A Randomized Trial With Steroids and Antithymocyte Globulins Comparing Cyclosporine/Azathioprine Versus Tacrolimus/Mycophenolate Mofetil (CATM2) in Renal Transplantation

被引:17
|
作者
Vacher-Coponat, Henri [1 ]
Moal, Valerie [1 ]
Indreies, Monica [1 ]
Purgus, Raj [1 ]
Loundou, Anderson [2 ]
Burtey, Stephane [1 ]
Brunet, Philippe [1 ]
Moussi-Frances, Julie [1 ]
Daniel, Laurent [3 ]
Dussol, Bertrand [1 ,2 ]
Berland, Yvon [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Hop Conception, APHM, Ctr Nephrol & Renal Transplantat, F-13005 Marseille, France
[2] Aix Marseille Univ, Fac Med, Delegat Rech Clin, Marseille, France
[3] Hop Enfants La Timone, APHM, Lab Anatomopathol, Marseille, France
[4] Hop Conception, APHM, Ctr Invest Clin, F-13005 Marseille, France
关键词
Kidney transplantation; Mycophenolate mofetil; Azathioprine; Tacrolimus; Cyclosporine A; MYCOPHENOLATE-MOFETIL; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; ACUTE REJECTION; LONG-TERM; KIDNEY; RECIPIENTS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSION; AZATHIOPRINE; CYCLOSPORINE; PREVENTION;
D O I
10.1097/TP.0b013e31824215b7
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background. The best immunosuppressive regimen in benefit-risk ratio in renal transplantation is debated. Nowadays, tacrolimus (Tac) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) are considered more efficient than cyclosporine A (CsA) and MMF, but recent studies have challenged this assumption. Methods. We conducted a monocentric, prospective, open-labeled, randomized, and controlled trial comparing CsA/azathioprine (Aza) versus Tac/MMF in 289 kidney transplant recipients treated with antithymocyte globulins and prednisone. Primary outcome was the number of patients with clinically suspected acute rejection at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were the number of patients with biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), patient and graft survivals, and adverse events at 1 and 3 years. Results. During the first year, 21 patients had clinically suspected acute rejection with CsA/Aza (14.4%) vs. 11 (7.7%) with Tac/MMF (P = 0.07). BPAR, including borderline, was more frequent in the CsA/Aza group (14.4%) than in the Tac/MMF group (5.6%; P = 0.013). At 1 year, patient and graft survivals were not different, and eGFR was 48 +/- 1 in the CsA/Aza group and 53 +/- 1 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in the Tac/MMF group (P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in diabetes after transplantation (16.8% and 18.8%, respectively). Conclusions. With antithymocyte globulins and steroids, clinically suspected acute rejections did not differ between CsA/Aza and Tac/MMF arms. Analysis of secondary endpoints showed a lower rate of BPAR, including border line, and a higher eGFR in the Tac/MMF group. CsA/Aza allowed a low acute rejection rate, but Tac/MMF seemed as a better regimen regarding severe secondary outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:437 / 443
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Improved survival after lung transplantation in patients treated with tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil as compared with cyclosporine/azathioprine
    Izbicki, G
    Shitrit, D
    Aravot, D
    Sulkes, J
    Saute, M
    Sahar, G
    Kramer, MR
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 34 (08) : 3258 - 3259
  • [32] Randomized trial of conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to azathioprine 6 months after renal allograft transplantation
    Wüthrich, RP
    Cicvara, S
    Ambühl, PM
    Binswanger, U
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2000, 15 (08) : 1228 - 1231
  • [33] Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine after renal transplantation: A systematic review
    Wang, K
    Zhang, H
    Li, Y
    Wei, Q
    Li, H
    Yang, Y
    Lu, Y
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2004, 36 (07) : 2071 - 2072
  • [34] 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
    Ciancio, G
    Burke, GW
    Gaynor, JJ
    Mattiazzi, A
    Roth, D
    Kupin, W
    Nicolas, M
    Ruiz, P
    Rosen, A
    Miller, J
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2004, 77 (02) : 244 - 251
  • [35] Pharmacoeconomic analysis of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in primary cadaveric renal transplantation
    Baker, GM
    Martin, JE
    Jang, R
    Schroeder, TJ
    Armitstead, JA
    Myre, S
    First, MR
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 1998, 30 (08) : 4082 - 4084
  • [36] Early infections in a randomized trial comparing Daclizumab versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in adult patients undergoing cadaveric renal transplantation
    Stainbrook, TR
    Shapiro, R
    Stainbrook, MT
    Kusne, S
    CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2000, 31 (01) : 307 - 307
  • [37] Randomized, multicenter trial comparing tacrolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil to tacrolimus plus steroids in hepatitis C virus-positive recipients of living donor liver transplantation
    Takada, Yasutsugu
    Kaido, Toshimi
    Asonuma, Katsuhiro
    Sakurai, Hiroyuki
    Kubo, Shoji
    Kiuchi, Tetsuya
    Inomata, Yukihiro
    Isaji, Shuji
    Tsumura, Hayami
    Teramukai, Satoshi
    Matsubara, Yoshihiro
    Sakabayashi, Satomi
    Uemoto, Shinji
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2013, 19 (08) : 896 - 906
  • [38] Tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil vs cyclosporine A/azathioprine after simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation:: Five-year results of a randomized study
    Woeste, G
    Wullstein, C
    Dette, K
    Pridöhl, O
    Lübke, P
    Bechstein, WO
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 34 (05) : 1920 - 1921
  • [39] Randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus/sirolimus versus tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral)/sirolimus in renal transplantation. II. Survival, function, and protocol compliance at 1 year
    Cianci, G
    Burke, GW
    Gaynor, JJ
    Mattiazzi, A
    Roth, D
    Kupin, W
    Nicolas, M
    Ruiz, P
    Rosen, A
    Miller, J
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2004, 77 (02) : 252 - 258
  • [40] A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF CYCLOSPORINE AND PREDNISOLONE VERSUS CYCLOSPORINE, AZATHIOPRINE, AND PREDNISOLONE IN PRIMARY CADAVERIC RENAL-TRANSPLANTATION
    LINDHOLM, A
    ALBRECHTSEN, D
    TUFVESON, G
    KARLBERG, I
    PERSSON, NH
    GROTH, CG
    TRANSPLANTATION, 1992, 54 (04) : 624 - 631