Refill-Based Medication Use Quality Measures in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Examination of Proportion of Days Covered and Medication Possession Ratio.

BACKGROUND: The Pharmacy Quality Alliance's definition of proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR) have not been examined as potential quality measures in the kidney transplant recipient population. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the frequency distribution of MPR and PDC using mycophenolic acid products in a real-world kidney transplant recipient population and (b) evaluate associations between MPR and PDC with late (> 90 days after transplantation) biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study combining data from the Wisconsin Allograft Recipient Database with University of Wisconsin (UW) Health Specialty Pharmacy prescription claims and dispensing data from March 10, 2006, to June 30, 2012. Patients who met criteria for persistence filling mycophenolic acid prescriptions at UW Health Specialty Pharmacy in the first year following discharge from kidney transplantation surgery hospitalization were included. Patients were excluded if they were enrolled in a clinical trial, if they had BPAR within 90 days of transplantation, or if they did not have panel reactive antibody data available. PDC and MPR were calculated over 360 days after discharge, and multivariable analyses were performed to determine if there were associations between PDC or MPR with late BPAR within 3 years. RESULTS: This study included 388 patients. The incidence of 3-year late BPAR was 5.1% (n = 20). Characteristics of patients who experienced late BPAR were largely consistent with those who did not experience late BPAR, with the exception of number of hospital readmissions, which was higher among patients who experienced late BPAR. The frequency distribution of PDC and MPR exhibited a skewed left distribution, with a median PDC of 0.972 and a median MPR of 1.000. Higher PDC was associated with lower odds of late BPAR (OR = 0.041, 95% CI = 0.004-0.417) in multivariable analysis, as was a higher MPR (OR = 0.041, 95% CI = 0.004-0.419). CONCLUSIONS: MPR and PDC may be calculated from data available to pharmacies and health plans, and each was associated with 3-year late BPAR among patients who did not experience early BPAR. However, the construct validity of these medication adherence measures requires further study. DISCLOSURES: This study was not funded. The authors report no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial interests related to the products or services discussed in this article. Study concept and design were contributed by Hofmeyer, along with Look and Hager. Hager took the lead in data collection, along with the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Look, along with the other authors. The manuscript was primarily written by Hofmeyer, assisted by Look and Hager, and revised by all of the authors.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Everolimus versus Mycophenolate in Kidney Transplant Recipients Receiving No Pharmacological Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus Infection: A Short-Term Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (12 Months).

BACKGROUND: Modern immunosuppressive regimens, although associated with improved 1-year graft survival, are associated with adverse effects, including opportunistic infections, diabetes mellitus after transplantation, cardiovascular complications, and de novo malignancies. OBJECTIVES: To determine the short-term (12 months) cost-effectiveness of everolimus (EVR) versus mycophenolate sodium (MPS) in kidney transplant recipients receiving induction therapy, tacrolimus, prednisone, and no prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection. METHODS: A Markov state transition model was designed. Data from a single-center prospective trial were used along with data from the center's medical bills database. The target population comprised adults with low immunological risk submitted to first ABO-compatible transplantation with kidneys recovered from living or deceased donors. The time horizon was 12 months. The interventions included tacrolimus and prednisone plus a single 3-mg/kg dose of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and EVR or basiliximab (BAS) and EVR or BAS and MPS. The clinical outcomes considered for this analysis were cytomegalovirus infection/disease, acute rejection, graft dysfunction, surgical complications, graft loss, and life-years gained. RESULTS: ATG/EVR was cost-saving compared with BAS/MPS on all evaluated outcomes; BAS/EVR outperformed BAS/MPS on most of the evaluated outcomes. Results were confirmed by sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MPS, EVR is an alternative immunosuppressive agent that is able to provide resource-saving to the health care provider with effectiveness gains for the patient.

Mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide in indian patients with lupus nephritis: Which is better? A single-center experience.

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is used extensively for the induction therapy of lupus nephritis (LN) and has even outpaced intravenous (i.v.) cyclophosphamide (CyP) as the initial choice of therapy. There are no studies comparing the response of MMF with standard dose i.v. CyP in Indian patients with LN. We conducted a 24-week prospective, randomized, open-label trial comparing oral MMF with monthly i.v. CyP as induction therapy for active biopsy proven Class III and IV LN. The primary end-point was response to treatment at 24 weeks, and the secondary end-points were complete remission, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index scores (SLEDAI) and adverse reactions. Of the 40 patients, 17 were randomized to the MMF group and 23 to the i.v. CyP group. Complete remission was seen in nine (52.94%) patients in the MMF group and 11 (47.82%) in the i.v. CyP group. Partial remission was seen in six (35.30%) in the MMF group and nine (39.13%) in the i.v. CyP group. At six months, the cumulative probability of response was not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 1.000). MMF is comparable to i.v. CyP in the management of LN in Indian patients having an equal safety profile. The dose of MMF required was lower than the conventional doses used in other studies suggesting genetic or environmental factors in the Indian population influencing the metabolism of MMF, which requires further evaluation. The cost of MMF is a limiting factor in its use. The use of i.v. CyP is favorable as the monthly doses ensure compliance and is also cost-effective.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK: High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION: Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The Cost of Gastrointestinal Adverse Events and the Impact of Dose-Reductions/Discontinuations on Acute Rejection in Kidney Transplant Patients of Mycophenolate Mofetil-Related Compared to Enteric-Coated Mycophenolate Sodium: A Pharmacoeconomic Study.

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is effective in decreasing rejection and graft loss in renal transplant patients. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) was designed to reduce MMF gastrointestinal (GI) effects. Dose manipulations in MMF/EC-MPS produce GI tolerability, increasing the risk of rejection. Significant differences in tolerance of MMF/EC-MPS may have economic influence in transplant efficacy outcomes. Herein, we performed a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute rejection incidence and interventions in GI-intolerant patients using MMF/EC-MPS. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed through a decision tree model with a 1-year time horizon estimating costs and effectiveness of MMF and EC-MPS in renal transplant patients with GI intolerance. The costs and use of resources (US dollars; USD) were from payer perspective (Mexican Social Security). Primary health outcomes were mean cost of acute rejection and GI adverse events treatment. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was generated to test robustness of the model. RESULTS: Calculated incidence of MMF GI intolerance was 44%, and calculated rejection incidence for MMF was 24.05%. Calculated incidence of EC-MPS GI intolerance was 29%, and calculated rejection incidence for EC-MPS was 20.1% Total cost of MMF with GI intolerance during 1-year period plus cost of treating one rejection sums $752,107.25 USD. Total cost of EC-MPS with GI intolerance plus cost of treating one rejection sums $638,018.97 USD. CONCLUSION: EC-MPS-based treatment is a cost-saving alternative vs MMF in GI-intolerant kidney transplant patients. PSA supports the decision to utilize EC-MPS based on cost-effectiveness analysis.

Preemptive Renal Transplantation-The Best Treatment Option for Terminal Chronic Renal Failure.

Renal transplantation is the best therapeutic option for end-stage chronic renal disease. Assuming that it is more advisable if performed early, we aimed to show the clinical, social, and economic advantages in 70% of our patients who were dialyzed only for a short period. For this purpose, we retrospectively collected data over 28 years in 142 kidney transplants performed in patients with <6 weeks on dialysis. 66% of our patients were 30-60 years old; 98% of the patients had living donors. At transplantation, 64% of our patients had no public support; however, 64% of them returned to work and got health insurance 2 months later. Full rehabilitation was achieved in all cases, including integration to the family, return to full-time work, school and university, sports, and reproduction. Immunosuppression consisted of 3 drugs, including steroids, cyclosporine, and azathioprine or mycophenolate. The cost in the 1st year, including patient and donor evaluation, surgery, immunosuppression, and follow-up, was $13,300 USD versus $22,320 for hemodialysis. We conclude that preemptive renal transplantation with <6 weeks on dialysis is the best therapeutic option for end-stage renal failure, especially in developing countries such as Bolivia, where until last year, full public support for renal replacement therapy was unavailable.

Mycophenolic acid in dermatology a century after its discovery.

Mycophenolic acid was first discovered in 1913 and first used clinically in the 1970s as an immunosuppressant to prevent organ transplantation rejection. It was later used in the treatment of psoriasis. However due to its side-effect profile and fears over its carcinogenic potential it was abandoned. From the late 1990s a prodrug, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), was developed and more recently, enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS), both of which have gained increasing use in the field of dermatology for a variety of skin conditions. This review discusses the pharmacology, mechanisms of action, side-effects and current clinical applications in dermatology of MMF and EC-MPS.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing in kidney transplant patients in the APOMYGRE trial.

BACKGROUND: In the prospective, randomized, multicenter APOMYGRE trial conducted in France, concentration-controlled mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dosing based on mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposure significantly reduced the treatment failure and acute rejection during the first posttransplantation year compared with fixed-dose MMF. This analysis investigated the cost effectiveness of dose individualization. METHOD: The study included 65 patients per group (intent-to-treat population). Treatment failure (primary efficacy endpoint) was defined as death, graft loss, acute rejection, or MMF discontinuation because of adverse effects. Data on hospitalizations, drugs prescribed, physicians' fees, laboratory expenses, ambulatory visits, and transportation were retrieved. Costs were calculated from the French National Health System perspective. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval) total yearly cost per patient was Euro 47,477 (Euro 43,933; Euro 51,020) in the concentration-controlled group and Euro 46,783 ( Euro 44,152; Euro 49,414) in the fixed-dose group (P=0.7). The observed incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was Euro 3757 per treatment failure (Purchasing Power Parities United States/France: $4129). Hospitalization and drug costs accounted for approximately 50% and 25% of total costs, respectively. The cost for MPA area under the concentration-time curve and dose calculation was Euro 452 per patient, less than 1% of the total cost. CONCLUSION: In the APOMYGRE trial, therapeutic MPA monitoring using a limited sampling strategy reduced the risk of treatment failure and acute rejection in renal allograft recipients during the first 12 months posttransplantation, at neutral cost.

Effectiveness and cost of replacing a calcineurin inhibitor with sirolimus to slow the course of chronic kidney disease in renal allografts.

Renal grafts suffer a progressive decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) because of several factors including calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) nephrotoxicity. Switching CNIs to sirolimus may improve this adverse prognosis. We performed a prospective, open-label clinical trial among 18 kidney transplant patients with more than 12 months of evolution (range, 385-1826 days), showing progressive GFR decreases and biopsies with interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA). Immunosuppressive treatment included cyclosporine, ketoconazole, and steroids associated with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil. After signing an Institutional Review Board-approved written consent, cyclosporine was switched to sirolimus seeking to achieve a trough blood sirolimus concentration of 6-15 ng/mL. Wilcoxon and Student's t-tests were used to compare the values in the annual periods before and after the switch. GFR was estimated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula. There were no acute rejection episodes. Estimated GFR on the day of the switch was 38.0 +/- 12.1 mL/min. After CNI switch, the slope of the estimated GFR significantly improved from -6.5 +/- 9.2 to 8.1 +/- 14.0 mL/min/year (P < .01). The estimated GFR 1 year after the switch was 47.2 +/- 16.9 mL/min (P = .003 vs baseline). Total expenditures increased. The ratio of post-switch versus baseline total expenditures was 1.93 (95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.31) and the ratio of sirolimus to CNI cost was 2.16 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.78). Switching from CNI to sirolimus for kidney transplants with decreasing GFR and a biopsy with IFTA changes, suggesting progressive graft nephropathy, almost doubled total expenses. It is necessary to conduct trials using clinical end points to definitively validate this therapeutic intervention.

Economic evaluation of everolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in de novo heart transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Both the proliferation signal inhibitor everolimus (1.5 mg/day) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (3 g/day) have shown superior efficacy versus azathioprine in de novo heart transplantation. The cost-effectiveness of everolimus and MMF versus azathioprine was assessed to 6 months posttransplantation. METHODS: The evaluation was performed from the German health insurance payer perspective. The composite efficacy endpoint in the everolimus trial was death, graft loss/retransplantation, biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) grade>or=3A, rejection with hemodynamic compromise, and loss to follow-up. The composite endpoint in the MMF trial included only death, retransplantation, and BPAR with hemodynamic compromise. To mimic the everolimus endpoint, an estimated number of patients with BPAR>or=3A was added to the MMF trial results, using two mapping scenarios. RESULTS: The incremental 6-month cost versus azathioprine was euro2535 for everolimus and euro3007 for MMF. The absolute reduction in efficacy failure versus azathioprine was 10.4% for everolimus and 9.8% and 10.1% for MMF, respectively, using scenarios 1 and 2. The incremental cost per efficacy failure avoided (ie, the incremental cost versus azathioprine divided by the reduction in efficacy failure) was euro24,457 for everolimus, and euro30,628 and euro29,912 for MMF in scenarios 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on findings from two clinical trials, suggested that everolimus was more cost-effective than MMF versus azathioprine in the first 6 months after heart transplantation. Data from a head-to-head trial are required to confirm these results.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation: a systematic review and modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the newer immunosuppressive drugs for renal transplantation: basiliximab, daclizumab, tacrolimus, mycophenolate (mofetil and sodium) and sirolimus. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Industry submissions. Current Clinical Trials register. Cochrane Collaboration Renal Disease Group. REVIEW METHODS: The review followed the InterTASC standards. Each of the five company submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) contained cost-effectiveness models, which were evaluated by using a critique covering (1) model checking, (2) a detailed model description and (3) model rerunning. RESULTS: For induction therapy, three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found that daclizumab significantly reduced the incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection and patient survival at 6 months/1 year compared with placebo, but not compared with the monoclonal antibody OKT3. There was no significant gain in patient survival or graft loss at 3 years. The incidence of side-effects with daclizumab reduced compared to OKT3. Eight RCTs found that basiliximab significantly improved 6-month/1-year biopsy-confirmed acute rejection compared to placebo, but not compared to either ATG or OKT3. There was no significant gain in either 1-year patient survival or graft loss. The incidence of side-effects with basiliximab was not significantly different compared to OKT3/ATG. For initial/maintenance therapy, 13 RCTs found that tacrolimus reduced the 6-month/1-year incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection compared to ciclosporin. There was no significant improvement in either 1-year or long-term (up to 5 years) graft loss or patient survival. The acute rejection benefit of tacrolimus over ciclosporin appeared to be equivalent for Sandimmun and Neoral. There were important differences in the side-effect profile of tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Seven RCTs found that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) reduced the incidence of acute rejection. There was no significant difference in patient survival or graft loss at 1-year or 3-year follow-up. There appeared to be differences in the side-effect profiles of MMF and azathioprine (AZA). No RCTs comparing MMF with AZA were identified. One RCT compared mycophenolate sodium (MPS) to MMF and reported no difference between the two drugs in 1-year acute rejection rate, graft survival, patient survival or side-effect profile. Two RCTs suggest that addition of sirolimus to a ciclosporin-based initial/maintenance therapy reduces 1-year acute rejections in comparison to a ciclosporin (Neoral) dual therapy alone and substituting azathioprine with sirolimus in initial/maintenance therapy reduces the incidence of acute rejection. Graft and patient survival were not significantly different with either sirolimus regimen. Adding sirolimus increases the incidence of side-effects. The side-effect profiles of azathioprine and sirolimus appear to be different. For the treatment of acute rejection, three RCTs suggested that both tacrolimus and MMF reduce the incidence of subsequent acute rejection and the need for additional drug therapy. Only one RCT and one subgroup analysis in children (<18 years) were identified comparing ciclosporin to tacrolimus and sirolimus, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The newer immunosuppressant drugs (basiliximab, daclizumab, tacrolimus and MMF) consistently reduced the incidence of short-term (1-year) acute rejection compared with conventional immunosuppressive therapy. The independent use of basiliximab, daclizumab, tacrolimus and MMF was associated with a similar absolute reduction in 1-year acute rejection rate (approximately 15%). However, the effects of these drugs did not appear to be additive (e.g. benefit of tacrolimus with adjuvant MMF was 5% reduction in acute rejection rate compared with 15% reduction with adjuvant AZA). Thus, the addition of one of these drugs to a baseline immunosuppressant regimen was likely to affect adversely the incremental cost-effectiveness of the addition of another. The trials did not assess how the improvement in short-term outcomes (e.g. acute rejection rate or measures of graft function), together with the side-effect profile associated with each drug, translated into changes in patient-related quality of life. Moreover, given the relatively short duration of trials, the impact of the newer immunosuppressants on long-term graft loss and patient survival remains uncertain. The absence of both long-term outcome and quality of life from trial data makes assessment of the clinical and cost-effectiveness on the newer immunosuppressants contingent on modelling based on extrapolations from short-term trial outcomes. The choice of the most appropriate short-term outcome (e.g. acute rejection rate or measures of graft function) for such modelling remains a matter of clinical and scientific debate. The decision to use acute rejection in the meta-model in this report was based on the findings of a systematic review of the literature of predictors of long-term graft outcome. Only a very small proportion of the RCTs identified in this review assessed patient-focused outcomes such as quality of life. Since immunosuppressive drugs have both clinical benefits and specific side-effects, the balance of these harms and benefits could best be quantified through future trials using quality of life measures. The design of future trials should be considered with a view to the impact of drugs on particular renal transplant groups, particularly higher risk individuals and children. Finally, there is a need for improved reporting of methodological details of future trials, such as the method of randomisation and allocation concealment. A number of issues exist around registry data, for example the use of multiple drug regimens and the need to assess the long-term outcomes. An option is the use of observational registry data including, if possible, prospective data on all consecutive UK renal transplant patients. Data capture for each patient should include immunosuppressant regimens, clinical and patient-related outcomes and patient demographics.

Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium: safe conversion from mycophenolate mofetil in maintenance renal transplant recipients.

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids, improves long-term graft function and survival in renal transplant recipients. However, optimal MMF therapy may be limited by gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance, which may result in the need for MMF dose reduction, interruption, or discontinuation, leading to increased risk of acute rejection. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) is an advanced formulation delivering mycophenolic acid (MPA), developed with the objective of improving MPA-related upper GI adverse events. A pivotal, 12-month, phase III, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study investigated whether stable renal transplant patients can be converted from MMF to EC-MPS therapy without compromising tolerability or efficacy. Stable renal transplant recipients received either MMF, 1000 mg b.i.d. (n=159), or EC-MPS, 720 mg b.i.d. (n=163), for 12 months. The incidence of GI adverse events was comparable between both treatment groups at 3 and 6 months, but there was a trend toward reduced severity of GI side effects in the EC-MPS group. There were fewer serious adverse events with EC-MPS and significantly fewer serious infections (P<.05). This comparable safety profile for EC-MPS and MMF also extended to elderly patients and patients with diabetes at baseline. For the composite efficacy variable of biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or loss to follow-up, EC-MPS had a lower 12-month efficacy failure rate (EC-MPS: 7.5% vs MMF: 12.3%; P=ns). These data demonstrate that stable renal transplant recipients receiving MMF can be converted to EC-MPS with no efficacy or tolerability compromise.

Mycophenolate mofetil: suggested guidelines for use in kidney transplantation.

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressive drug designed to inhibit inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH). IMPDH is a key enzyme in the de novo purine synthesis of lymphocytes. It is crucially important for proliferative responses of human T and B lymphocytes. The inhibition of IMPDH thus leads to selective lymphocyte suppression. After successful use in various in vitro and animal models, MMF was brought to clinical trial in patients undergoing transplantation. The drug is rapidly and completely absorbed following oral administration. Pilot studies of administration with cyclosporin and corticosteroids suggested a significant reduction in the incidence of organ rejection at dosages of 1 to 3 g/day. As a result of these studies, 3 pivotal randomised double-blind multicentre trials, involving nearly 1500 patients, were designed to investigate the effects of addition of MMF to different standard immunosuppressive protocols on the prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. After 6 months, the rates of biopsy-proven rejection were significantly reduced in patients receiving MMF. In combination with cyclosporin and corticosteroids, the adverse effect profile resembled that of azathioprine. Most adverse effects were associated with the gastrointestinal tract, the blood system and opportunistic infections. MMF offers improved immunosuppressive therapy following renal and probably other solid organ transplantation. MMF has been licensed since 1995 for the prevention of acute renal allograft rejection in most countries. It has been used in different combinations of immunosuppressive drugs and in various dosages and regimens.