Reduced-exposure cyclosporine is safe and efficacious in de novo renal transplant recipients treated with enteric-coated mycophenolic acid and basiliximab

Clinical Nephrology

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 164-175

  Budde, Klemens ^a   Bosmans, J L ^b   Sennesael, J ^c   Zeier, M ^d   Pisarski, M ^e   Schutz M ^a   Fischer, W ^f   Neumayer, H H ^a   Glander, P ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b ANTWERP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^c VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^f Novartis Pharma GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cyclosporine; Enteric coated; Mycophenolate mofetil; Mycophenolate sodium; Myfortic

Indexed keywords

BASILIXIMAB; CREATININE; CYCLOSPORIN A; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; STEROID;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD DISEASE; BRADYCARDIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSTIPATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CREATININE CLEARANCE; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTION; DIARRHEA; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; ENTERIC COATED TABLET; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INCIDENCE; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LONG TERM EXPOSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; NAUSEA; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; POTASSIUM BLOOD LEVEL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SEPTIC SHOCK; SIDE EFFECT; SURVIVAL RATE; SURVIVAL TIME; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; URIC ACID BLOOD LEVEL;

EID: 33947277962     PISSN: 03010430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5414/CNP67164     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Belitsky P, Dunn S, Johnston A, Levy G. Impact of absorption profiling on efficacy and safety of cyclosporine therapy in transplant recipients. Clinical Pharmacokinetic. 2000; 39: 117-125.
2. Bennett WM. The nephrotoxicity of immunosuppressive drugs. Clin Nephrol. 1995; 42 (Suppl 1): S3-S7.
3. Budde K, Curtis J, Knoll G et al on behalf of the ERL B302 Study Group. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium can be safety administered in maintenance renal transplant patients: results of a 1-year study. Am J Transplant. 2004a; 4: 237-243.
4. Budde K, Glander P, Dielanann F. Review of the immunosuppressant enteric-coated mycophenotate sodium. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004b; 5: 1333-1345.
5. Budde K, Knoll G, Curtis J, Chan L, Pohanka E, Gentil M, Seifu Y, Marrast A-C, Neumayer H-H: Long-term safety and efficacy after conversion of maintenance renal transplant recipients from mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPA, myfortic). Clin Nephrol. 2006; 66: 103-111.
6. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976; 16: 31-41.
7. 2 monitoring in the long-term management of renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2003; 75: 2086-2090.
8. Hariharan S, McBride MA, Cherikh WS, Tolleris CB, Bresnahan BA, Johnson CP. Post-transplant renal function in the first year predicts long-term kidney transplant survival. Kidney Int. 2002; 62: 311-318.
9. International Neoral Renal Transplantation Study Group. Randomized, international study of Neoral absorption profiling in renal transplantation with basiliximab immunoprophylaxis. Am J Transplant. 2002; 2: 157-166.
10. Jardine AG. Assessing the relative risk of cardiovascular disease among renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus or cyclosporine. Transplant Int. 2005; 18: 379-384.
11. Kiberd BA, Lawen J, Fraser AD, Keough-Ryan T, Belitsky P. Early adequate mycophenolate acid exposure is associated with less rejection in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2004; 4: 1079-1083.
12. 2 monitoring: an international consensus statement. Transplantation. 2002; 73: S12-18.
13. Mahalati K, Belitsky P, Sketris I, West K et al. Neoral monitoring by simplified sparse sampling area under the concentration-time curve. Transplantation. 1999; 68: 55-62.
14. 2 monitoring in maintenance renal transplant recipients: is it worthwhile? Transplantation. 2003; 76: 1236-1238.
15. 2 monitoring: a European consensus. Transplant Int. 2005; 18: 768-778.
16. Ojo A, Meier-Kriesche H-U, Hanson JA et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation. 2000; 69: 2405-2409.
17. Perner F for the International Neoral Renal Study Group. Cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) absorption profiling and sparse-sample predictors during the first 3 months after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2002; 2: 148-156.
18. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB et al. The Banff97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int. 1999; 55: 713-723.
19. Salvadori M, Holzer H, de Mattos A et al on behalf of the ERL B301 Study Groups. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium is therapeutically equivalent to mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant. 2004; 4: 231-236.
20. Sollinger HW for the US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation. 1995; 60: 225-232.
21. 2 monitoring of cyclosporine A microemulsion: results of a 12-month, randomized, multicenter study. Transplantation. 2005; 79: 577-583.
22. Tran HTB, Acharya MK, McKay DB et al. Avoidance of cyclosporine in renal transplantation: effects of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000; 11: 1903-1909.
23. 2 monitoring of cyclosporine in de novo liver transplant recipients: the clinician's perspective. Liver Transplantation. 2004; 10: 577-583.
24. Vincenti F, Ramos E, Brattsrom C et al. Multicenter trial exploring calcineurin inhibitors avoidance in renal transplantation. Transplantation. 2001; 71: 1282-1287.
25. 2-monitored cyclosporine microemulsion in a U.S. population of de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2005; 80: 910-916.
26. Vitko S, Tedesco H, Eris J, Pascual J, Whelchel J, Magee JC et al. Everolimus with optimized cyclosporine dosing in renal transplant recipients: 6-month safety and efficacy results of two randomized studies. Am J Transplant. 2004; 4: 626-635.