Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Belatacept-Based Regimens Versus a Cyclosporine A-Based Regimen in Kidney Transplant Recipients: 2-Year Results From the BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT Studies

Larsen, Christian P., Grinyó, Josep, Medina-Pestana, José, Vanrenterghem, Yves, Vincenti, Flavio, Breshahan, Barbara, Campistol, Josep M., Florman, Sander, Rial, Maria del Carmen, Kamar, Nassim, Block, Alan, Di Russo, Gregory, Lin, Chen-Sheng, Garg, Pushkal, Charpentier, Bernard·2010·Transplantation

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/tp.0b013e3181ff87cd

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Larsen, C. P., Grinyó, J., Medina-Pestana, J., Vanrenterghem, Y., Vincenti, F., Breshahan, B., Campistol, J. M., Florman, S., Rial, M. D. C., Kamar, N., Block, A., Di Russo, G., Lin, C.-S., Garg, P., & Charpentier, B.
Venue
Transplantation
Published
2010-12-27
Volume
90
Issue
12
Pages
1528-1535
ISSN
0041-1337 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973505502
Cited by
173
References
1
FWCI
16.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.