Short-term combination of mycophenolate mofetil with cyclosporine as a therapeutic option for renal transplant recipients: A prospective, multicenter, randomized study1

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.

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

[2]  S. Mulgaonkar,et al.  Withdrawal of mycophenolate mofetil in stable renal transplant recipients. , 2000, Transplantation.

[3]  B. Kahan,et al.  Immunosuppressive agents in organ transplantation: past, present, and future. , 2000, Seminars in nephrology.

[4]  P. Halloran,et al.  The temporal profile of calcineurin inhibition by cyclosporine in vivo. , 1999, Transplantation.

[5]  S. Pollard,et al.  COMPARISON OF MICROEMULSION AND CONVENTIONAL FORMULATIONS OF CYCLOSPORINE A IN PREVENTING ACUTE REJECTION IN DE NOVO KIDNEY TRANSPLANT PATIENTS1 , 1999 .

[6]  G. Tufveson,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation: 3-year results from the placebo-controlled trial. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. , 1999, Transplantation.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  L. Garrison,et al.  The cost effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil in the first year after primary cadaveric transplant. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. , 1997, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[10]  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.

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

[12]  J. Alexander,et al.  Reduced inter- and intrasubject variability in cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients treated with a microemulsion formulation in conjunction with fasting, low-fat meals, or high-fat meals. , 1995, Transplantation.

[13]  U. Frei,et al.  Use of Sandimmun Neoral in renal transplant patients. International Sandimmun Neoral Study Group. , 1994, Transplantation proceedings.

[14]  Joachim Grevel,et al.  Improved Dose Linearity of Cyclosporine Pharmacokinetics from a Microemulsion Formulation , 1994, Pharmaceutical Research.

[15]  J F Burdick,et al.  International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. , 1993, Kidney international.

[16]  T. Kissel,et al.  Enhancement of the oral absorption of cyclosporin in man. , 1992, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[17]  E. Billaud.  Clinical pharmacology of immunosuppressive drugs: year 2000--time for alternatives. , 2000, Therapie.

[18]  S. Pollard,et al.  Comparison of microemulsion and conventional formulations of cyclosporine A in preventing acute rejection in de novo kidney transplant patients. The U.K. Neoral Renal Study Group. , 1999, Transplantation.

[19]  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.

[20]  B. Kahan.  Drug therapy: cyclosporine , 1989 .

[21]  D. Candinas,et al.  Reduced kidney transplant rejection rate and pharmacoeconomic advantage of mycophenolate mofetil. , 1999, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.