Everolimus with or without mycophenolate mofetil in a liver transplantation setting: a single-center experience

Authors Evagelos Cholongitas, Ioannis Goulis, Eleni Theocharidou, Nikolaos Antoniadis, Ioannis Fouzas, George Imvrios, Olga Giouleme, Aliki Angelaki, Themistoklis Vasiliadis, Vasilios Papanikolaou, Evangelos Akriviadis.


Background This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and impact on renal function of everolimus in patients after liver transplantation (LT) with or without mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

Methods We evaluated LT recipients with calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-related renal dysfunction after everolimus initiation. Laboratory data, including evaluation of renal function based on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at baseline (i.e., everolimus initiation) and at the end of follow up, were analyzed.

Results Fifty consecutive patients started taking everolimus at 30 months post-LT (range: 1-240), 6 as monotherapy and 44 in combination with MMF. After 30.5 months (range: 6-112), all patients were alive, without any biochemical evidence of a rejection episode or recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. The mean GFR, based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation, was 53±13 mL/min at baseline and 59±12 mL/min at the end of follow up (P=0.031). Eleven (22%) of the patients had GFR <60 mL/min at baseline but returned to GFR >60 mL/min by the end of follow up. In multivariate analysis, the time between the development of renal dysfunction and everolimus initiation was the only factor independently associated with GFR improvement (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.76-0.96; P=0.007). Everolimus was stopped in 11 patients (22%) at the end of follow up because of adverse events.

Conclusion A CNI-free everolimus-based regimen was effective in LT recipients with renal dysfunction and was associated with an improvement in GFR.

Keywords Everolimus, liver transplantation, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, renal function, hepatocellular carcinoma

Ann Gastroenterol 2018; 31 (5): 613-620

Original Articles