iferation, as well as the formation of lymphokines (such as interleukins-2, -3, and γ-interferon) and the expression of the interleukin-2 receptor.
Results from clinical trials performed with once-daily tacrolimus Advagraf
Liver transplantation
The efficacy and safety of Advagraf and Prograf, both in combination with corticosteroids, was compared in 471 de novo liver transplant recipients. The event rate of biopsy confirmed acute rejection within the first 24 weeks after transplantation was 32.6% in the Advagraf group (N=237) and 29.3% in the Prograf group (N=234). The treatment difference (Advagraf – Prograf) was 3.3% (95% confidence interval [-5.7%, 12.3%]).The 12-month patient survival rates were 89.2% for Advagraf and 90.8% for Prograf; in the Advagraf arm 25 patients died (14 female, 11 male) and in the Prograf arm 24 patients died (5 female, 19 male). 12-month graft survival was 85.3% for Advagraf and 85.6% for Prograf.
Kidney transplantation
The efficacy and safety of Advagraf and Prograf, both in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and corticosteroids, was compared in 667 de novo kidney transplant recipients. The event rate for biopsy-confirmed acute rejection within the first 24 weeks after transplantation was 18.6% in the Advagraf group (N=331) and 14.9% in the Prograf group (N=336). The treatment difference (Advagraf-Prograf) was 3.8% (95% confidence interval [-2.1%, 9.6%]). The 12-month patient survival rates were 96.9% for Advagraf and 97.5% for Prograf; in the Advagraf arm 10 patients died (3 female, 7 male) and in the Prograf arm 8 patients died (3 female, 5 male). 12-month graft survival was 91.5% for Advagraf and 92.8% for Prograf.
The efficacy and safety of Prograf, ciclosporin and Advagraf, all in combination with basiliximab antibody induction, MMF and corticosteroids, was compared in 638 de novo kidney transplant recipients. The incidence of efficacy failure at 12 months (defined as death, graft loss, biopsy-confirmed acute rejection, or lost to follow-up) was 14.0% in the Advagraf group (N=214), 15.1% in the Prograf group (N=212) and 17.0% in the ciclosporin group (N=212). The treatment difference was -3.0% (Advagraf-ciclosporin) (95.2% confidence interval [-9.9%, 4.0%]) for Advagraf vs. ciclosporin and -1.9% (Prograf-ciclosporin) (95.2% confidence interval [-8.9%, 5.2%]) for Prograf vs. ciclosporin. The 12-month patient survival rates were 98.6% for Advagraf, 95.7% for Prograf and 97.6% for ciclosporin; in the Advagraf arm 3 patients died (all male), in the Prograf arm 10 patients died (3 female, 7 male) and in the ciclosporin arm 6 patients died (3 female, 3 male). 12-month graft survival was 96.7% for Advagraf, 92.9% for Prograf and 95.7% for ciclosporin.
Clinical efficacy and safety of Prograf capsules bid in primary organ transplantation
In prospective studies oral Prograf was investigated as primary immunosuppressant in approximately 175 patients following lung, 475 patients following pancreas and 630 patients following intestinal transplantation. Overall, the safety profile of oral Prograf in these published studies appeared to be similar to what was reported in the large studies, where Prograf was used as primary treatment in liver, kidney and heart transplantation. Efficacy results of the largest studies in each indication are summarised below.
Lung transplantation
The interim analysis of a recent multicentre study using oral Prograf discussed 110 patients who underwent 1: |
