Reduced kidney transplant rejection rate and pharmacoeconomic advantage of mycophenolate mofetil.

BACKGROUND: Several multinational controlled clinical trials have shown that triple therapy immunosuppressive regimens which include mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclosporin A (CSA) and steroids (S) are superior compared with conventional regimens which include azathioprine (AZA), CSA and S, mainly because MMF reduces the rate of acute rejection episodes in the first 6 months after kidney transplantation. Post-marketing studies are useful to evaluate the general applicability and costs of MMF-based immunosuppressive regimens. METHODS: Based on the excellent results of the published controlled clinical trials, we have changed the standard triple therapy immunosuppressive protocol (AZA+CSA+S) to an MMF-based regimen (MMF+CSA+S) at our centre. To analyse the impact of this change in regimen, we have monitored 6-month patient and graft survival, rejection rate, serum creatinine and CSA levels, as well as the costs of the immunosuppressive and anti-rejection treatments, in 40 consecutive renal transplant recipients (MMF group) and have compared the data with 40 consecutive patients transplanted immediately prior to the change in regimen (AZA group). RESULTS: Recipient and donor characteristics were similar in the AZA and MMF groups. Patient survival (37/40; 92.5% in the AZA group vs 38/40; 95% in the MMF group), graft survival (36/40 vs 36/40; both 90%) and serum creatinine (137+/-56 vs 139+/-44 micromol/l) after 6 months were not significantly different. However, the rate of acute rejection episodes (defined as a rise in creatinine without other obvious cause and treated at least with pulse steroids) was significantly reduced with MMF from 60 to 20% (P=0.0005). The resulting cost for rejection treatment was lowered 8-fold (from sFr. 2113 to 259 averaged per patient) and the number of transplant biopsies was lowered > 3-fold in the MMF group. The cost for the immunosuppressive therapy was increased 1.5-fold with MMF (from sFr. 5906 to 9231 per patient for the first 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: The change from AZA to MMF resulted in a significant reduction in early rejection episodes, resulting in fewer diagnostic procedures and rehospitalizations. The optimal long-term regimen in terms of patient and pharmacoeconomic benefits remains to be defined.     

A comparison of discharge immunosuppressive drug regimens in primary cadaveric kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Finding the best combination of immunosuppression is an important challenge in kidney transplantation. Current short-term (1- and 3-year) allograft survival is quite good, making it difficult to determine differences in therapeutic regimens without large sample sizes. Using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, the current study provides substantial statistical power to analyze the outcomes for different immunosuppressive regimens. METHODS: To compare the effects of four discharge regimens (cyclosporine and azathioprine [CYA+AZA], CYA and mycophenolate mofetil [MMF], tacrolimus [TAC]+AZA, and TAC+MMF) on long-term survival, a multivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted on 19246 primary cadaveric kidney transplants during 1995 to 1998. RESULTS: Compared with CYA+AZA, the combination of CYA+MMF was associated with a 10% reduced risk of graft loss (relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence limit [CL] 0.84-0.96, P<0.001), whereas TAC+AZA was associated with an 18% reduced risk (RR 0.82, 95% CL 0.67-1.005, P=0.06) and TAC+MMF with a 20% reduced risk of graft loss (RR 0.80, 95% CL 0.71-0.89, P<0.001). All three regimens benefited patients regardless of delayed graft function (DGF) or early acute rejection status. In addition, in the absence of DGF, the combinations of CYA+MMF, TAC+AZA, and TAC+MMF were associated with a reduced risk of mortality compared with CYA+AZA. CONCLUSIONS: The major finding of this study was improved graft and patient survival associated with TAC+MMF and CYA+MMF in patients with or without DGF or early acute rejection.     

Changing treatment protocol from azathioprine to mycophenolate mofetil: decrease in renal dysfunction, increase in infections

INTRODUCTION: Immunosuppression for renal transplantation has shifted from azathioprine (AZA) regimens to those containing mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). This study investigated the impact of this change on the causes for rehospitalization as well as on graft and patient survival. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed long-term patient and graft survivals as well as the causes of posttransplant admissions for 893 kidney recipients. Data on survival and readmissions were available for 811 subjects, who were divided to into the AZA cohort (n=289, transplantation between 1998 and 1999) and the MMF cohort (n=567, transplantation between 2000 and 2001). Survival, the cause for readmission, time interval between transplantation and readmission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and graft loss were compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 85% and 67% for the AZA cohort and 91% and 68% for the MMF cohort (P=.013). There were 202 (71%) and 371 (72%) readmissions registered for the AZA and MMF groups, respectively. In comparison with the AZA cohort, while readmissions secondary to graft rejection showed a significant decrease in the MMF cohort (62% vs 35%, P=.000), readmissions secondary to infections exhibited a significant increase (37% vs 50%, P=.002). A marginally significant increased mortality rate (2% vs 5%, P=.087) and ICU admission rate (3% vs 6%, P=.062) were also observed in the MMF cohort by comparison with the AZA cohort. CONCLUSION: The shift in the immunosuppression protocol from AZA to MMF, albeit advantageous in many instances, can sometimes undermine the outcome by giving rise to such complications as high infection rates.     

Long-Term Use of Mycophenolate Mofetil is Associated With a Reduction in the Incidence and Risk of Late Rejection

To evaluate the association of long-term continuous (minimum 1 year) mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) vs. azathioprine (AZA) therapy with the incidence of late acute rejection, we analyzed 47 693 primary renal allograft recipients reported to the United States Renal Data System between 1988 and 1998. The primary study endpoint was acute rejection beyond 1 year after transplantation. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the risk of reaching the study endpoints. All multivariate analyses were corrected for potential confounding covariates. Mycophenolate mofetil was associated with a 65% decreased risk of developing late acute rejection as compared to AZA (RR = 0.35, CI 0.27-0.45, p < 0.001). The incidence of acute rejection episodes at 2 and 3 years post-transplantation was significantly lower in the MMF group (0.9% at 2 years, 1.1% at 3 years) than the AZA group (6.1% at 2 years, 9.3% at 3 years). In the primary vs. repeat late rejection analysis, MMF patients exhibited a decreased late acute rejection risk of 72% (RR = 0.28, p < 0.001) and 60%, respectively (RR = 0.40, p < 0.001). In African Americans, the late acute rejection risk was 70% lower in MMF patients than AZA patients (RR = 0.30, p < 0.001). Further study is indicated to determine the optimal duration of MMF therapy after renal allograft transplantation.     

Randomized trial of conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to azathioprine 6 months after renal allograft transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In the first year after renal allograft transplantation, triple therapy immunosuppression with cyclosporin (CsA), prednisone (P), and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is superior to a triple therapy treatment that includes azathioprine (AZA) instead of MMF. Whether long-term treatment with CsA-P-MMF is better than treatment with CsA-P-AZA is a matter of debate, as 3-year graft survival is similar in MMF- and AZA-treated patients. The purpose of the present study was to examine the short-term effect of changing MMF to AZA in low-risk renal allograft recipients 6 months after transplantation. METHOD: This was a randomized, open-label single-centre study, recruiting 48 low risk renal allograft recipients on CsA-P-MMF therapy 6 months after transplantation, comparing the outcome with continued MMF treatment (2 g b.i.d.) (group A, n=22) or switching MMF to AZA (1 mg/kg) treatment (group B, n=26). RESULTS: The outcome after a 6-months follow-up of patients in group A and group B was similar. Treatment failure rates (defined as clinically diagnosed acute rejection episodes) were 4.5% in group A and 3.8% in group B. There were no patient deaths and no graft failures during the 6-months observation period. Graft function was excellent and similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Replacing MMF with AZA 6 months after transplantation in low-risk renal allograft recipients is safe and is not associated with altered graft function in the short term.     

Mycophenolate mofetil vs. azathioprine is associated with decreased acute rejection, late acute rejection, and risk for cardiovascular death in renal transplant recipients with pre-transplant diabetes

Outcomes specifically in mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-treated diabetic renal transplant patients have not been previously reported. This study compared acute rejection (AR), late acute rejection (LAR), patient survival [and specifically death from cardiovascular (CV), infectious and malignant causes], incidence of post-transplant malignancies, and graft loss in MMF- or azathioprine (AZA)-treated renal transplant patients with pre-transplant diabetes. Outcomes were compared between MMF- (n = 14 144) and AZA- (n = 3001) treated diabetic patients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on all U.S. adult renal transplants performed between 1995 and 2002. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox multivariable regression and chi-square tests. MMF patients had less AR compared with AZA-treated patients (23.5% vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001) and less risk for LAR over 4 yr [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% CI 0.44, 0.92; p = 0.02]. While time to any-cause death did not differ between the groups, MMF treatment was associated with a 20% decreased risk of CV death (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.67, 0.97; p = 0.020) compared with AZA treatment. MMF patients also had a lower incidence of malignancies than AZA patients (2.2% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). These results suggest treatment with MMF compared with treatment with AZA in diabetic transplant patients is associated with less AR, less risk of LAR, a decreased risk of CV death, and a lower incidence of malignancies.     

AZA/Tacrolimus Is Associated with Similar Outcomes as MMF/Tacrolimus among Renal Transplant Recipients

There have been several retrospective studies indicating benefits associated with mycophenalate mofetil (MMF) compared to azathioprine (AZA) for renal transplant recipients. However, these analyses evaluated outcomes prior to changes in utilization patterns of concomitant immunosuppression. Recent prospective trials have indicated similar outcomes among patients treated with MMF and AZA. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes in a broad group of patients in the more recent era. We evaluated adult solitary renal transplant recipients from 1998 to 2006 with the national SRTR database. Primary outcomes were time to patient death and graft loss, complications and renal function. Models were adjusted for potential confounding factors, propensity scores and stratified between higher/lower risk transplants and concomitant immunosuppression. Adjusted models indicated a modest risk among AZA patients for graft loss (AHR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.07–1.20); however, this was not apparent among AZA patients also treated with tacrolimus (AHR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.11]. One-year acute rejection rates were reduced for patients on MMF versus AZA (10 vs. 13%, p < 0.01); there were no statistically significant differences of malignancies, renal function or BK virus at 1 year. The primary findings suggest the association of MMF with improved outcomes may not be apparent in patients also receiving tacrolimus.     

New immunosuppressive treatment in kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been successfully introduced into clinical practice with evident benefits for renal transplant recipients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: To evaluate some clinical results of MMF introduction, two groups of subjects underwent cadaveric renal transplants over the last 3 years and were retrospectively investigated. The first group (AZA group) contained 40 subjects (26 males and 14 females) on triple-drug therapy with steroids, cyclosporine and azathioprine (AZA). The second group (MMF group) contained 25 patients ( 19 males and 6 females) on the same regime with steroids and cyclosporine but MMF was administered as a third drug instead of AZA. The AZA group received renal transplant after a mean dialytic time of 32 +/- 19 months and the AZA group's dialytic time was 39.9 +/- 17 months. Clinical data, collected after a minimum 12 months observational period included a crude mortality rate and survival analysis recognized by Kaplan-Meyer curve, creatinine, creatinine clearance, rejection episodes and major clinical events such as infections and acute tubular necrosis. RESULTS: One subject died in each group. For kidney graft survival, Kaplan Meyer survival analysis showed a mean survival time of 1170.04 days in the AZA group vs 845 in the MMF group without statistical significance. Graft survival demonstrated 5:40 (12.5%) graft losses in the AZA group vs no kidney transplant loss in the MMF group (the only deceased patient had a well functioning kidney). The curve of graft cumulative proportion survival analysis demonstrated a more improved survival in the MMF group, but this difference did not reach a statistical significance (p = 0.07). Acute rejection episodes in the AZA group were 37.5% vs. 20% in the MMF group. In both groups, CMV infection was successfully treated with specific antiviral agents. CONCLUSIONS: MMF represents an important step towards induction and maintenance of immunosuppression. Our experience in a relatively small cohort investigated in a single center, demonstrates encouraging results regarding graft survival in comparison to those detected in conventional triple drug therapy. Surprisingly, in spite of stronger immunosuppressive treatment, the prevalence of CMV infections was not statistically different in the MMF versus the AZA group.     

Mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy improves long-term outcomes after liver transplantation in patients with and without hepatitis C.

To evaluate the impact of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) on long-term outcomes of tacrolimus and corticosteroids, we analyzed data reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for 11,670 adult patients (3463 with hepatitis C [HCV]) who underwent primary, single-organ, liver transplantation between 1995 and 2001. Patients who were discharged from the hospital on tacrolimus-based immunosuppression with (n = 4466; n = 1323 HCV) or without MMF (n = 7204; n = 2140 HCV) were included in the analysis. Recipients treated at discharge with MMF, tacrolimus, and corticosteroids had significantly increased patient survival (81.0% vs. 77.0% at 4 years, P < 0.0001) and graft survival (76.4% vs. 72.9%, P < 0.0001), and lower rates of acute rejection (29.0% vs. 33.4%, P < 0.001) as compared to recipients treated at discharge with tacrolimus and corticosteroids alone. A trend toward lower rates of death from infection was observed (6.1% at 4 years for MMF vs. 7.1% at 4 years for tacrolimus and corticosteroids, P = 0.0508), but this result did not reach statistical significance. In multiple regression analyses, MMF triple therapy at discharge was associated with a reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, P < 0.001), graft loss (HR = 0.81, P < 0.001), acute rejection (HR = 0.89, P = 0.002), and death from infectious complications (HR = 0.80, P = 0.007). Outcomes were similar for the cohort with HCV.In conclusion, the addition of MMF at discharge to tacrolimus-based immunosuppression is associated with improved long-term outcomes after liver transplantation in patients with and without HCV.     

Clear benefit of mycophenolate mofetil-based triple therapy in reducing the incidence of acute rejection after living donor renal transplantations.

BACKGROUND: According to a pooled analysis of three randomized clinical studies concerning the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) proved superior to azathioprine or placebo in conjunction with cyclosporine (CsA) and steroids. MMF-treated patients showed reduced incidence and severity of acute rejection, similar graft survival, and better graft function over 12 months. However, the multicenter trials did not include the Asian recipients of living donor kidneys. METHODS: To assess the efficacy of MMF as the third component of a triple therapy in addition to CsA-Neoral and steroids in living donor renal transplantation recipients in Asians, a total of 100 recipients were randomized to receive CsA-Neoral and steroids (control group, n=50), or MMF-based triple therapy (1.0 g of MMF twice daily from postoperative day 2, MMF group, n=50). The dosing plan for Neoral and steroids was essentially same between groups. During 12 months of follow-up, we compared the incidence of acute rejection, adverse events such as infections, and 12-month actual graft and patient survival. RESULTS: The graft and patient survival at 1 year was excellent in both groups: 96/98% in the control group and 98/100% in the MMF group, respectively. MMF significantly reduced the proportion of patients with at least one episode of acute rejection (34% in the control group vs. 14% in the MMF group), cumulative incidence of acute rejection episodes (46% vs. 16%), and requirement of antilymphocyte antibody (21.7% vs. 12.5%). In the MMF group, viral infection such as herpes zoster or chicken pox was more prevalent than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Like cadaveric renal transplantation, this open clinical trial showed MMF to be effective in reducing the incidence and severity of acute rejection if used in conjunction with Neoral and steroids after living donor renal transplantation in Asian ethnicity.     

Randomized, prospective trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection after simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation

BACKGROUND: In simultaneous kidney-pancreas (SPK) transplantation, manifestations of renal allograft rejection typically become evident before those of pancreatic rejection. This study compared mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in prevention of renal rejection after primary SPK transplantation. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized, multicenter study, patients received MMF 1.5 g twice daily (n=74) or AZA 1-3 mg/kg daily (n=76) for 1 year after transplantation. The incidence of rejection was assessed at 6 months. Adverse events were tracked through 1 year. Survival data are reported through 2 years. RESULTS: At 6 months, efficacy results for MMF vs. AZA patients, respectively, were the following: rejection (27% vs. 39%); rejection or death (34% vs. 42%); rejection, graft loss, death, or premature withdrawal (i.e., treatment failure; 41% vs. 55%). Six-month efficacy trends favored MMF, and time to rejection or treatment failure was significantly longer when compared with AZA (P=0.049). One-year efficacy results for MMF vs. AZA patients, respectively, were the following: treatment of renal rejection (35% vs. 47%); renal allograft loss or death (9% vs. 12%); pancreas allograft loss or death (15% vs. 14%). Five MMF patients (7%) and four (5%) in the AZA group died. More MMF than AZA patients developed opportunistic infections (54% vs. 38%), but the pathogens did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Trends for most efficacy parameters favored MMF over AZA, and time to renal allograft rejection or treatment failure was statistically significantly longer for MMF. The use of MMF in the treatment of SPK recipients is a useful advance.     

Azathioprine in Liver Transplantation: A Reevaluation of Its Use and a Comparison with Mycophenolate Mofetil

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) combined with steroids with or without azathioprine (AZA), have been a standard immunosuppression regimen after liver transplantation (LT). Since 2000 many centers have substituted AZA by mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). However, in LT the superiority of MMF over AZA is not clearly demonstrated. Therefore, we questioned the benefit of MMF versus AZA in LT with regard to rejection, renal dysfunction and hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and survival. Using a literature search, relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies were identified: two RCTs compared MMF to AZA only for acute rejection. Treated rejection was less with MMF in only one RCT (38.5% vs. 47.7%; p = 0.025), with no difference in patient and graft survival. No RCTs compared MMF and AZA in patients with CNI-related chronic renal dysfunction. Among two studies evaluating MMF, with substitution of AZA, one was stopped due to severe rejection. Recurrent HCV was less severe in 5/9 studies with AZA compared with 2/17 using MMF, six of which documented worse recurrence. Published data in LT show little, if any, clinical benefit of MMF versus AZA. RCTs should reevaluate AZA in LT. Evaluation of HCV replication and recurrence will be particularly important as AZA may have advantages over MMF.     

Interaction of mycophenolate mofetil and HLA matching on renal allograft survival

INTRODUCTION: The importance of HLA matching for renal transplantation outcomes has been appreciated for several decades. It has been hypothesized that as pharmacologic immunosuppression becomes stronger and more specific, the impact of HLA matching may be vanishing. Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF) has been demonstrated to both decrease acute rejection and improve three-year graft survival. It is possible that with new immunosuppressive regimens containing MMF the relative effect of HLA matching may be altered. To determine the relative impact of HLA matching in patients on MMF we undertook an analysis of the United States Renal Transplant Data Registry (USRDS). METHODS: All primary, solitary renal transplants registered at the USRDS between January 1995 and June 1997, on initial immunosuppression that included either MMF or AZA were followed until June 1998. Primary study end points were graft and patient survival. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare AZA vs. MMF treated patients by HLA mismatch. Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the interaction between HLA mismatch and AZA versus MMF therapy on the study endpoints. All multivariate analyses were corrected for 13 potential confounding pretransplant variables including intention to treat immunosuppression. RESULTS: A total of 19,675 patients were analyzed (8,459 on MMF and 11,216 on AZA). Overall three year graft survival was higher in the MMF group when compared to the AZA group (87% vs. 84% respectively P<0.001). For both AZA and MMF three-year graft survival improved with fewer HLA donor-recipient mismatches. Comparing zero antigen mismatches to six antigen mismatches, the relative improvement was comparable for both patients on AZA (92.4% vs. 80.6%) and MMF (95.2% vs. 82.9%). By Cox proportional hazard model the relative risk for graft loss decreased significantly in both the AZA and MMF treated patients with increased HLA matching. CONCLUSION: The use of MMF does not obviate the benefits of HLA matching, while HLA matching does not minimize the benefits of MMF on long term graft survival. Our study would suggest that HLA matching and MMF therapy are additive factors in decreasing the risk for renal allograft loss.     

Results of a randomized, prospective, multicenter trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in the prevention of acute lung allograft rejection.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has reduced the incidence of acute rejection in heart and kidney allograft recipients, its role in lung transplantation remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter study in lung transplant recipients to determine whether MMF decreases episodes of acute allograft rejection when compared with azathioprine (AZA). METHODS: Between March of 1997 and January of 1999, 81 consecutive lung transplant recipients from two centers were prospectively randomized to receive cyclosporine, corticosteroids, and either 2 mg/kg per day of AZA or 1 g twice daily of MMF. The primary study endpoint was biopsy-proven acute allograft rejection over the first 6 months posttransplant. Secondary endpoints included clinical rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, adverse events, and survival. Surveillance bronchoscopies were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months, or if clinically indicated. Pathologists interpreting the biopsy results were blinded to the randomization. Results were analyzed according to intention-to-treat. Between group comparisons of means and proportions were made by using two sample t tests and Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Six-month survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log rank test. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were prospectively randomized to receive AZA, and 43 MMF. The incidence of biopsy proven grade II or greater acute allograft rejection at 6 months was 58% in the AZA group and 63% in the MMF group (P=0.82). The 6-month survival rates in the MMF and AZA groups were 86% and 82%, respectively (P=0.57). Rates of CMV infection and adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Acute rejection rates and overall survival at 6 months are similar in lung transplant recipients treated with either MMF- or AZA-based immunosuppression.     

Mycophenolate mofetil may allow cyclosporine and steroid sparing in de novo heart transplant patients

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) provides superior prophylaxis against acute rejection when compared with azathioprine (AZA) in heart and renal transplantation. However, it remains unclear whether this results in improved survival or reduced morbidity after heart transplantation. METHOD: In a sequential study, 240 cardiac transplant patients were treated with either MMF (n=119) or AZA (n=121) both in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids after rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction. RESULTS: By protocol lower cyclosporine levels were targeted in the MMF group during the first year (e.g. 203+/-52 ng/mL MMF vs. 236+/-59 ng/mL AZA, P=0.0006 at 6 months). Patient survival at 1 year (82% MMF vs. 79% AZA, P=0.55) and at 3 years was similar in both groups. The cumulative probability of receiving antirejection treatment within 1 year was lower in the MMF group, as was biopsy-proven acute rejection with International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation grade > or =3A (24% vs. 35%, P=0.03). The MMF group also had fewer episodes requiring cytolytic therapy (6% vs. 13%, P=0.04) and more patients had steroids withdrawn by 1 year (66% vs. 32%, P<0.001). Renal function was better in the MMF group with lower creatinine levels at 1 year (133+/-45 vs. 155+/-46 micromol/L, P=0.0004). Calculated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft and Gault formula) at 1 year was also better (MMF 74+/-32 mL/min vs. AZA 62+/-24 mL/min, P=0.004). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that immunosuppression with MMF rather than AZA may allow lower cyclosporine levels, better renal function, and increased steroid weaning at 1 year while also achieving better control of acute rejection.     

Short-term combination of mycophenolate mofetil with cyclosporine as a therapeutic option for renal transplant recipients: A prospective,multicenter, randomized study

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), compared to azathioprine (AZA), reduces acute rejection and treatment failure in cyclosporine (CsA) and steroid regimens, but its effect on graft survival is unproven from prospective studies and prolonged use is costly. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of replacing MMF by AZA after 3 months. METHODS: This 28 center, prospective, 12-month, parallel group, open-label study, randomized patients to three groups with microemulsion formulation of CsA (ME-CsA) and steroids as baseline therapy. Group 1 (n=158) received MMF for 3 months, replaced by AZA for 9 months; group 2 (n=162) received MMF for 12 months; and group 3 (n=157) received AZA for 12 months. RESULTS: Treatment failure and the cumulative rate of acute rejection were significantly lower in the MMF groups compared with the AZA group (P=0.007 and P=0.03, respectively). Graft loss, death, and safety profiles of all three treatments were similar over 12 months, as were mean serum creatinine levels. Switching from MMF to AZA did not affect treatment failure. No patient in group 1 experienced a recurrent rejection after month 3, one patient died, and nine patients experienced first rejection episodes. Most rejections (6/9) were steroid-sensitive and histologically mild. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of MMF by AZA after 3 months of therapy with ME-CsA and steroids provides comparable efficacy and safety profiles to continuous MMF over 12 months. Although apparently a cost-effective option, long-term studies are required to assess the benefit/risk ratio of this therapy switch in different patient subpopulations.     

Comparison of long-term actual renal allograft survival in mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine-based triple drug immunosuppression protocols

INTRODUCTION: The use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in renal transplantation results in a 50% lower incidence of acute rejection compared to azathioprine (AZA). However, the graft survival reports are conflicting: the European trial and US database analysis suggest better survival with MMF, an observation that was not seen in the US and tricontinental studies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our single-center experience (60% African-Americans) comparing the serum creatinine (SCr) values and 3-year actual graft survival with MMF versus AZA-based immunosuppression. Group I included patients transplanted between January 1990 and December 1992 on cyclosporine (CSA), AZA, and steroids; group II subjects, from January 1996 to December 1998 on CSA, MMF, and steroids. We analyzed SCr and all causes of graft losses at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months posttransplantation. RESULTS: The patient demographics were similar in both groups as was the mean SCr values at different times. The time-group interaction for SCr, the Kruskal-Wallis test for SCr for different categories (<1.5, 1.5 to 2.0, 2.0 to 2.5, and >2.5 mg/dL) and the all-cause graft loss between the two groups were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Our results failed to show better long-term actual graft survival despite the 6-year interval between the two groups. These findings agree with the results of the United States and the tricontinental studies. A lower incidence of acute rejection early after transplantation observed with MMF may not always translate into a long-term benefit, possibly due to the influence of nonimmunological factors, such as hypertension, calcineurin inhibitor toxicity, more frequent cytomegalovirus infections, and increased attempts to withdraw steroids using MMF-based protocols.     

Comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine for prevention of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in de novo lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: There are no data on the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) on the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) in lung-transplant patients. This study attempted to determine whether MMF reduces the incidence of BOS in de novo lung transplant recipients compared with azathioprine (AZA). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the effects of MMF with AZA in combination with induction therapy, cyclosporine (Neoral) and corticosteroids in patients receiving their first lung transplant. Primary endpoint was incidence of BOS at 3 years. Secondary endpoints were incidence of acute rejection, time to first rejection event, and survival. RESULTS: The incidence of acute rejection and the time to first rejection event at 1 and 3 years did not differ between groups (54.1% vs. 53.8% and 56.6% vs. 60.3% for MMF and AZA respectively). Survival at 1 year tended to be better in patients receiving MMF (88 vs. 80%, P = 0.07). At year 3, there was no difference in survival or in the incidence, severity or time to acquisition of BOS between the two groups. Treatment was generally well tolerated, however more patients withdrew from AZA treatment than from MMF (59.6% vs. 46.5%, P = 0.02). As a result, there was an imbalance in the observation times of the two groups (876 +/- 395 vs. 947 +/- 326 days). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were seen in the incidence of acute rejection or BOS in lung transplant recipients treated with MMF or AZA. This null result may have been influenced by the shorter observation time for AZA patients.     

Is mycophenolate mofetil less safe than azathioprine in elderly renal transplant recipients?

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is a potent immunosuppressive agent that has been shown to be superior to azathioprine in preventing early acute rejection in the general renal transplant population. However, it is uncertain whether these benefits also apply to older renal transplant recipients, who are known to be more susceptible to infectious complications and have considerably lower rates of rejection and immunological graft loss. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all elderly (> or =55 years old) renal transplant recipients who underwent renal transplantation at the Princess Alexandra Hospital (1994-2000) and received either MMF (n=60) or azathioprine (n=55) in combination with prednisolone and cyclosporin. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The azathioprine- and MMF-treated groups were well matched at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics, end-stage renal failure causes and transplant characteristics. Compared with the MMF cohort, azathioprine-treated patients experienced a shorter time to first rejection [hazard ratio (HR) 4.47, 95% CI 1.53-13.1, P<0.01]. However, azathioprine-treated patients were also less likely to develop opportunistic infections (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.41, P=0.001). No differences were observed between the two groups with respect to hospitalization rates, intensive care admissions, hematological complications, or posttransplant malignancies. Actuarial 2-year survival rates for the azathioprine- and MMF-treated patients were 100 and 87%, respectively (P<0.001). The principal cause of death in the MMF cohort was infection. Using a multivariate Cox regression analysis of patient survival, an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.01 (95% CI 0.001-0.08, P=0.001) was calculated in favor of azathioprine. Overall graft survival also tended to be better in patients receiving azathioprine (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.06-1.33, P=0.11), CONCLUSIONS: In elderly renal transplant recipients, the combination of MMF, cyclosporin, and prednisolone appears to result in a worse outcome compared with the less potent combination of azathioprine, cyclosporin, and prednisolone. Future prospective studies need to specifically evaluate the risk/benefit ratios of newer, more potent immunosuppressive protocols, such as MMF-based regimens, in this important and sizeable patient subgroup.     

Outcomes of renal transplantation for recipients with lupus nephritis: analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database

Prior analyses of transplant outcomes in lupus transplant recipients have not consisted of multivariate analyses in the modern immunosuppressive era. Here, we compared patient and graft outcomes in lupus and non-lupus recipients transplanted between 1996 to 2000 using the United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplant Network database. We evaluated the impact of recipient and donor demographic factors, time on dialysis and the initial immunosuppression regimen on rejection rates and transplant outcomes. Univariate analysis showed similar graft but better patient survival rates for primary lupus and non-lupus transplant recipients (5-year patient survival rates for lupus cohort 85.2% for deceased donor transplants and 92.1% for living donor transplants as opposed to 82.1% and 89.8% respectively for the non-lupus cohort; P=0.05 and 0.03) but similar patient survival rates for deceased donor retransplant patients. After controlling for confounding factors, no differences in patient or graft survival were seen between the two groups. No difference in acute rejection rates were observed in deceased donor transplants, but there was a small but significant increase in the risk of acute rejection in living donor lupus transplant recipients (hazard ratio=1.19, P=0.05). Risk of graft failure was lower for deceased donor recipients receiving MMF (five-year graft loss rate=29.6% for MMF vs. 40.2% for those not receiving MMF, P<0.0001), but no differences were seen among living donor recipients. Outcomes were similar regardless of type of calcineurin inhibitor, induction therapy, and time on dialysis. We conclude that lupus transplant recipients have outcomes generally equivalent to non-lupus transplant recipients.