BACKGROUND: It has been well documented that a regimen of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclosporine (CsA), and prednisone (Pred) reduces the incidence of acute rejection in renal transplant recipients, as compared with previous regimens based on azathioprine (AZA), CsA, and Pred. In the general renal transplant patient population, immunosuppressive regimens that include MMF are usually well tolerated. It is not clear whether this holds true for older transplant recipients, who may be more susceptible to complications from the greater immunosuppression conferred by MMF. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our geriatric renal transplant population (age >60 years, 1990-1998) and compared a cohort of 46 patients treated with AZA, Pred, and CsA to a cohort of 45 patients treated with MMF, Pred, and CsA. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to pretransplantation demographics. Patient and graft survival during the first year was not significantly different between the groups. During the first year of follow-up, we observed 27 infections requiring hospitalization in 15 patients in the MMF-treated group as compared with 10 infections in 7 patients in the AZA-treated group. A Cox proportional hazard model accounting for the above mentioned covariates isolated MMF versus AZA as a significant risk factor for the occurrence of serious infectious events (all: P<0.01; cytomegalovirus, fungal: P<0.01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that an immunosuppressive regimen of MMF, CsA, and Pred seems to be correlated with an increased incidence of infectious adverse events as compared with AZA, CsA, and Pred in elderly patients.
BACKGROUND: It has been well documented that a regimen of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclosporine (CsA), and prednisone (Pred) reduces the incidence of acute rejection in renal transplant recipients, as compared with previous regimens based on azathioprine (AZA), CsA, and Pred. In the general renal transplant patient population, immunosuppressive regimens that include MMF are usually well tolerated. It is not clear whether this holds true for older transplant recipients, who may be more susceptible to complications from the greater immunosuppression conferred by MMF. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our geriatric renal transplant population (age >60 years, 1990-1998) and compared a cohort of 46 patients treated with AZA, Pred, and CsA to a cohort of 45 patients treated with MMF, Pred, and CsA. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to pretransplantation demographics. Patient and graft survival during the first year was not significantly different between the groups. During the first year of follow-up, we observed 27 infections requiring hospitalization in 15 patients in the MMF-treated group as compared with 10 infections in 7 patients in the AZA-treated group. A Cox proportional hazard model accounting for the above mentioned covariates isolated MMF versus AZA as a significant risk factor for the occurrence of serious infectious events (all: P<0.01; cytomegalovirus, fungal: P<0.01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that an immunosuppressive regimen of MMF, CsA, and Pred seems to be correlated with an increased incidence of infectious adverse events as compared with AZA, CsA, and Pred in elderly patients.
Authors: Ramesh Saxena; Xueqing Yu; Mauricio Giraldo; Juan Arenas; Miguel Vazquez; Christopher Y Lu; Nosratola D Vaziri; Fred G Silva; Xin J Zhou Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 2.370