K Wang1, H Zhang, Y Li, Q Wei, H Li, Y Yang, Y Lu. 1. Department of Urology, the Lab of Transplant Engineering and Immunology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of mycophenolate acid (MMF) versus azathioprine (AZA) after renal transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and Chinese Biomedicine database (CBM). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were subjected to Revman 4.11 for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs were identified to compare MMF and AZA for antirejection, prophylaxis after renal transplantation. The data showed that MMF (2 g/d) was more beneficial than AZA to improve graft and long-term patient survivals, but there was no statistical differences between MMF (3 g/d) and AZA. Whether at 6 months or at 1 year after renal transplantation, the use of MMF (2 g/d) or MMF (3 g/d) markedly reduced the incidence of biopsy-proven rejection. CONCLUSION: Compared with AZA, MMF is a more potent immunosuppressive drug, that is more efficient in reducing the incidence of acute rejection episodes after renal transplantation. MMF can improve the graft and patient survival rate. The 2 g per day dosage is more acceptable.
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of mycophenolate acid (MMF) versus azathioprine (AZA) after renal transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and Chinese Biomedicine database (CBM). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were subjected to Revman 4.11 for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs were identified to compare MMF and AZA for antirejection, prophylaxis after renal transplantation. The data showed that MMF (2 g/d) was more beneficial than AZA to improve graft and long-term patient survivals, but there was no statistical differences between MMF (3 g/d) and AZA. Whether at 6 months or at 1 year after renal transplantation, the use of MMF (2 g/d) or MMF (3 g/d) markedly reduced the incidence of biopsy-proven rejection. CONCLUSION: Compared with AZA, MMF is a more potent immunosuppressive drug, that is more efficient in reducing the incidence of acute rejection episodes after renal transplantation. MMF can improve the graft and patient survival rate. The 2 g per day dosage is more acceptable.