Analysis of a single-center experience with mycophenolate mofetil based immunosuppression in renal transplantation

被引:23
|
作者
Triemer, HLL [1 ]
Pearson, TC [1 ]
Odom, KL [1 ]
Larsen, CL [1 ]
机构
[1] Emory Univ Hosp, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
关键词
immunosuppression; MMF; renal transplantation;
D O I
10.1034/j.1399-0012.2000.14041002.x
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose. Acute rejection continues to be a major clinical issue in renal transplantation. Three large multicenter trials have demonstrated a 50% decline in biopsy-proven rejection when mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was given to renal transplant recipients with corticosteroids and cyclosporine. The purpose of this study was to compare the 6-month outcome of renal transplant recipients using MMF and non-MMF based immunosuppression protocols over a 4-year period at a single center. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed three patient groups defined by their immunosuppression protocol. The first group included patients who received a quadruple immunosuppression regimen of antilymphocyte induction (ATG), cyclosporine (CYA), azathioprine (AZA), and corticosteroids (CCS), and were transplanted between October 1993 and May 1995 (AZA group). The second group included patients who received a triple immunosuppression regimen of CYA, MMF, and CCS, and were transplanted between June 1995 and May 1996 (MMF group). The third group included patients who were transplanted between January 1997 and December 1997, and received an immunosuppression regimen of CYA and MMF with a reduced CCS dosing schema (reduced steroid group (RST)). Data were collected from a retrospective review of inpatient and outpatient clinical records. Results. A total of 325 patients were included in the study (106 AZA, 106 MMF, 113 RST). The demographic characteristics of the three groups were similar; however, the mean donor age for the AZA group was 40 +/- 15.1 years versus 33 +/- 14.1 years and 34 +/- 13.1 years for the MMF and RST groups, respectively (p < 0.043). The incidence of acute, biopsy-proven rejection at 6 months was significantly less in the MMF group when compared with the AZA group [16 (15.1%) versus 35 (33%) patients, p = 0.002]. However, the incidence of acute, biopsy-proven rejection in the RST group (35 patients, 31%) was similar to that of the AZA. group. Kaplan-Meier estimates for the cumulative incidence of acute rejection demonstrated a significant difference between the MMF group and the other two groups (p = 0.0059). The AZA group had more severe rejection as demonstrated by the more frequent use of antilymphocyte therapy for rejection treatment (68.4% episodes) compared with the MMF (38.9%) and RST (47.6%) groups. After 6 months of follow-up, 11 patients had lost their grafts (8, AZA; 1, MMF; 2, RST). One patient died in each of the AZA and RST groups due to hemorrhage and a pulmonary embolus, respectively. Four AZA patients were diagnosed with a malignancy (three post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder, one squamous skin cell carcinoma) compared with 2 MMF patients (prostate cancer, basal skin cell carcinoma) and no RST patients. Herpes tester was the only infection that occurred more frequently in the MMF group (p = 0.03). No other differences in infection rates were noted among the three groups. The initial length of hospital stay declined significantly over the 4-year study period [11 +/- 4.3 d (AZA), 7.0 +/- 4.0 d (MMF), 6.2 +/- 3.3 d (RST), p < 0.001]. Total number of hospital days for the first 6 months also followed a similar declining pattern. Despite using intravenous cyclosporine immediately post-transplant in the MMF and RST groups, the incidence of delayed graft function was similar among the three groups. Average serum creatinine at 1 month was significantly lower in the MMF group (p = 0.008), but no difference was noted at 3 and 6 months when compared with the AZA and RST groups. Conclusion. This retrospective analysis indicates that MMF is an effective immunosuppressant. Decreased length of stay and less steroid resistant rejections with MMF is favorable for decreased hospital costs. However, the rebound in rejection rate with the RST group suggests that further study is needed to define the optimal use of this agent in combination with others to maximize effectiveness and minimize negative side effects.
引用
收藏
页码:413 / 420
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] EXPERIENCE WITH MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL (RS61443) IN RENAL-TRANSPLANTATION AT A SINGLE-CENTER
    DEIERHOI, MH
    KAUFFMAN, RS
    HUDSON, SL
    BARBER, WH
    CURTIS, JJ
    JULIAN, BA
    GASTON, RS
    LASKOW, DA
    DIETHELM, AG
    MCDONALD, JC
    FLYE, MW
    ROHR, MS
    HOWARD, RJ
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1993, 217 (05) : 476 - 484
  • [2] Mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplantation: A single center experience
    Raheem, Omer A.
    Kamel, Mohamed H.
    Daly, Padraiq J.
    Mohan, Ponnusamy
    Little, Dilly M.
    Awan, Atif
    Hickey, David P.
    PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION, 2011, 15 (03) : 240 - 244
  • [3] Pediatric renal transplantation with mycophenolate mofetil immunosuppression in a single center from Mexico
    Martinez-Mier, Gustavo
    Mendez-Lopez, Marco T.
    Budar-Fernandez, Luis F.
    Estrada-Oros, Jorge
    Franco-Abaroa, Regino
    George-Micelli, Esteban
    Rios-Martinez, Luis
    Calzada-Grijalva, Jose Francisco
    Gonzalez-Velazquez, Felipe
    PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 11 (02) : 134 - 138
  • [4] Single-center experience with mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplant recipients
    Virji, M
    Carter, JE
    Lirenman, DS
    PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION, 2001, 5 (04) : 293 - 296
  • [5] Adverse events in renal transplantation under tacrolimus/mycophnolate mofetil immunosuppression: A single-center experience
    Omoto, K
    Tanabe, K
    Tokumoto, T
    Ishida, H
    Shimmura, H
    Makiyama, K
    Toma, H
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 34 (05) : 1821 - 1822
  • [6] Everolimus with or without mycophenolate mofetil in a liver transplantation setting: a single-center experience
    Cholongitas, Evangelos
    Goulis, Ioannis
    Theocharidou, Eleni
    Antoniadis, Nikolaos
    Fouzas, Ioannis
    Imvrios, George
    Giouleme, Olga
    Angelaki, Aliki
    Vasiliadis, Themistoklis
    Papanikolaou, Vasilios
    Akriviadis, Evangelos
    ANNALS OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 31 (05): : 613 - 620
  • [7] Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus azathioprine (AZA) in pancreas transplantation: a single-center experience
    Rigotti, P
    Cadrobbi, R
    Baldan, N
    Sarzo, G
    Parise, P
    Furian, L
    Marchini, F
    Ancona, E
    CLINICAL NEPHROLOGY, 2000, 53 (04) : B52 - B54
  • [8] Immunosuppression using tacrolimus/mycophenolate versus neoral/mycophenolate following kidney transplantation: A single-center experience
    Urbizu, JM
    Amenabar, JJ
    Gomez-Ullate, P
    Zarraga, S
    Lampreabe, I
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 34 (01) : 87 - 88
  • [9] MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL IN PEDIATRIC IGA NEPHROPATHY, A SINGLE-CENTER EXPERIENCE
    Ananin, Petr
    Milovanova, Anastasiia
    Vashurina, Tatiana
    Stolyarevich, Ekaterina
    Zrobok, Olga
    Voznesenskaya, Tatiana
    Tsygin, Alexey
    PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY, 2022, 37 (11) : 2928 - 2928
  • [10] Triple immunosuppression with tacrolimus in pediatric renal transplantation: Single-center experience
    Duzova, A.
    Aki, T.
    Bakkaloglu, A.
    Besbas, N.
    Topaloglu, R.
    Ozen, S.
    Ozaltin, F.
    Bilginer, Y.
    Demirkaya, E.
    Bakkaloglu, M.
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2008, 40 (01) : 132 - 134