A controlled trial comparing two doses of cyclosporine in conjunction with mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids

被引:0
|
作者
de Sévaux, RGL
Gregoor, PJHS
Hené, RJ
Hoitsma, AJ
Vos, P
Weimar, W
van Gelder, T
Hilbrands, LB
机构
[1] Univ Nijmegen Hosp, Dept Nephrol, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Rotterdam Hosp, Dept Nephrol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Univ Utrecht Hosp, Dept Nephrol, Utrecht, Netherlands
来源
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
it is unknown whether the addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to cyclosporine (CsA) and prednisone after renal transplantation (RTx) allows for a reduced dose of CsA, to minimize the incidence of CsA-related side effects and to reduce costs. Therefore, 313 renal allograft recipients were randomized for treatment with MMF (1000 mg twice a day), prednisone, and either conventional- or low-dose CsA during the first 3 mo after RTx. The target trough levels were 300 and 150 ng/ml, respectively, during the first 3 mo and 150 ng/ml in both groups thereafter. A total of 313 patients were included: 161 patients received a conventional dose and 152 received a low dose of CsA. During the first 6 mo after RTx, graft failure or patient death occurred in 19 of 161 patients (12%) in the conventional-dose group and in 11 of 152 patients (7%) in the low-dose group (not significant). Biopsy-proven acute rejection occurred in 36 of 161 patients (22%) in the conventional dose group and in 29 of 152 patients (19%) in the low-dose group (not significant). The incidence of delayed graft function was similar in both groups (31 of 161 [19%] versus 28 of 152 [18%]; not significant). Serum creatinine did not differ between the conventional- and the low-dose groups: 151 +/- 56 mu mol/L versus 142 +/- 49 mu mol/L at 3 mo and 141 +/- 60 mu mol/L versus 136 +/- 49 mu mol/L at 6 mo. There were no differences between the groups regarding BP, lipid metabolism, and infectious complications. In the low-dose group, an estimated $500 per patient was saved on the costs of CsA. In conclusion, the addition of MMF to CsA and prednisone after RTx allows the use of a lower-than-conventional dose of CsA, without increasing the risk of rejection.
引用
收藏
页码:1750 / 1757
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY OF MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL COMBINED WITH CYCLOSPORINE AND CORTICOSTEROIDS FOR PREVENTION OF ACUTE REJECTION
    GRINYO, J
    GROTH, C
    PICHLMAYR, R
    SADEK, SA
    VANRENTERGHEM, Y
    BEHREND, M
    LUCK, R
    MORESO, F
    PEETERS, J
    RODICIO, J
    MORALES, J
    ALBRECHTSEN, D
    FAUCHALD, P
    SADEK, S
    LODGE, J
    SOULILLOU, JP
    CANTAROVICH, D
    VANSON, W
    TEGZESS, A
    WAGNER, K
    ERHARD, J
    BRATTSTROM, C
    MJORNSTEDT, L
    WIESEL, M
    CARL, S
    NEUMAYER, HH
    HAUSER, I
    LANG, P
    BOURGEON, B
    TUFVESON, G
    GANNEDAHL, G
    EKBERG, H
    PERSSON, N
    TARANTINO, A
    CAMPISE, M
    THIEL, G
    ZEILER, M
    HENE, R
    LIGTENBERG, G
    MORGAN, A
    RIGG, K
    HOOFTMAN, L
    HUTCHINSON, K
    LANCET, 1995, 345 (8961): : 1321 - 1325
  • [2] Design of a trial comparing sirolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil versus sirolimus plus cyclosporine
    Ponticelli, C
    Tarantino, A
    Aroldi, A
    Sparacino, V
    Stefoni, S
    Citterio, F
    Duca, L
    Scolari, MP
    Calabrese, S
    Altieri, P
    Civati, G
    Cesana, B
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2003, 35 (3A) : 62S - 63S
  • [3] A randomized trial comparing two corticosteroid regimens combined with mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection
    Juarez, F. J.
    Barrios, Y.
    Cano, L.
    Lopez, E.
    Martinez, J.
    Limones, M.
    Adalid, C.
    Soria, N.
    Medina, J. L.
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2006, 38 (09) : 2866 - 2868
  • [4] Two doses of daclizumab in conjunction with low-dose cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil and steroids resulted in a low incidence of acute rejection after renal transplantation
    Ekberg, H
    Persson, NH
    Källen, R
    Gül-Baykurt, N
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY, 2003, 58 (06) : 670 - 677
  • [5] Conversion to mycophenolate mofetil in conjunction with stepwise withdrawal of cyclosporine in stable renal transplant recipients
    Schrama, YC
    Joles, JA
    van Tol, A
    Boer, P
    Koomans, HA
    Hené, RJ
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2000, 69 (03) : 376 - 383
  • [6] Cyclosporine sparing with mycophenolate mofetil, daclizumab and corticosteroids in renal allograft recipients: The CAESAR study
    Ekberg, H.
    Grinyo, J.
    Nashan, B.
    Vantenterghem, Y.
    Vincenti, F.
    Voulgari, A.
    Truman, M.
    Nasymth-Miller, C.
    Rashford, M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 7 (03) : 560 - 570
  • [7] Multitarget therapy with a corticosteroid, cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
    Duan, Yajuan
    Bai, Yu
    Guo, Weikang
    Wang, Liyan
    Dai, Wendi
    Guo, Wang
    Huang, Hongdong
    Liu, Wenhu
    Diao, Zongli
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2024, 39 (01) : 95 - 102
  • [8] Randomized Trial Comparing Late Concentration-Controlled Calcineurin Inhibitor or Mycophenolate Mofetil Withdrawal
    Mourer, Jacqueline S.
    den Hartigh, Jan
    van Zwet, Erik W.
    Mallat, Marko J. K.
    Dubbeld, Jeroen
    de Fijter, Johan W.
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2012, 93 (09) : 887 - 894
  • [9] A prospective randomized trial comparing cyclosporine and short course methotrexate with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for GVHD prophylaxis in myeloablative allogeneic bone marrow transplantation
    B Bolwell
    R Sobecks
    B Pohlman
    S Andresen
    L Rybicki
    E Kuczkowski
    M Kalaycio
    Bone Marrow Transplantation, 2004, 34 : 621 - 625
  • [10] A prospective randomized trial comparing cyclosporine and short course methotrexate with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for GVHD prophylaxis in myeloablative allogeneic bone marrow transplantation
    Bolwell, B
    Sobecks, R
    Pohlman, B
    Andresen, S
    Rybicki, L
    Kuczkowski, E
    Kalaycio, M
    BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION, 2004, 34 (07) : 621 - 625