Comparing Mycophenolate Mofetil Regimens for de Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: The Fixed-Dose Concentration-Controlled Trial

被引:270
作者
van Gelder, Tenn [1 ,2 ]
Silva, Helio Tedesco [3 ]
de Fijter, Johan W. [4 ]
Budde, Klemens [5 ]
Kuypers, Dirk [6 ]
Tyden, Gunnar [7 ]
Lohmus, Aleksander [8 ]
Sommerer, Claudia [9 ]
Hartmann, Anders [10 ]
Le Meur, Yann [11 ]
Oellerich, Michael [12 ]
Holt, David W. [13 ]
Toenshoff, Burkhard [14 ]
Keown, Paul [15 ]
Campbell, Scott [16 ]
Mamelok, Richard D. [17 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus MC, Dept Hosp Pharm, Clin Pharmacol Unit, POB 2040, NL-3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Erasmus MC, Dept Internal Med, NL-3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Hosp Rim & Hipertensao, Dept Nephrol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[4] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Nephrol, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands
[5] Charite, Dept Nephrol, D-13353 Berlin, Germany
[6] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Nephrol & Renal Transplantat, Louvain, Belgium
[7] Karolinska Univ, Dept Transplantat, Stockholm, Sweden
[8] Dept Nephrol, Tartu, Estonia
[9] Heidelberg Univ, Dept Nephrol, Heidelberg, Germany
[10] Univ Oslo, Rikshosp, Dept Med, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
[11] Cent Univ Hosp Dupuytren, Dept Nephrol, Limoges, France
[12] Univ Gottingen, Dept Clin Chem, D-3400 Gottingen, Germany
[13] St Georges Univ London, Analyt Unit, London, England
[14] Univ Childrens Hosp, Heidelberg, Germany
[15] Univ Vancouver Hosp, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[16] Univ Queensland, Dept Nephrol, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[17] Mamelok Consulting, Palo Alto, CA USA
关键词
Graft rejection; Mycophenolate mofetil; Transplantation; Therapeutic drug monitoring;
D O I
10.1097/TP.0b013e318186f98a
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 [免疫学];
摘要
Background. Fixed-dose mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) reduces the incidence of acute rejection after solid organ transplantation. The Fixed-.Dose Concentration Controlled trial assessed the feasibility and potential benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring in patients receiving MMF after de novo renal transplant. Methods. Patients were randomized to a concentration-controlled (n=452; target exposure 45 mg hr/L) ora fixed-dose (n=449) MMF-containing regimen. The primary endpoint was treatment failure (a composite of biopsy-proven acute rejection [BPAR], graft loss, death, or MMF discontinuation) by 12 months posttransplantation. Results. Mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposures for both groups were similar at most time points and were below 30 mg hr/L in 37.3% of patients at day 3. There was no difference in the incidence of treatment failure (25.6% vs. 25.7%, P=0.81) or BPAR (14.9% vs. 15.5%, P > 0.05) between the concentration-controlled and the fixed-dose groups, respectively. We did find a significant relationship between MPA-area under the concentration-time curve on day 3 and the incidence of BPAR in the first month (P=0.009) or in the first year posttransplantation (P=0.006). For later time points (day 10, month 1) there was no significant relationship between area under the concentration-time curve and BPAR (0.2572 and 0.5588, respectively). Conclusions. There was no difference in the incidence of treatment failure between the concentration-controlled and the fixed-dose groups. The applied protocol of MMF dose adjustments based on target MPA exposure was not successful, partly because physicians seemed reluctant to implement substantial dose changes. Current initial MMF doses underexpose more than 35% of patients early after transplantation, increasing the risk for BPAR.
引用
收藏
页码:1043 / 1051
页数:9
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]
Immunosuppression with mycophenolic acid: One size does not fit all [J].
Bennett, WM .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2003, 14 (09) :2414-2416
[2]
Mycophenolic acid 12-h trough level monitoring in renal transplantation: Association with acute rejection and toxicity [J].
Borrows, R ;
Chusney, G ;
Loucaidou, M ;
James, A ;
Lee, J ;
Tromp, JV ;
Owen, J ;
Cairns, T ;
Griffith, M ;
Hakim, N ;
McLean, A ;
Palmer, A ;
Papalois, V ;
Taube, D .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2006, 6 (01) :121-128
[3]
Limited sampling strategy for mycophenolic acid area under the curve [J].
Filler, G ;
Mai, I .
THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING, 2000, 22 (02) :169-173
[4]
The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation [J].
Hale, MD ;
Nicholls, AJ ;
Bullingham, RES ;
Hené, R ;
Hoitsma, A ;
Squifflet, JP ;
Weimar, W ;
Vanrenterghem, Y ;
Van de Woude, FJ ;
Verpooten, GA .
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 1998, 64 (06) :672-683
[5]
Predictive factors of acute rejection after early cyclosporine withdrawal in renal transplant recipients who receive mycophenolate mofetil:: Results from a prospective, randomized trial [J].
Hazzan, M ;
Labalette, M ;
Copin, MC ;
Glowacki, F ;
Provôt, F ;
Pruv, FR ;
Noël, C .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2005, 16 (08) :2509-2516
[6]
Monitoring immunosuppressive drugs - Has it a future? [J].
Holt, DW ;
Johnston, A .
THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING, 2004, 26 (03) :244-247
[7]
Early adequate mycophenolic acid exposure is associated with less rejection in kidney transplantation [J].
Kiberd, BA ;
Lawen, J ;
Fraser, AD ;
Keough-Ryan, T ;
Belitsky, P .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2004, 4 (07) :1079-1083
[8]
Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation [J].
Le Meur, Y. ;
Buechler, M. ;
Thierry, A. ;
Caillard, S. ;
Villemain, F. ;
Lavaud, S. ;
Etienne, I. ;
Westeel, P.-F. ;
de Ligny, B. H. ;
Rostaing, L. ;
Thervet, E. ;
Szelag, J. C. ;
Rerolle, J.-P. ;
Rousseau, A. ;
Touchard, G. ;
Marquet, P. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 7 (11) :2496-2503
[9]
Clinical application of population pharmacokinetic methods developed for immunosuppressive drugs [J].
Marquet, P .
THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING, 2005, 27 (06) :727-732
[10]
Pharmacokinetic and metabolic investigations of mycophenolic acid in pediatric patients after renal transplantation:: Implications for therapeutic drug monitoring [J].
Oellerich, M ;
Shipkova, M ;
Schütz, E ;
Wieland, E ;
Weber, L ;
Tönshoff, B ;
Armstrong, VW .
THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING, 2000, 22 (01) :20-26