RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome is a rare form of glomerular disease that occurs in children and adults. No Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments consistently achieve remission of proteinuria and preservation of kidney function. CD80 (B7-1) can be expressed on injured podocytes, and administration of abatacept (modified CTLA4-Ig based on a natural ligand to CD80) has been associated with sustained normalization of urinary protein excretion and maintenance of glomerular filtration rate in experimental and clinical settings. METHODS: In this report, we describe the rationale for and design of a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of abatacept in patients with treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome caused by focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or minimal change disease. The design is a hybrid of a parallel-group and crossover design (switchover) with the primary objectives assessed in the first period of the study and the secondary objectives assessed using data from both periods. All participants will receive the active agent in 1 of the periods. The duration of treatment will be 4 months per period. RESULTS: The primary outcome will be improvement in nephrotic-range proteinuria to subnephrotic range, that is, reduction from baseline to 4 months in urine protein:creatinine ratio ≥ 50% and to a level < 3. The projected sample size is 90 patients, which has 80% power to detect a treatment difference of 28%. CONCLUSION: This study advances efforts to validate CD80 as a therapeutic target for treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome, and implements a precision medicine-based approach to this serious kidney condition in which the selection of a therapeutic agent is guided by the underlying disease mechanism operating in individual patients.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term efficacy and tolerability of two efavirenz-containing regimens with those of an indinavir-containing regimen in the initial use of HAART. METHOD: HIV-1-infected patients (N = 1266) were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: efavirenz, zidovudine plus lamivudine, n = 422; efavirenz plus indinavir, n = 429; or indinavir, zidovudine plus lamivudine, n = 415. Entrance criteria included baseline viral load greater than 10 000 copies/ml HIV-1 RNA, CD4 cell count 50 cells/mul or greater, and no previous use of lamivudine, any non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor or protease inhibitor. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients (response rate) in each regimen with a viral load under 400 copies/ml at 168 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Response rates at 168 weeks were 30% in the indinavir, zidovudine, lamivudine group, 48% in the efavirenz, zidovudine, lamivudine group (P < 0.0001, difference estimate; 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 18.5; 10.9, 26), and 40% in the efavirenz plus indinavir group (P = 0.0018, difference estimate; 97.5% CI 10.2; 2.9, 17.6). Median CD4 cell counts increased above respective baselines by 292 cells/mul (efavirenz, zidovudine, lamivudine and indinavir, zidovudine, lamivudine) and 300 cells/mul (efavirenz plus indinavir). Total discontinuations were 54% (efavirenz, zidovudine, lamivudine), 63% (efavirenz plus indinavir), and 69% (indinavir, zidovudine, lamivudine) of which 13, 12 and 26%, respectively, were caused by adverse events. No new or unexpected increases in the rates or severity of adverse events occurred from long-term treatment with efavirenz-containing regimens. CONCLUSION: Long-term HIV therapy with efavirenz-containing regimens, particularly efavirenz, zidovudine, lamivudine, provides significantly greater antiviral activity and tolerability than a regimen of indinavir, zidovudine plus lamivudine.