Why the study?
Does BT563 prevent acute rejection and improve safety compared to OKT3 in heart transplant recipients?
Does BT563 prevent acute rejection and improve safety compared to OKT3 in heart transplant recipients?
BT563 provides similar efficacy to OKT3 for early rejection prophylaxis after heart transplantation but with a superior safety profile, notably avoiding cytokine release syndrome.
BT563 may supplant OKT3 for heart transplant induction; extends evidence supporting equivalent efficacy with superior safety.
In a prospective randomized trial, BT563, a murine IgG, anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibody, was compared with OKT3 for use as an early rejection prophylaxis after heart transplantation. Patients received either BT563 (n=31) or OKT3 (n=29) during the first 7 days after transplantation; cyclosporine was started on day 3. Median follow-up was 34 months. A cytokine release syndrome occurred in the majority of patients of the OKT3-treated group but in none of the BT563 recipients. The mean duration of electrical stimulation of the heart in the BT563 group was longer than in the OKT3 group (5.1 vs. 2.1 days). In both groups, one patient required insertion of a permanent pacemaker. Freedom from acute rejection at 3 months was not significantly different between the two groups (BT563: 5/29, 17%; OKT3: 6/29, 21%). In the BT563 group, however, rejection tended to occur earlier after transplantation. There was no difference in the overall incidence of rejection. The incidence of infectious complications was evenly distributed in both groups. Malignancies occurred in two patients, both in the OKT3 group. In conclusion, the use of this anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody in heart transplant recipients is safe and devoid of the side effects that accompany the use of OKT3. OKT3 and BT563 result in a similar freedom from rejection at 3 and 12 months after heart transplantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gelder et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: