Mycophenolate Mofetil Decreases Acute Rejection and may Improve Graft Survival in Renal Transplant Recipients When Compared with Azathioprine: A Systematic Review

Background. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has increasingly replaced azathioprine (AZA) as the antimetabolite of choice in immunosuppressive protocols. Initial trials comparing MMF with AZA in patients receiving cyclosporine A sandimmune showed a clinical benefit in reducing the incidence of acute rejections. It has been questioned whether this benefit remains significant when using newer formulations of cyclosporine A (neoral) and tacrolimus. Methods. Literature searches were performed using the Transplant Library, Cochrane library, Medline, and Embase for all randomized controlled trials directly comparing MMF with AZA in renal transplant recipients. Trials were assessed for quality using the Jadad scoring system. Trials were pooled using meta-analysis software. Confidence intervals were set at 95%. Results. Nineteen relevant studies were identified, including a total of 3143 patients. MMF significantly reduces the risk of acute rejection when used in combination with any calcineurin inhibitor (relative risk 0.62, 0.55–0.87, P<0.00001). The hazard for graft loss, including death with a functioning graft, is also significantly reduced in patients treated with MMF (hazard ratio 0.76, 0.59–0.98, P=0.037). There is no significant difference in patient survival or renal transplant function between groups. Risk of adverse events, including cytomegalovirus infection, anemia, leukopenia or rates of malignancy, does not differ significantly. A greater risk of diarrhea is seen in MMF-treated patients. Conclusions. We have shown that MMF used with a calcineurin inhibitor does indeed confer a clinical benefit over AZA by reducing the risk of acute rejection and also possibly reducing graft loss. This effect is independent of whether MMF is used in combination with sandimmune, neoral or tacrolimus.

[1]  S D Walter,et al.  Effect sizes can be calculated for studies reporting ranges for outcome variables in systematic reviews. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  G. Remuzzi,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of chronic allograft dysfunction in renal transplantation: the MYSS follow-up randomized, controlled clinical trial. , 2007, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[3]  Rachel J. Johnson,et al.  Long-Term Graft Outcome with Mycophenolate Mofetil and Azathioprine: A Paired Kidney Analysis , 2006, Transplantation.

[4]  W. Padberg,et al.  Post‐Transplant sCD30 and Neopterin as Predictors of Chronic Allograft Nephropathy: Impact of Different Immunosuppressive Regimens , 2006, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[5]  Paul M Ridker,et al.  Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005. , 2006, JAMA.

[6]  B. Baird,et al.  Role of maintenance immunosuppressive regimen in kidney transplant outcome. , 2006, Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN.

[7]  P. Morris,et al.  Registry of Randomized Controlled Trials in Transplantation , 2005, Transplantation.

[8]  J. Joh,et al.  The Influence of Mycophenolate Mofetil and Azathioprine on the Same Cadaveric Donor Renal Transplantation , 2005, Journal of Korean medical science.

[9]  L. Rostaing,et al.  Lower Incidence of Chronic Allograft Nephropathy at 1 Year Post‐Transplantation in Patients Treated with Mycophenolate Mofetil , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[10]  Y. Li,et al.  Safety of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in renal transplantation: a systematic review. , 2004, Transplantation proceedings.

[11]  Y. Lu,et al.  Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine after renal transplantation: a systematic review. , 2004, Transplantation proceedings.

[12]  B. Dimitrov,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of acute rejection in renal transplantation (MYSS): a randomised trial , 2004, The Lancet.

[13]  K. Budde,et al.  Reports of Large Immunosuppression Trials in Kidney Transplantation: Room for Improvement , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[14]  S. Sengul,et al.  Immunoglobulin deficiency in kidney allograft recipients: comparative effects of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine , 2003, Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society.

[15]  M. Stegall,et al.  Randomized trial of tacrolimus + mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine versus cyclosporine + mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation: results at three years , 2003, Transplantation.

[16]  H. Meier‐Kriesche,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine therapy is associated with a significant protection against long-term renal allograft function deterioration1 , 2003, Transplantation.

[17]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  H. Meier‐Kriesche,et al.  Long‐Term Use of Mycophenolate Mofetil is Associated With a Reduction in the Incidence and Risk of Late Rejection , 2003, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[19]  M. Tuncer,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation: five years experience. , 2002, Transplantation proceedings.

[20]  A. Ghods,et al.  Effect of mycophenolate mofetil on the prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. , 2002, Transplantation proceedings.

[21]  J. Squifflet,et al.  Short-term combination of mycophenolate mofetil with cyclosporine as a therapeutic option for renal transplant recipients: A prospective, multicenter, randomized study1 , 2002, Transplantation.

[22]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  M. Stegall,et al.  RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF TACROLIMUS PLUS MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL OR AZATHIOPRINE VERSUS CYCLOSPORINE ORAL SOLUTION (MODIFIED) PLUS MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL AFTER CADAVERIC KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION: RESULTS AT 2 YEARS1 , 2001, Transplantation.

[24]  I. Folkmane,et al.  beta-herpesvirus activation after kidney transplantation with mycophenolate mofetil-based maintenance immunosuppression. , 2001, Transplantation proceedings.

[25]  H. Lou,et al.  Safety and efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil for prophylaxis in Asian renal transplant recipients. , 2000, Transplantation proceedings.

[26]  R. Wolfe,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. , 2000, Transplantation.

[27]  M. Stegall,et al.  Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation. , 2000, Transplantation.

[28]  S. Jensik,et al.  Safety And Efficacy Of Tacrolimus In Combination With Mycophenolate Mofetil (mmf) In Cadaveric Renal Transplant Recipients1 , 2000 .

[29]  M. Seikaly Mycophenolate mofetil – is it worth the cost? The in‐favor opinion , 1999, Pediatric transplantation.

[30]  M. Parmar,et al.  Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  T. Mathew A blinded, long-term, randomized multicenter study of mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplantation: results at three years. Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. , 1998, Transplantation.

[32]  T. Mathew A Blinded, Long-term, Randomized Multicenter Study Of Mycophenolate Mofetil In Cadaveric Renal Transplantation: Results at Three Years1,2 , 1998 .

[33]  R. Mendez FK 506 and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients: six-month results of a multicenter, randomized dose ranging trial. FK 506 MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group. , 1998, Transplantation proceedings.

[34]  P. Halloran,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: a pooled efficacy analysis of three randomized, double-blind, clinical studies in prevention of rejection. The International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplant Study Groups. , 1997, Transplantation.

[35]  G. Remuzzi,et al.  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. , 1996, Transplantation.

[36]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[37]  Sollinger Hw Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. , 1995 .

[38]  P Fauchald,et al.  PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY OF MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL COMBINED WITH CYCLOSPORINE AND CORTICOSTEROIDS FOR PREVENTION OF ACUTE REJECTION , 1995 .

[39]  Y. Natsumeda,et al.  Characterization of human type I and type II IMP dehydrogenases. , 1993, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[40]  J. H. Harrison,et al.  Prolonged survival of human-kidney homografts by immunosuppressive drug therapy. , 1963, Annals of plastic surgery.

[41]  J. H. Harrison,et al.  Kidney Transplantation in Modified Recipients , 1962, Annals of surgery.

[42]  Andrea Cipriani,et al.  Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[43]  Sun Cheng A Comparison between the Therapeutic Effects of Mycophenolate Mofetil and Azathioprine in the Management of Patients after Renal Transplantation , 2002 .

[44]  M. Ostrowski,et al.  Freedom from rejection and stable kidney function are excellent criteria for steroid withdrawal in tacrolimus-treated kidney transplant recipients. , 2002, Annals of transplantation.

[45]  J. Baltar,et al.  [Changes in health-related quality of life in the first year of kidney transplantation]. , 2002, Nefrologia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola Nefrologia.

[46]  S. Jensik,et al.  Safety and efficacy of tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. FK506/MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group. , 2000, Transplantation.

[47]  Mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplantation. US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. , 1999, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[48]  M. M. Rees,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplantation , 1999 .

[49]  Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection of primary cadaveric kidney transplants: status of the MYC 1866 study at 1 year. The U.S. Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. , 1997, Transplantation proceedings.

[50]  H. Sollinger Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. , 1995, Transplantation.