Increased incidence of infections following the late introduction of mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Volumn 23, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 4049-4053

  Hanvesakul, Rajesh ^a   Kubal, Chandrashekhar ^a   Jham, Seema ^a   Sarkar, Esha ^a   Eardley, Kevin ^a   Adu, Dwomoa ^a   Cockwell, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN); CNI withdrawal; Infections; Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF); Renal transplant

Indexed keywords

AZATHIOPRINE; CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR; CYCLOSPORIN; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; PREDNISOLONE; TACROLIMUS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL ARTHRITIS; CHRONIC ALLOGRAFT NEPHROPATHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; FEMALE; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; INCIDENCE; INFECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MORBIDITY; PNEUMONIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIPIENT; RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEPTICEMIA; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; VIREMIA;

ADULT; CALCINEURIN; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; INFECTION; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID;

EID: 56749098359     PISSN: 09310509     EISSN: 14602385     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfn387     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Nankivell BJ, Chapman JR. Chronic allograft nephropathy: current concepts and future directions. Transplantation 2006; 81: 643-654
2. Frimat L, Cassuto-Viguier E, Charpentier B et al. Impact of cyclosporine reduction with MMF: a randomized trial in chronic allograft dysfunction. The 'reference' study. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 2725-2734
3. Dudley C, Pohanka E, Riad H et al. Mycophenolate mofetil creeping creatinine study group. Mycophenolate mofetil substitution for cyclosporine a in renal transplant recipients with chronic progressive allograft dysfunction: the "creeping creatinine" study. Transplantation 2005; 79: 466-475
4. Merville P, Berge F, Deminiere C et al. Lower incidence of chronic allograft nephropathy at 1 year post-transplantation in patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 1769-1775
5. Yang CW, Ahn HJ, Kim WY et al. Cyclosporine withdrawal and mycophenolate mofetil treatment effects on the progression of chronic cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Kidney Int 2002; 62: 20-30
6. Stoves J, Newstead CG, Baczkowski AJ et al. A randomized controlled trial of immunosuppression conversion for the treatment of chronic allograft nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 2113-2120
7. Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 2000; 69: 2405-2409
8. Roos N, Poulalhon N, Farge D et al. In vitro evidence for a direct antifibrotic role of the immunosuppressive drug mycophenolate mofetil. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2007; 321: 583-589
9. Nankivell BJ, Wavamunno MD, Borrows RJ et al. Mycophenolate mofetil is associated with altered expression of chronic renal transplant histology. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 366-376
10. Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ et al. A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus/sirolimus versus tacrolimus/mycophenolate versus cyclosporine/sirolimus in renal transplantation: three-year analysis. Transplantation 2006; 81: 845-852
11. Allison AC, Eugui EM. Mycophenolate mofetil and its mechanisms of action. Immunopharmacology 2000; 47: 85-118 (Review)
12. Srinivas TR, Kaplan B, Meier-Kriesche HU. Mycophenolate mofetil in solid-organ transplantation. Exp Opin Pharmacother 2003; 4: 2325-2345 (Review)
13. Abramowicz D, Manas D, Lao M et al. Cyclosporine withdrawal from a mycophenolate mofetil-containing immunosuppressive regimen in stable kidney transplant recipients: a randomized, controlled study. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1725-1734
14. Schrama YC, Joles JA, van Tol A et al. Conversion to mycophenolate mofetil in conjunction with stepwise withdrawal of cyclosporine in stable renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2000; 69: 376-383
15. Weir MR, Blahut S, Drachenburg C et al. Late calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal as a strategy to prevent graft loss in patients with suboptimal kidney transplant function. Am J Nephrol 2004; 24: 379-386
16. Francois H, Durrbach A, Amor M et al. The long-term effect of switching from cyclosporin A to mycophenolate mofetil in chronic renal graft dysfunction compared with conventional management. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003; 18: 1909-1916
17. Afzali B, Shah S, Chowdhury P, et al. Low-dose mycophenolate mofetil is an effective and safe treatment to permit phased reduction in calcineurin inhibitors in chronic allograft nephropathy. Transplantation 2005; 79: 304-309
18. Ducloux D, Motte G, Billerey C et al. Cyclosporin withdrawal with concomitant conversion from azathioprine to mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients with chronic allograft nephropathy: a 2-year follow-up. Transpl Int 2002; 15: 387-392
19. Shaw LM, Korecka M, Venkataramanan R et al. Mycophenolic acid pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics provide a basis for rational monitoring strategies. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 534-542
20. Weber LT, Shipkova M, Armstrong VW et al. The pharmacokinetic- pharmacodynamic relationship for total and free mycophenolic acid in pediatric renal transplant recipients: a report of the German study group on mycophenolic mofetil therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13: 759
21. Meier-Kriesche HU, Shaw LM, Korecka M et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in renal insufficiency. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22: 27-30
22. Naesens M, de Loor H, Vanrenterghem Y et al. The impact of renal allograft function on exposure and elimination of mycophenolic acid (MPA) and its metabolite MPA 7-O-glucuronide. Transplantation 2007; 84: 362-373
23. van Gelder T. Mycophenolate mofetil: how to further improve using an already successful drug? Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 199-200
24. van Gelder T, Sham LM. The rationale for and limitations of therapeutic drug monitoring for mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Transplantation 2005; 80: S244-S253