Intravenous mycophenolate mofetil: safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72291/1/j.1399-0012.2000.140301.x.pd

Cystatin C: current position and future prospects.

Abstract Cystatin C is a low-molecular-weight protein which has been proposed as a marker of renal function that could replace creatinine. Indeed, the concentration of cystatin C is mainly determined by glomerular filtration and is particularly of interest in clinical settings where the relationship between creatinine production and muscle mass impairs the clinical performance of creatinine. Since the last decade, numerous studies have evaluated its potential use in measuring renal function in various populations. More recently, other potential developments for its clinical use have emerged. This review summarises current knowledge about the physiology of cystatin C and about its use as a renal marker, either alone or in equations developed to estimate the glomerular filtration rate. This paper also reviews recent data about the other applications of cystatin C, particularly in cardiology, oncology and clinical pharmacology. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1664-86

Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients.

Background. The search for more effective and less toxic immunosuppressive agents to control transplant rejection has led to the extensive testing of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in clinical renal transplantation. Methods. A pooled analysis of three phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia was performed to further characterize the efficacy of MMF in renal allograft recipients. The three studies enrolled a total of 1493 patients. Tripleand quadruple-therapy regimens of cyclosporine, corticosteroids, and standardized MMF dosages with and without antilymphocyte induction were used: MMF in twice-daily doses of 1.0 g or 1.5 g (MMF 2 g or 3 g) was compared with placebo (PLA) or azathioprine (AZA). The primary efficacy endpoint in the individual trials was biopsy-proven rejection or treatment failure at 6 months. This pooled analysis focused on graft loss, patient death, incidence and treatment of rejection episodes, and graft function (serum creatinine) at 1 year. Results. At 1 year, the graft survival rate was 90.4% and 89.2% in the MMF 2 g and 3 g groups, respectively, compared with 87.6% in the PLA/AZA group. This difference was not statistically significant. MMF significantly reduced the incidence of rejection episodes: 40.8% for PLA/AZA patients versus 19.8% and 16.5% for the MMF 2 g and MMF 3 g groups, respectively. Renal function was consistently better for both MMF treatment groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. Conclusions. MMF proved superior to AZA as a posttransplant immunosuppressant in conjunction with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. MMF-treated groups showed reduced incidence and severity of rejection episodes, similar graft survival, and better graft function over 12 months.Halloran, P; Mathew, T; Tomlanovich, S.; Groth, C.; Hooftman, L.; Barker, C

Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus Plus Low-Dose Tacrolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil Plus Standard-Dose Tacrolimus in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: 12-Month Data

In this 12-month, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study, de novo renal transplant recipients (RTxRs) were randomized (1:1) to receive everolimus plus low-dose tacrolimus (EVR+LTac) or mycophenolate mofetil plus standard-dose Tac (MMF+STac) with induction therapy (basiliximab or rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin). Noninferiority of composite efficacy failure rate (treated biopsy-proven acute rejection [tBPAR]/graft loss/death/loss to follow-up) in EVR+LTac versus MMF+STac was missed by 1.4%, considering the noninferiority margin of 10% (24.6% vs. 20.4%; 4.2% [-3.0, 11.4]). Incidence of tBPAR (19.1% vs. 11.2%; p \u3c 0.05) was significantly higher, while graft loss (1.3% vs. 3.9%; p \u3c 0.05) and composite of graft loss/death/lost to follow-up (6.1% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.05) were significantly lower in EVR+LTac versus MMF+STac groups, respectively. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was similar between EVR+LTac and MMF+STac groups (63.1 [22.0] vs. 63.1 [19.5] mL/min/1.73 m2 ) and safety was comparable. In conclusion, EVR+LTac missed noninferiority versus MMF+STac based on the 10% noninferiority margin. Further studies evaluating optimal immunosuppression for improved efficacy will guide appropriate dosing and target levels of EVR and LTac in RTxRs