Mycophenolate mofetil decreases acute rejection and may improve graft survival in renal transplant recipients when compared with azathioprine: A systematic review

Transplantation

Volumn 87, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 785-794

  Knight, Simon R ^a,b   Russell, Neil K ^a,c   Barcena, Leticia ^a   Morris, Peter J ^a  

^a ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b CHURCHILL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Azathioprine; Meta analysis.; Mycophenolate mofetil; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

AZATHIOPRINE; CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR; CYCLOSPORIN A; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; PLACEBO; STEROID; TACROLIMUS; DRUG DERIVATIVE; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; ANEMIA; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS INFECTION; DIARRHEA; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG COST; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; FOLLOW UP; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LEUKOPENIA; META ANALYSIS; NAUSEA; NEOPLASM; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SURVIVAL RATE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VOMITING; ACUTE DISEASE; DRUG EFFECT; GRAFT REJECTION; IMMUNOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR;

ACUTE DISEASE; AZATHIOPRINE; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 65549153182     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181952623     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Murray JE, Merrill JP, Dammin GJ, et al. Kidney transplantation in modified recipients. Ann Surg 1962; 156: 337.
2. Murray JE, Merrill JP, Harrison JH, et al. Prolonged survival of humankidney homografts by immunosuppressive drug therapy. N Engl J Med 1963; 268: 1315.
3. Carr SF, Papp E, Wu JC, et al. Characterization of human type I and type II IMP dehydrogenases. J Biol Chem 1993; 268: 27286.
4. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Placebocontrolled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet 1995; 345: 1321.
5. 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.
6. The 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. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. Transplantation 1996; 61: 1029.
7. Halloran P, Mathew T, Tomlanovich S, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: A pooled efficacy analysis of three randomized, double-blind, clinical studies in prevention of rejection. The International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplant Study Groups. Transplantation 1997; 63: 39.
8. Remuzzi G, Lesti M, Gotti E, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of acute rejection in renal transplantation (MYSS): A randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 503.
9. Shah S, Collett D, Johnson R, et al. Long-term graft outcome with mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine: A paired kidney analysis. Transplantation 2006; 82: 1634.
10. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technology Appraisal 85: Immunosuppressive therapy for renal transplantation in adults. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/TA085guidance. Accessed April 3, 2008, 2004.
11. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1.
12. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539.
13. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2815.
14. Walter SD, Yao X. Effect sizes can be calculated for studies reporting ranges for outcome variables in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 849.
15. Furukawa TA, Barbui C, Cipriani A, et al. Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 7.
16. Army Hospital Delhi. Mycophenolate versus aza-in-de-nova renal transplantation-A short term study abstract. Indian J Nephrol 2002; 12: 226.
17. Baltar J, Ortega F, Rebollo P, et al. Changes in health-related quality of life in the first year of kidney transplantation. Nefrologia 2002; 22: 262.
18. Folkmane I, Chapenko S, Amerika D, et al. beta-herpesvirus activation after kidney transplantation with mycophenolate mofetil-based maintenance immunosuppression. Transplantation Proceedings 2001; 33: 2384.
19. Sun CS, Hao JW, Sun J, et al. A comparison between the therapeutic effects of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine in the management of patients after renal transplantation. Herald Med 2002; 21: 544.
20. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: The difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003; 326: 219.
21. Ahsan N, Johnson C, Gonwa T, et al. Randomized trial of tacrolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine versus cyclosporine oral solution (modified) plus mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation: Results at 2 years. Transplantation 2001; 72: 245.
22. Baek H, Huh W, Kim JA, et al. Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil and azathiporine therapy in paired cadaveric renal transplantation: Fiveyear experience abstract. Presented at The 41st Congress European Renal Association. European Dialysis and Transplantation Association 2004, Lisbon, Portugal, May 15-18, 2004, pp 402.
23. Cho S, Danovitch G, Deierhoi M, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplantation. US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34: 296.
24. Egfjord M, Ladefoged J, Olgaard K. Open randomized study of mofetil vs azathioprin combined with prednisone and cyclosporin for prevention of acute renal graft rejection abstract. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14: A275.
25. Gonwa T, Johnson C, Ahsan N, et al. Randomized trial of tacrolimus mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine versus cyclosporine mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation: Results at three years. Transplantation 2003; 75: 2048.
26. Joh JW, Lee HH, Lee DS, et al. The influence of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine on the same cadaveric donor renal transplantation. J Korean Med Sci 2005; 20: 79.
27. Johnson C, Ahsan N, Gonwa T, et al. Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2000; 69: 834.
28. Keven K, Sahin M, Kutlay S, et al. Immunoglobulin deficiency in kidney allograft recipients: Comparative effects of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine. Transpl Infect Dis 2003; 5: 181.
29. Mathew TH. A blinded, long-term, randomized multicenter study of mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplantation: Results at three years. Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. Transplantation 1998; 65: 1450.
30. Mendez R. FK 506 and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients: Six-month results of a multicenter, randomized dose ranging trial. FK 506 MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 1287.
31. 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.
32. Miladipour AH, Ghods AJ, Nejadgashti H. Effect of mycophenolate mofetil on the prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 2089.
33. Miller J, Mendez R, Pirsch JD, et al. Safety and efficacy of tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. FK506/MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 2000; 69: 875.
34. Remuzzi G, Cravedi P, Costantini M, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of chronic allograft dysfunction in renal transplantation: The MYSS follow-up randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 18: 1973.
35. Sadek S, Medina J, Arias M, et al. Short-term combination of mycophenolate mofetil with cyclosporine as a therapeutic option for renal transplant recipients: A prospective, multicenter, randomized study. Transplantation 2002; 74: 511.
36. Suhail SM, Vathsala A, Lou HX, et al. Safety and efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil for prophylaxis in Asian renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2000; 32: 1757.
37. The US Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection of primary cadaveric kidney transplants: Status of theMYC1866 study at 1 year. The U.S. Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 348.
38. Tuncer M, Gurkan A, Erdogan O, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation: Five years experience. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 2087.
39. Weimer R, Susal C, Yildiz S, et al. Post-transplant sCD30 and neopterin as predictors of chronic allograft nephropathy: Impact of different immunosuppressive regimens. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 1865.
40. Wlodarczyk Z, Walaszewski J, Perner F, et al. Freedom from rejection and stable kidney function are excellent criteria for steroid withdrawal in tacrolimus-treated kidney transplant recipients. Ann Transplant 2002; 7: 28.
41. Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 2000; 69: 2405.
42. Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS, Smith L, Shihab FS, et al. Role of maintenance immunosuppressive regimen in kidney transplant outcome. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1: 563.
43. Meier-Kriesche HU, Steffen BJ, Hochberg AM, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine therapy is associated with a significant protection against long-term renal allograft function deterioration. Transplantation 2003; 75: 1341.
44. 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.
45. Wang K, Zhang H, Li Y, et al. Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine after renal transplantation: A systematic review. Transplant Proc 2004; 36: 2071.
46. Wang K, Zhang H, Li Y, et al. Safety of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in renal transplantation: A systematic review. Transplant Proc 2004; 36: 2068.
47. Seikaly MG. Mycophenolate mofetil-Is it worth the cost? The in-favor opinion. Pediatr Transplant 1999; 3: 79.
48. Barcena L, Pengel L, Morris PJ. Registry of randomized controlled trials in transplantation. Transplantation 2005; 80: 1525.
49. Fritsche L, Einecke G, Fleiner F, et al. Reports of large immunosuppression trials in kidney transplantation: Room for improvement. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 738.
50. Ridker PM, Torres J. Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000- 2005. JAMA 2006; 295: 2270.