Literature DB >> 23558507

Controlled-dose versus fixed-dose mycophenolate mofetil for kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xianding Wang1, Xin Qin, Yong Wang, Zhongli Huang, Xiaohong Li, Quantao Zeng, Hao Zeng, Yiping Lu, Li Wang, Tao Lin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is recommended at a fixed dose, there is increasing interest in controlled-dose (CD) MMF based on therapeutic drug monitoring. We systematically evaluated published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of CD versus fixed-dose MMF for kidney transplant recipients.
METHODS: The electronic databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library (up to June 2012) were searched to identify relevant RCTs. Two reviewers independently applied the study selection criteria, examined the study quality, and extracted the data. Dichotomous measures were expressed as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean difference, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.1.6.
RESULTS: Four RCTs met our selection criteria and included 1755 de novo recipients. The differences between CD and fixed-dose MMF in treatment failure (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10; P=0.52), serum creatinine clearance (weighted mean difference, 2.46; 95% CI, -1.15 to 6.07; P=0.18), total gastrointestinal adverse events (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.65-2.35; P=0.53), diarrhea (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.25; P=0.35), anemia (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.95-1.64; P=0.12), leukopenia (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93-1.35; P=0.25), thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.47-1.36; P=0.41), and malignancy (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.27-1.38; P=0.23) were not statistically significant. Furthermore, total infections were more frequent in the CD group (36.0% vs. 30.9%; RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30; P=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, CD MMF administration cannot be recommended as routine practice for kidney transplant recipients. Therapeutic drug monitoring for MMF may be targeted toward high-risk recipients, who should be identified in future studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23558507     DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31828c6dc7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplantation        ISSN: 0041-1337            Impact factor:   4.939


  5 in total

Review 1.  Update on the Teratogenicity of Maternal Mycophenolate Mofetil.

Authors:  Lisa A Coscia; Dawn P Armenti; Ryan W King; Nicole M Sifontis; Serban Constantinescu; Michael J Moritz
Journal:  J Pediatr Genet       Date:  2015-06

Review 2.  Optimizing Mycophenolic Acid Exposure in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Time for Target Concentration Intervention.

Authors:  David K Metz; Nick Holford; Joshua Y Kausman; Amanda Walker; Noel Cranswick; Christine E Staatz; Katherine A Barraclough; Francesco Ierino
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.939

3.  Initial mycophenolate dose in tacrolimus treated renal transplant recipients, a cohort study comparing leukopaenia, rejection and long-term graft function.

Authors:  Vatsa Dave; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Khai Gene Leong; John Kanellis; William R Mulley
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Fecal β-glucuronidase activity differs between hematopoietic cell and kidney transplantation and a possible mechanism for disparate dose requirements.

Authors:  Mohammad Haneef Khan; Guillaume C Onyeaghala; Armin Rashidi; Shernan G Holtan; Alexander Khoruts; Ajay Israni; Pamala A Jacobson; Christopher Staley
Journal:  Gut Microbes       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec

Review 5.  TDM is dead. Long live TCI!

Authors:  Nick Holford; Guangda Ma; David Metz
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 3.716

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.