Literature DB >> 7645033

Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group.

H W Sollinger1.   

Abstract

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a new immunosuppressant that selectively inhibits proliferation of T and B lymphocytes, may reduce the frequency and severity of acute graft rejection. Acute graft rejection is the leading cause of graft loss in cadaveric renal transplantation. The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MMF for the prevention of acute rejection episodes in adult patients during the first 6 months after renal transplantation. A total of 499 patients who were to receive a primary cadaveric renal allograft as their first transplant were randomized to receive MMF 1.0 g b.i.d. (MMF 2 g treatment group), MMF 1.5 g b.i.d. (MMF 3 g treatment group), or azathioprine 1-2 mg/kg/day. CsA, corticosteroids, and antithymocyte globulin (ATGAM) were administered as part of a quadruple sequential induction protocol. The primary efficacy endpoint was biopsy-proven rejection or treatment failure (defined as graft loss, death, or premature withdrawal from the study for any reason) during the first 6 months after transplant. All enrolled patients were included in the primary analyses of efficacy on the basis of intent to treat. The 495 patients who received study drug were included in the safety and secondary efficacy analyses. Biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes or treatment failure occurred in 47.6% of patients in the azathioprine group compared with 31.1% (P = 0.0015) and 31.3% (P = 0.0021) of patients in the MMF 2 g and 3 g treatment groups, respectively. Time to first biopsy-proven rejection episode or treatment failure was significantly longer for MMF 2 g versus azathioprine (P = 0.0036) and MMF 3 g versus azathioprine (P = 0.0006). First biopsy-proven rejection alone occurred in 38.0% of patients who received azathioprine compared with 19.8% and 17.5% of patients who received MMF 2 g and 3 g, respectively. Patients in the azathioprine group received a greater number of full courses of antirejection treatment as compared with the MMF 2 g and MMF 3 g groups (44.5%, 24.8%, and 21.1%, respectively). The use of antilymphocyte agents to treat rejection was greater in the azathioprine group (20.1%) compared with the MMF 2 g group (10.3%) and the MMF 3 g group (5.4%). At 6 months after transplant, graft and patient survival were similar in all 3 treatment groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7645033     DOI: 10.1097/00007890-199508000-00003

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


  146 in total

1.  Hepatic and intestinal transplantation at the University of Pittsburgh.

Authors:  K Abu-Elmagd; J Fung; J Reyes; A Rao; A Jain; G Mazariegos; W Marsh; J Madariaga; I Dvorchik; J Bueno; J Rogers; J McMichael; F Dodson; H Vargus; J Martin; A Slivka; V Balan; R Corry; J Rakela; N Murase; J Demetris; S Iwatsuki; T Starzl
Journal:  Clin Transpl       Date:  1998

Review 2.  Clinically useful monoclonal antibodies in treatment.

Authors:  E Drewe; R J Powell
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 3.  New immunosuppressive drugs and lung transplantation: last or least?

Authors:  J W van den Berg; D S Postma; G H Koëter; W van der Bij
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 4.  [Immunomodulation in penetrating keratoplasty. Current status and perspectives].

Authors:  U Pleyer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  A prospective, randomized trial of tacrolimus/prednisone versus tacrolimus/prednisone/mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients.

Authors:  R Shapiro; M L Jordan; V P Scantlebury; C Vivas; J W Marsh; J McCauley; J Johnston; P Randhawa; W Irish; H A Gritsch; R Naraghi; T R Hakala; J J Fung; T E Starzl
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1999-02-15       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  Mycophenolate mofetil monotherapy in the management of paediatric uveitis.

Authors:  P Y Chang; G P Giuliari; M Shaikh; P Thakuria; D Makhoul; C S Foster
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 7.  Mycophenolate mofetil: fully utilizing its benefits for GvHD prophylaxis.

Authors:  Kentaro Minagawa; Motohiro Yamamori; Yoshio Katayama; Toshimitsu Matsui
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 2.490

8.  Using GI-specific patient outcome measures in renal transplant patients: validation of the GSRS and GIQLI.

Authors:  Leah Kleinman; Anne Kilburg; Gerardo Machnicki; Randall Faull; Rowan Walker; Ramesh Prasad; Patrice Ambuehl; Udo Bahner; Mary Kay Margolis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  Mycophenolate mofetil: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in solid organ transplantation.

Authors:  Melissa Young; Greg L Plosker
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics and related outcomes early after renal transplant.

Authors:  Bronwyn A Atcheson; Paul J Taylor; David W Mudge; David W Johnson; Carmel M Hawley; Scott B Campbell; Nicole M Isbel; Peter I Pillans; Susan E Tett
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.