Five-Year Safety and Efficacy of Belatacept in Renal Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Belatacept is a first-in-class co-stimulation blocker in development for primary maintenance immunosuppression. A Phase II study comparing belatacept with cyclosporine (CsA) for prevention of acute rejection and protection of renal function in kidney transplant recipients demonstrated similar efficacy and significantly higher measured GFR at 1 year for belatacept, but the incidence of posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder was higher. Here, we present the results for the extension of this trial, which aimed to assess long-term safety and efficacy of belatacept. Seventy-eight of 102 patients who were receiving belatacept and the 16 of 26 who were receiving CsA completed the long-term extension period. GFR remained stable in patients who were receiving belatacept for 5 years, and the incidences of death/graft loss or acute rejection were low. The frequencies of serious infections were 16% for belatacept and 27% for CsA, and neoplasms occurred in 12% of each group. No patients who were treated with belatacept and one patient who was treated with CsA developed posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder during the follow-up period. Serious gastrointestinal disorders occurred more frequently with belatacept (12% belatacept versus 8% CsA), and serious cardiac disorders occurred more frequently with CsA (2% belatacept versus 12% CsA). Pharmacokinetic analyses showed consistent exposure to belatacept over time. CD86 receptor saturation was higher in patients who were receiving belatacept every 4 weeks (74%) compared with every 8 weeks (56%). In conclusion, this study demonstrated high patient persistence with intravenous belatacept, stable renal function, predictable pharmacokinetics, and good safety with belatacept over 5 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".