

![]() |
Costimulatory blockade with belatacept in clinical and experimental transplantation - a review |
|
Authors | ||
Published in | Expert opinion on biological therapy. 2009, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 789-796 | |
Abstract | BACKGROUND: Current maintenance immunosuppression agents have been critical to the improved graft and patient survival rates in solid organ transplantation observed over the past decade. However, long-term follow-up has revealed that these agents are associated with troublesome side effects and chronic toxicity, contributing to graft loss and death. OBJECTIVES: Costimulation blockade has long been recognized as an important target for immunomodulation in solid organ transplantation. Belatacept, a high-affinity chimeric fusion protein that binds to CD80/CD86 on antigen-presenting cells, has shown great promise in renal transplantation and is now in Phase III trials. METHODS: This review explores the development and efficacy of belatacept, compared with currently approved immunosuppressive agents used in transplantation. RESULTS: Belatacept seems to be an effective alternative to current maintenance immunosuppressive therapies, with no apparent end organ toxicity and a minimal side-effect profile. This agent works best when used in combination with therapies that target different pathways of T-cell activation, but the optimal regimen has not yet been identified. Data generated in ongoing clinical trials will be essential in validating previous studies and for further development of belatacept-based combinatorial strategies. | |
Keywords | Animals — Humans — Immunoconjugates/adverse effects/contraindications/*therapeutic use — Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects/contraindications/*therapeutic use — *Transplantation | |
Identifiers | PMID: 19426116 | |
Full text | ||
Structures | ||
Research group | Transplantation et hépatologie (905) | |
Citation (ISO format) | EMAMAULLEE, Juliet et al. Costimulatory blockade with belatacept in clinical and experimental transplantation - a review. In: Expert opinion on biological therapy, 2009, vol. 9, n° 6, p. 789-796. doi: 10.1517/14712590902942284 https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:19795 |