Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

Mycophenolate Mofetil For The Prevention Of Acute Rejection In Primary Cadaveric Renal Allograft Recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group.

H. Sollinger
Published 1995 · Medicine
Referenced 2 times by Citationsy Users

Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
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)



This paper is referenced by
10.1111/j.1399-0012.2005.00421.x
Impact of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)‐related gastrointestinal complications and MMF dose alterations on transplant outcomes and healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients
J. Tierce (2005)
10.1111/ctr.12940
Adverse symptoms of immunosuppressants: A survey of Canadian transplant clinicians
J. Harrison (2017)
10.1016/S0002-9270(98)00487-0
Mycophenolate mofetil in patients with Crohn's disease
P. Fickert (1998)
10.1097/00007890-199907150-00016
Adverse effects of mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplant recipients with presumed chronic rejection.
L. Butani (1999)
10.1007/BF02761217
Renal transplantation in infants and children
A. Moudgil (1999)
10.1097/00007890-199902150-00012
A prospective, randomized trial of tacrolimus/prednisone versus tacrolimus/prednisone/mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients.
R. Shapiro (1999)
10.1016/S0009-9236(98)90058-3
The pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation
M. Hale (1998)
10.1097/00007691-200006000-00009
Development and application of a high-performance liquid chromatography-based assay for determination of the activity of inosine 5'-monophosphate dehydrogenase in whole blood and isolated mononuclear cells.
W. Albrecht (2000)
10.1002/ajmg.a.32715
Intrauterine exposure to mycophenolate mofetil and multiple congenital anomalies in a newborn: Possible teratogenic effect
P. Jackson (2009)
10.2165/0003088-200847120-00007
Population Pharmacokinetics of Mycophenolic Acid
B. Winter (2008)
10.1007/978-1-4614-7636-8_14
Immunosuppression for the Prevention and Treatment of BOS
S. Bhorade (2013)
10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.09.026
Improvement in gastrointestinal and health-related quality of life outcomes after conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in liver transplant recipients.
M. Sterneck (2014)
10.1517/14656566.2015.1056734
Advances in pharmacotherapy to treat kidney transplant rejection
J. Bamoulid (2015)
10.1111/J.1523-1755.2004.00431.X
The effect of maintenance immunosuppression medication on the change in kidney allograft function.
J. Gill (2004)
10.1016/J.JCHROMB.2004.02.020
Simple reversed-phase ion-pair liquid chromatography assay for the simultaneous determination of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolite in human plasma and urine.
Wai-Ping Yau (2004)
10.1097/01.TP.0000101290.20629.DC
A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus and sirolimus versus tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (NEORAL) and sirolimus in renal transplantation. I. Drug interactions and rejection at one year
G. Ciancio (2004)
10.1111/j.1478-3231.2005.01123.x
Use of mycophenolate in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis
Y. Oo (2005)
INTERLEUKIN-2 – RECEPTOR BLOCKADE WITH DACLIZUMAB TO PREVENT ACUTE REJECTION IN RENAL TRANSPLANTATION
Obert (2017)
10.1111/j.1432-2277.2000.tb02045.x
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolic acid in stable renal transplant recipients treated with low doses of mycophenolate mofetil
M. Brunet (2000)
10.1161/01.HYP.37.1.170
Mycophenolate Mofetil Reduces Renal Injury in the Chronic Nitric Oxide Synthase Inhibition Model
C. Fujihara (2001)
10.1074/JBC.M007926200
Transcriptional Regulation of the Yeast GMP Synthesis Pathway by Its End Products*
M. Escobar-Henriques (2001)
Mise au point et validation d’outils d'individualisation du traitement immunosuppresseur en greffe pulmonaire
C. Monchaud (2011)
Inosine Monophosphate Dehydrogenase: The Molecular Target of Mycophenolate
S. Bremer (2009)
10.1016/S0149-2918(99)80044-7
Current opinions on therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs.
L. Shaw (1999)
10.1097/MIB.0000000000000377
Guidelines for medical treatment of Crohn's perianal fistulas: critical evaluation of therapeutic trials.
D. Schwartz (2015)
10.1007/s11136-006-0053-5
Using GI-specific patient outcome measures in renal transplant patients: Validation of the GSRS and GIQLI
L. Kleinman (2006)
10.1097/FTD.0b013e318255cc15
Limited-Sampling Strategy for Mycophenolic Acid in Renal Transplant Recipients Reciving Enteric-Coated Mycophenolate Sodium and Tacrolimus
A. S. Sánchez Fructuoso (2012)
10.1007/978-88-470-0374-3_28
Side-Effects and Potential Complications
L. Badet (2007)
10.2217/pgs.10.9
Pharmacogenetic influences on mycophenolate therapy.
K. Barraclough (2010)
10.1007/s00120-005-0958-6
Moderne Immunsuppressiva nach Nierentransplantation
K. Budde (2005)
10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.001
Projecting long-term graft and patient survival after transplantation.
A. Levy (2014)
10.1097/01.tp.0000198417.91135.1f
Comparison of Sequential Protocol using Basiliximab versus Antithymocyte Globulin with High-Dose Mycophenolate Mofetil in Recipients of a Kidney Graft from an Expanded-Criteria Donor
N. Pallet (2006)
See more
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar