Literature DB >> 8623181

A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group.

.   

Abstract

Mycopehenolate mofetil (MMF) is a powerful immunosuppressant that inhibits the proliferation of T and B lymphocytes by blocking the enzyme inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase. MMF has been shown to prevent acute graft rejection in animal experiments and may have an important role in clinical renal transplantation. We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multi-center trial to compare the efficacy and safety of MMF and azathioprine within standard immunosuppressive regimen for patients receiving a first or second cadaveric renal graft. A total of 503 patients were randomized to groups receiving MMF 3 g (n=164), MMF 2 g (n=173), or azathioprine (AZA) 100-150 mg (n=166) daily. All were treated simultaneously with equivalent doses of cyclosporine and oral corticosteroids and followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as the occurrence of biopsy-proven graft rejection, graft loss, patient death, or discontinuation of the study drug during the first 6 months after transplantation. Treatment failure occurred in 50.% of patients in the AZA group by 6 months after transplantation, compared with 34.8% in the MMF 3g group (P=0.0045) and 38.2 % in the MMF 2g group (P=0.0287). Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 15.9% of patients in the MMF 3 g group and 19.7% in the MMF2 g group, compared with 35.5% in the AZA group. Rejection of histologic severity grade II or more developed in 6.1 %, 10.4% and 19.9% of patients in the MMF 3 g, MMF 2 g, and AZA groups, respectively. Patients receiving MMF required less frequent and less intensive treatment for acute rejection: 24.4% of patients on MMF 3 g and 31.0% on MMF 2 g were tested for acute rejection, compared with 47.5% on AZA. Only 4.9% on MMF 3 g and 8.8% on MMF 2 g required antilymphocyte antibodies for treatment of severe or steroid-resistant rejection, compared with 15.4% of the patients on AZA. At 1 year after transplantation, graft survival in the MMF groups was marginally superior to that in the AZA group, although this difference was not statistically significant. Gastrointestinal toxicity and tissue-invasive cytomegalovirus infection were more common in the MMF 3 g group. Noncutaneous malignancies occurred in six patients on MMF 3 g, three patients on MMF 2 g, and four patients on AZA. Lymphoproliferative disorders occurred in two patients per MMF group, compared with one patient receiving AZA. MMF appears to be an important advance in prophylaxis following renal transplantation. It is associated with a significantly lower rate of treatment failure compared with AZA during the first 6 months after renal transplantation and produces a clinically important reduction in the incidence, severity, and treatment of acute graft rejection. These differences persist throughout the first year of follow-up. Clinical benefit was greatest with a dose of MMF 3 g/day, but gastrointestinal effects, invasive cytomegalovirus infection, and malignancies were slightly more common at that dose. The appropriate dose may lie between 2 g and 3 g per day and may require individualization depending on clinical course or other factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8623181

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


  101 in total

1.  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

2.  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 3.  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

4.  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 5.  [Systemic immunosuppressives after penetrating keratoplasty].

Authors:  A Reis; F Birnbaum; T Reinhard
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 6.  [Modern immunosuppression following renal transplantation. Standard or tailor made?].

Authors:  K Budde; M Giessing; L Liefeldt; H-H Neumayer; P Glander
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients.

Authors:  Christine E Staatz; Susan E Tett
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  Economic impact and long-term graft outcomes of mycophenolate mofetil dosage modifications following gastrointestinal complications in renal transplant recipients.

Authors:  Gerardo Machnicki; Jean-Francois Ricci; Daniel C Brennan; Mark A Schnitzler
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.