B Rutkowski1, B Bzoma2, A Dębska-Ślizień2, A Chamienia2. 1. Department of Nephrology, Transplantology, and Internal Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland. Electronic address: bolo@gumed.edu.pl. 2. Department of Nephrology, Transplantology, and Internal Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to show the preliminary outcomes of transplantation in patients treated with the generic formulation ofmycophenolate mofetil (Myfenax, Teva). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over the past 4 years, 60 patients received generic mycophenolate mofetil (Myfenax) after renal transplantation at the Gdansk Transplantology Center. During the same time period, another 273 kidney transplantations were performed in our department, and these patients were treated with other formulations of mycophenolate (CellCept [Roche], Myfortic, or mycophenolate mofetil-Apotex) as a part of the immunosuppressive plan. Thirty of the Myfenax patients received a pair of kidneys from the same donor and received original mycophenolate mofetil CellCept with observation for at least 12 months. RESULTS: The outcomes of the renal transplantations in both groups (Myfenax vs pair) were good, with satisfactory function of grafts. One case of graft loss was reported in the Myfenax group (renal vein thrombosis, graftectomy 5 days after transplantation). There was no difference in the incidence of acute renal graft rejection in either group. Moderate adverse reactions to immunosuppression were observed in both groups. On the other hand, a comparison between the 60 patients with Myfenax and the 273 other patients with other formulations ofmycophenolate revealed no differences in the incidence of acute renal graft rejection, delayed graft function, graft loss, and death. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the incidence of acute renal graft rejection, delayed graft function, graft loss, and death in patients with Myfenax vs original CellCept and other formulations of mycophenolate. To confirm its complete biological and pharmacokinetic equivalence with the reference medicine, long-term, randomized observations carried out on larger renal transplant patients groups are needed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to show the preliminary outcomes of transplantation in patients treated with the generic formulation of mycophenolate mofetil (Myfenax, Teva). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over the past 4 years, 60 patients received generic mycophenolate mofetil (Myfenax) after renal transplantation at the Gdansk Transplantology Center. During the same time period, another 273 kidney transplantations were performed in our department, and these patients were treated with other formulations of mycophenolate (CellCept [Roche], Myfortic, or mycophenolate mofetil-Apotex) as a part of the immunosuppressive plan. Thirty of the Myfenaxpatients received a pair of kidneys from the same donor and received original mycophenolate mofetil CellCept with observation for at least 12 months. RESULTS: The outcomes of the renal transplantations in both groups (Myfenax vs pair) were good, with satisfactory function of grafts. One case of graft loss was reported in the Myfenax group (renal vein thrombosis, graftectomy 5 days after transplantation). There was no difference in the incidence of acute renal graft rejection in either group. Moderate adverse reactions to immunosuppression were observed in both groups. On the other hand, a comparison between the 60 patients with Myfenax and the 273 other patients with other formulations of mycophenolate revealed no differences in the incidence of acute renal graft rejection, delayed graft function, graft loss, and death. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the incidence of acute renal graft rejection, delayed graft function, graft loss, and death in patients with Myfenax vs original CellCept and other formulations of mycophenolate. To confirm its complete biological and pharmacokinetic equivalence with the reference medicine, long-term, randomized observations carried out on larger renal transplant patients groups are needed.
Authors: Qian Liu; Abigail R Smith; Jeong M Park; Murewa Oguntimein; Sarah Dutcher; Ghalib Bello; Margaret Helmuth; Marc Turenne; Rajesh Balkrishnan; Melissa Fava; Charlotte A Beil; Adam Saulles; Sangeeta Goel; Pratima Sharma; Alan Leichtman; Jarcy Zee Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Johanna Vollmar; Maren Christina Bellmann; Felix Darstein; Maria Hoppe-Lotichius; Jens Mittler; Michael Heise; Bernd Rüttger; Veronika Weyer; Anca Zimmermann; Hauke Lang; Peter R Galle; Tim Zimmermann Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 4.162