Improvement in 3-month patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms after conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in renal transplant patients

Transplantation

Volumn 84, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1443-1451

  Bolin, Paul ^a   Tanriover, Bekir ^b   Zibari, Gazi B ^c   Lynn, Melissa L ^d   Pirsch, John D ^e   Chan, Laurence ^f   Cooper, Matthew ^g   Langone, Anthony J ^h   Tomlanovich, Stephen J ⁱ  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Dallas Otolaryngology Associates   (United States)

^c LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^d Northwest Louisiana Nephrology   (United States)

^e University of Wisconsin Health   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Enteric coated mycophenolate sodium; Gastrointestinal symptoms; Mycophenolate mofetil; Myfortic; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

CYCLOSPORIN; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; TACROLIMUS;

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICAN; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTION; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG DOSE REDUCTION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUG TOLERABILITY; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; ENTERIC COATED TABLET; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GASTROINTESTINAL SYMPTOM; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HUMAN; KIDNEY GRAFT; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LEUKOPENIA; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEUTROPENIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THROMBOCYTOPENIA;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT; HUMANS; IMMUNE TOLERANCE; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; QUESTIONNAIRES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 37349015946     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000290678.06523.95     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation 1995; 60: 225.
2. Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1996; 61: 1029.
3. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet 1995; 345: 1321.
4. Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 2000; 69: 2405.
5. Meier-Kriesche HU, Steffen BJ, Hochberg AM, et al. Long-term use of mycophenolate mofetil is associated with a reduction in the incidence and risk of late rejection. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 68.
6. Behrend M. Adverse gastrointestinal effects of mycophenolate mofetil: Aetiology, incidence and management. Drug Saf 2001; 24: 645.
7. Tierce JC, Porterfield-Baxa J, Petrilla AA, et al. Impact of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-related gastrointestinal complications and MMF dose alterations on transplant outcomes and healthcare costs in renal recipients. Clin Transplant 2005; 19: 779.
8. Bunnapradist S, Lentine KL, Burroughs TE, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reductions and discontinuations after gastrointestinal complications are associated with renal transplant graft failure. Transplantation 2006; 82: 102.
9. Van Gelder T, Hilbrands LB, Vanrenterghem Y, et al. A randomized double-blind, multicenter plasma concentration controlled study of the safety and efficacy of oral mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68: 261.
10. Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Bullingham RES. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 672.
11. Oellerich M, Shipkova M, Schutz E, et al. Pharmacokinetic and metabolic investigation of mycophenolic acid in pediatric renal transplant recipients: implications for therapeutic drug monitoring. German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil Therapy in Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipients. Ther Drug Monitoring 2000; 22: 20.
12. Knoll GA, MacDonald I, Khan A, Van Walraven C. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reduction and the risk of acute rejection after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14: 2381.
13. Pelletier RP, Akin B, Henry ML, et al. The impact of mycophenolate mofetil dosing patterns on clinical outcome after renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 2003; 17: 200.
14. Hardinger K, Brennan DC, Lowell J, Schnitzler M. Long-term outcome of gastrointestinal complications in renal transplant patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Transpl Int 2004; 17: 609.
15. Takemoto SK, Pinksy B, Lentine K, et al. Poor immunosuppression adherence: associated factors and possible consequences. Transplantation 2006; 82(Suppl 3): 488.
16. Salvadori M, Holzer H, de Mattos A, et al., on behalf of the ERLB301 Study Group. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium is therapeutically equivalent to mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 231.
17. Budde K, Curtis J, Knoll G, et al., on behalf of the ERL B302 Study Group. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium can be safely administered in maintenance renal transplant patients: Results of a 1-year study. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 237.
18. Budde K, Knoll G, Curtis J, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy after conversion of maintenance renal transplant recipients from mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (ECMPS, myfortic). Clin Nephrol 2006; 66: 103.
19. Boswell A, Rigg K, Shehata M. Conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in patients with gastrointestinal side effects: case studies. Prog Transplant 2006; 16: 138.
20. Chan L, Mulgaonkar S, Walker R, et al. Patient-reported gastrointestinal symptom burden and health-related quality of life following conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium. Transplantation 2006; 81: 1290.
21. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group: Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 371.
22. Dimenas E, Glise H, Hallerback B, et al. Quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. An improved evaluation of treatment regimens? Scand J Gastroenterol 1993; 28: 681.
23. Dimenas E, Glise H, Hallerback B, et al. Well-being and gastrointestinal symptoms among patients referred to endoscopy owing to suspected duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1995; 30: 1046.
24. Kleinman L, Kilburg A, Machnicki G, et al. Using GI-specific patient outcome measures in renal transplant patients: Validation of the GSRS and GIQLI. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 1223.
25. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials 1989; 10: 407.
26. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, et al. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998; 316: 690.
27. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 713.
28. Revicki DA, Wood M, Wiklund I, Crawley J. Reliability and validity of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 75.
29. Webster AC, Woodroffe RC, Taylor RS, et al. Tacrolimus versus ciclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: Meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised trial data. BMJ 2005; 331: 810.