renal transplantation.

Keywords: azathioprine; cardiac allograft vasculopathy; everolimus; heart transplantation; MACE; renal transplantation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
D. Schmauss and M. Weis
Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy: Recent Developments
Circulation, April 22, 2008; 117(16): 2131 - 2141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.