Azathioprine and Mycophenolates

15

Azathioprine and Mycophenolates ROBERT S. GASTON, GAURAV AGARWAL, and Sir PETER J. MORRIS

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction History Azathioprine Mycophenolates (Mycophenolic Acid, MPA) Mechanism of Action Clinical Pharmacology and Blood Monitoring Azathioprine Dosing, Metabolism, and Monitoring Side Effects Mycophenolates Dosing Absorption Metabolism and Clearance Assays and Blood Monitoring Drug–Drug Interactions Clinical Toxicities of Mycophenolates Gastrointestinal Adverse Reactions Myelosuppression

Infections Neoplastic Diseases Pregnancy and Reproduction Early Clinical Trials of Mycophenolates in Kidney Transplantation Combination Therapy Utilizing MMF or Azathioprine in Kidney Transplantation Cyclosporines Tacrolimus mTOR Inhibitors Belatacept Use of Mycophenolates to Minimize or Avoid Other Immunosuppressants Calcineurin Inhibitor Minimization CNI Withdrawal CNI Avoidance Corticosteroid Avoidance or Withdrawal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Introduction

History

Whereas calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine and tacrolimus) block early signaling events and cytokine production, both azathioprine and mycophenolates, often termed antiproliferatives, exert effects downstream in the cell cycle, interfering with cytokine-dependent signals and lymphocyte proliferation.1,2 Azathioprine, usually in combination with corticosteroids, was the backbone of immunosuppression in renal transplantation from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, after which cyclosporine (CsA) was added to the mix. “Triple” therapy, with CsA, azathioprine, and steroids then became standard in most centers through the mid-1990s. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was developed in the early 1990s as an alternative to azathioprine, supplanting it as standard therapy (in combination with calcineurin inhibitors and steroids) by the end of the decade in most developed countries. At the time of this writing, MMF is the most widely prescribed transplant immunosuppressant in the world, although some would maintain its superiority compared with azathioprine is modest. In addition, because azathioprine is less expensive, it will continue to have a role in transplantation, in particular, in developing countries where cost is a greater determinant of immunosuppressive protocols. Thus both remain relevant to clinical practice in transplantation. 

AZATHIOPRINE

212

6-Mercaptopurine was developed by Elion and Hitchings at Burroughs Wellcome as an anticancer agent in the 1950s.3,4 Subsequently, 6-mercaptopurine was shown to be immunosuppressive by Schwartz and Dameshek5,6; it attenuated the humoral response to a foreign protein and prolonged survival of skin allografts in rabbits, termed drug-induced immunologic tolerance. This work was noted by Calne in the UK and Hume in the US; independently, these investigators found that 6-mercaptopurine delayed or prevented rejection of renal allografts in dogs.7,8 In Calne’s laboratory, although only two dogs survived the kidney transplant operation, at death a little more than a month later, there was no histologic evidence of rejection, a unique finding at the time. Almost simultaneously, similar results in a much larger series of canine transplants emerged from Hume’s unit. Soon thereafter, Elion and colleagues4,9 produced azathioprine, an imidazolyl derivative of 6-mercaptopurine that appeared somewhat less toxic than 6-mercaptopurine.10 Azathioprine was first used in humans in Boston at the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in 1961 and 11,12 then subsequently utilized (at doses of 2.5–3 mg/kg/day) in a rapidly increasing number of kidney transplant units globally.

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates

In those early days, rejection seemed inevitable, and almost every patient experienced at least one episode. At first, corticosteroids were used to treat rejection in patients on azathioprine;13 later they were added to azathioprinebased prophylaxis by Starzl at the time of transplantation.14 In this so-called azathioprine era, arbitrarily large doses of steroids were administered from the time of transplantation, with a gradual reduction over 6 to 12 months to maintenance levels. These high doses of steroids may have been primarily responsible for significant morbidity (discussed in Chapter 16); only in the 1970s, after a series of randomized trials and clinical observations documenting the efficacy of lower doses in preventing rejection, was a major reduction in steroid-related complications noted (see Chapter 16). By the late 1970s, azathioprine and low-dose steroids, sometimes used together with an antilymphocyte serum or globulin for induction (particularly in North America), had become standard immunosuppressive therapy. After CsA emerged in the early 1980s, azathioprine was deemed obsolete. However, it quickly reemerged, utilizing lower doses (1.5–2 mg/kg/day) as adjunct therapy to enable administration of lower, presumably less-toxic, doses of CsA. For more than a decade, triple therapy with CsA (4–8 mg/kg/day), azathioprine, and low-dose corticosteroids was considered standard immunosuppressive therapy for kidney recipients in most units in the developed world. During this era, acute rejection rates fell from 80% or greater to around 50%, with some improvement in graft survival and patient survival, and substantially less morbidity than in preceding decades. It was the search for even better immunosuppressants in the late 1980s that led to the introduction of mycophenolates. 

MYCOPHENOLATES (MYCOPHENOLIC ACID, MPA) MPA is a fermentation product of Penicillium brevicompactum and related fungi. It was first isolated by Gosio in 1896, named in 1913 by Alsberg and Black, and subsequently found to have weak antibacterial and antifungal activity.15 Raistrick and colleagues published the structure of MPA in 1952. In the 1960s, it was found to have a strong antimitotic effect in mammalian cells and was regarded as a potential antitumor agent. Subsequent work by Franklin and Cook documented its major mechanism of action (inhibition of the do novo pathway of purine synthesis).15 At about the same time, a Japanese group documented MPA’s immunosuppressive properties, which were initially viewed as an impediment to clinical utility.16 As noted earlier, discovery and development of CsA changed the landscape for transplant immunosuppression. In the search for new agents targeting other pathways, Allison and Eugui, among others, working first in the UK and subsequently at Syntex Pharmaceuticals, began examining in vitro the effect of MPA on lymphocyte function, documenting inhibition of cytotoxic T cell generation, antibody formation, lymphocyte adhesion, and the mixed lymphocyte reaction.2,17,18 Scientists at Syntex, via morpholinoethyl esterification of MPA, produced a prodrug (RS61443, mycophenolate mofetil, or MMF) with substantially improved oral bioavailability in humans and other mammals.19 Initial animal studies demonstrated the agent

213

to be difficult to administer to dogs and primates, with substantial gastrointestinal toxicity, especially at higher doses (>20 mg/kg).20,21 Optimal kidney graft outcomes in dogs occurred when RS61443 was combined with low-dose CsA and prednisone. MMF monotherapy, even at substantially higher doses, demonstrated only limited efficacy. The initial human experience was in rheumatoid arthritis, where a dose of 2 g/day was associated with “significant clinical improvement” among refractory patients.22 Side effects were minimal and primarily of gastrointestinal origin (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea). No other significant toxicities (including bone marrow suppression) were noted. In 1988, it was elected to proceed with clinical trials in kidney transplantation. The initial study was a phase I/II trial involving 48 kidney recipients at two centers.23 All the patients received polyclonal antibody induction, CsA, and prednisone. Eight dosing groups of six subjects each received MMF in daily doses ranging from 100 to 3500 mg. The greatest efficacy in preventing acute rejection with an acceptable adverse event profile was seen in the 2000 and 3000 mg dosing groups, providing the basis for the design of three large registration trials. The phase III MMF trials, commencing globally in 1992, were the first of their kind: rigorously conducted studies involving large numbers of patients in solid-organ transplantation. Each study included approximately 500 subjects assigned to one of three treatment arms. Two of the groups in each study received MMF, either 2 or 3 g/day, in combination with CsA and corticosteroids. In the US trial, all the patients underwent polyclonal antibody induction, with the comparator group receiving azathioprine instead of MMF.24 In the Tricontinental trial, treatment arms were identical, with an azathioprine control group, but without antibody induction.25 In the European trial, there was no antibody induction, and comparator patients received placebo instead of azathioprine.26 Findings of all three trials were remarkably similar: a 50% reduction in rates of acute rejection with MMF (to less than 20% overall) within the first 6 months after transplantation, with identical graft and patient survival among treatment arms at 1 and 3 years (Fig. 15.1) For most patients, the 2-g dose appeared to offer optimal efficacy with fewer adverse effects. Based on these findings, on May 3, 1995, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved MMF (CellCept) 2 to 3 g/ day for use in combination with CsA and corticosteroids, with global availability soon to follow.27 A starting dose of 2 g/day became widely accepted in adults, and, by 2002, MMF was the most widely prescribed immunosuppressant in the US.28 In ensuing years, there have been at least three other landmark developments affecting the use of mycophenolates in transplantation. First, to address the gastrointestinal adverse events that plague some patients, Novartis developed an enteric-coated formulation, mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS, Myfortic).29 Designed to delay MPA release and absorption in the gut (with the assumption that gastric and early small-bowel exposure were major determinants of gastrointestinal toxicity), clinical trials documented EC-MPS efficacy equivalent to MMF, with trends to fewer adverse gastrointestinal events.30,31 EC-MPS became available in 2004. Second, in 2008, patent protection for the

214

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

Cumulative incidence (%)

70

PLA/AZA (n = 498) MMF 1.0 g BID (n = 505) MMF 1.5 g BID (n = 490)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Months from transplant to event Fig. 15.1  Cumulative incidence of first biopsy-proven rejection in first year (excludes 1-year protocol biopsies; Kaplan–Meier estimates). The separation between the curves occur in the first 2 months and is sustained to the end of the observation period. AZA azathioprine; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil: PLA, placebo. (Data from the pooled efficacy analysis of the three double-blind clinical studies in prevention of rejection in 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(1):39–47.)

De novo pathway

RNA

PRPP synthetase PRPP

Guanosine DP/TP

Salvage pathway

Guanine

Ribose-5P + ATP

HGPRTase (Lesch-Nyhan)

Guanosine MP

IMPDH

Inosine MP

Ribonucleotide reductase Deoxyguanosine DP/TP DNA

RNA

Adenosine TP Adenine deaminase Adenosine MP Ribonucleotide reductase Deoxyadenosine DP/TP

MPA

DNA

Fig. 15.2  Purine synthesis pathways showing site of inhibition by mycophenolate acid (MPA). ATP, adenosine triphosphate; DP, diphosphate; HGPRTase, hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase; IMPDH, inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase; MP, monophosphate; PRPP, phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate; TP, triphosphate. (Adapted from Budde K, Glander P, Bauer S. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate acid: a CME monograph. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 2004:2-13.)

innovator formulation of MMF (CellCept) began expiring in the US and globally.32 The clinical effect of the availability of multiple MMF preparations on patients and the marketplace remains controversial.33,34 Finally, in 2009, Tacrolimus/MMF became a FDA-approved combination in kidney transplantation. Previously, use of MMF or EC-MPS with tacrolimus, the most common immunosuppressant combination in the world, had been “off-label,” limiting its use as a comparator protocol in drug development.35 This label change altered the landscape for new drug development and provided guidance for MPA dosing in tacrolimus-based protocols. 

Mechanism of Action Although both azathioprine and mycophenolate are considered antiproliferative agents, their effects result from differing mechanisms of action. Azathioprine is a thiopurine, an

imidazolyl derivative of 6-mercaptopurine. It is transformed to 6-mercaptopurine in the liver, in turn, converted to thioinosinic acid and 6-thioguanine. These latter metabolites are incorporated into DNA and RNA, inhibiting lymphocyte proliferation by suppressing de novo purine synthesis. Given the documented immunosuppressive effect of azathioprine, a relatively nonspecific inhibitor of nucleotide synthesis, MPA use in transplantation was based on the observation that inherited deletions in nucleic acid synthesis resulted in immunodeficiencies: children lacking adenosine deaminase show combined T cell and B cell deficits.36 In contrast, subjects with absence of hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase display essentially normal immune function,17 indicating the purine salvage pathway as relatively unimportant in lymphocytes (Fig. 15.2). MPA acts as a reversible, noncompetitive inhibitor of inosine 5′-monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH), the rate-limiting enzyme in the de novo synthesis of guanine nucleotides.2 This effect arrests new DNA synthesis in

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates

proliferating cells at the G1/S interface, with guanosine triphosphate (GTP) decreasing to 10% of levels measured in unstimulated T cells.1 Addition of guanosine or deoxyguanosine reverses the inhibition, confirming the IMPDH target. T and B lymphocytes are highly dependent on this pathway for proliferation in response to stimulation. There are two isoforms of IMPDH, with type I expressed in many cell lines, but type II the predominant isoform in activated T and B lymphocytes; IMPDH type II is four times more sensitive to MPA.37 These two factors impart some degree of lymphocyte-specific selectivity to the antiproliferative activity of MPA. Although monocyte and dendritic cell replication may also be affected by MPA, there is relatively little effect on neutrophils.1,38 The action of MPA at the G1/S interface is also selective. Neither the production of interleukin-2 nor the expression of its receptor is affected, showing a lack of influence on signal 1 of lymphocyte activation. The primary antiproliferative effect also retards induction of cytotoxic T cells.2 Similarly, MPA mitigates primary and ongoing B cell responses, presumably as a result of blockade of cell division, with subjects receiving MMF in the US pivotal trial demonstrating far less production of xenoantibody toward equine antithymocyte globulin (ATG) than those on azathioprine.39,40 MPA treatment also blunts the synthesis of natural xenoantibodies after plasma exchange and splenectomy in rats and inhibits the humoral response to influenza vaccine in humans.41,42 Another distinct mechanism of MPA activity may relate to the requirement for GTP to activate fucose and mannose transfer and glycoprotein synthesis, thus diminishing expression of adhesion molecules.1,18 When GTP is depleted as a consequence of MPA, adhesion of lymphocytes and monocytes to activated endothelial cells is decreased in a dose-dependent fashion. Cell types other than lymphocytes may also be sensitive to MPA inhibition, with some models indicating vascular smooth muscle cells,43 mesangial cells,44 and myofibroblasts45 to display dampened proliferation. In a subhuman primate model of orthotopic allograft vasculopathy, intravascular ultrasound documented dose-dependent inhibition of the progression of intimal volume changes.20 The efficacy of MMF was confirmed using aortic allograft in another subhuman primate model46 and in a rodent chronic rejection system.47 The effects were potentiated when MMF was administered with sirolimus, a combination that also reduced transforming growth factor-β1 and its effects on extracellular matrix synthesis and degradation.48,49 There may also be a more direct antifibrotic effect of MPA mediated by upregulation of neutral endopeptidase in the kidney.50 

Clinical Pharmacology and Blood Monitoring AZATHIOPRINE Dosing, Metabolism, and Monitoring Azathioprine is given as a single daily dose. If used with steroids alone, a suitable starting dose is 2.5 mg/kg/day, with careful monitoring of leukocyte counts. The dose of azathioprine may be reduced somewhat over time, particularly in

215

the face of evidence of marrow suppression. Analysis of data from the Collaborative Transplant Study suggested that, for patients receiving azathioprine and steroids only, long-term doses greater than 1.5 mg/kg/day were associated with superior graft survival.51 When azathioprine is administered with a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) and steroids (triple therapy), lower doses are appropriate. A fairly standard dose of azathioprine in a triple protocol is 1.5 mg/kg, 100 mg/day. At this level, hematologic toxicity is uncommon. Xanthine oxidase has an important role in the catabolism of 6-mercaptopurine, and, therefore, azathioprine. Concomitant use of xanthine oxidase inhibitors (e.g., allopurinol) requires significant azathioprine dose reduction to avoid excessive toxicities, particularly in the bone marrow.9 Although the metabolites are excreted in the urine, these are inactive, and no reduction in dosage is required in acute kidney failure.52 Regular monitoring of hematologic parameters is an important aspect of azathioprine therapy; common practice is to reduce the dose when the leukocyte count decreases to less than 3 × 109/L. As already mentioned, if xanthine oxidase inhibitors are used, the azathioprine dose should be reduced by at least 25% or consideration given to conversion to MPA. Blood levels of azathioprine or its metabolites are not routinely monitored in clinical practice. It has been noted, however, that the development of leukopenia can also result from viral infection, leading to the suggestion that erythrocyte 6-thioguanine nucleotide levels may be a better indicator of azathioprine activity in transplant patients.53 A number of genetic variations in the thiopurine Smethyltransferase (TMPT) gene have been identified, which have been related to azathioprine-induced toxicities.54,55 Polymorphisms in the TMPT enzyme, which catalyzes the S-methylation of 6-mercaptopurine and azathioprine, may be associated with an increased likelihood of myelotoxicity and leukopenia and require dose modification.54,55 Genotyping for this polymorphism before commencing azathioprine might allow the appropriate azathioprine dose for an individual to be determined,56 however, the cost/benefit ratio of this approach remains controversial.57 

Side Effects The major complication of azathioprine therapy is bone marrow suppression, most commonly manifest as leukopenia, although, in more severe settings, anemia and thrombocytopenia may also occur. Megaloblastic anemia has been described in association with the use of azathioprine.58 Although hepatotoxicity has been attributed to azathioprine for many years; it is probably rarer than thought, with many cases likely reflective of unrecognized viral hepatitis. Hair loss is an uncommon complication. Increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancers and other malignancies in transplant recipients has been attributed to azathioprine. Evolving experience, with both skin and colon cancer, does indeed indicate azathioprine-treated patients to be at greater risk, with a recent meta-analysis indicating increased skin cancers like squamous cell, but not basal cell carcinoma.59–62 Mechanistically, Hofbauer and colleagues have shown that mercaptopurine metabolites intercalated into DNA of skin increase sensitivity to ultraviolet irradiation, providing a plausible mechanistic explanation for the clinical observations.63 

216

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

O

MMF

OH

O

O

O

N

O CH3

MPA

CH3

O

OCH3

CH3

OH

COOH

O CH3

OCH3

EHC OH OH

COOH

OH

O

OH O

OH CH2OH

O

OH CH3

O

O COOH

O OCH3

CH3 7-O-Glucoside metabolite

CH3

O

O COCH

O CH3

OCH3

MPAG

OH

CH3

OH OH

O

O OCH3 CH3

O

Acyl glucuronide metabolite

O

OH COOH

Fig. 15.3  Metabolism of parent compound mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to mycophenolic acid (MPA) by cleavage of mofetil group (encircled) with primary metabolism to its glucuronide (MPAG), which may undergo enterohepatic recycling (EHC), and secondary acyl glucuronide and 7-O-glucoside metabolites. (Adapted from Shaw LM, Korecka M, Venkataramanan R, et al. Mycophenolate acid pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics provide the basis for rational monitoring strategies. Am J Transplant 2003;3:534.)

MYCOPHENOLATES Dosing In adults with kidney transplants, MMF is most commonly administered orally at a dose of 1 g twice daily.27 In pediatric patients, the recommended dose of MMF oral suspension is 600 mg/m2 at 12-hour intervals up to a maximum of 2 g daily. Intravenous MMF is administered at the same dose and frequency as the oral preparation, infused over 2 hours. EC-MPS is administered orally at a dose of 720 mg twice daily in adults.29 This suggested dose of EC-MPS in a stable pediatric patient is 400 mg/m2 twice daily, but its use is not recommended in patients less than 5 years old.  Absorption Orally delivered MMF is rapidly and almost completely absorbed in the stomach and upper intestine and then efficiently hydrolyzed to MPA (Fig. 15.3). Drug absorption, as assessed by area under the curve (AUC), is not significantly altered by coadministered food, although the maximal concentration (Cmax) is 40% lower in simultaneously fed renal transplant recipients.27 The time to maximal concentration (Tmax) of less than 1 hour is independent of hepatic or renal function. The Tmax is slightly delayed, however, in the period immediately after transplantation (1.31 ± 0.76 hours) and in diabetic patients (1.59 ± 0.67 hours). In contrast, by 3 months it is 0.90 ± 0.24 hours. Metabolism of MMF to MPA yields 94% bioavailability. Over a range of 100 to 3000 mg/day, the MPA area under the concentration-time curve

for 24 hours (AUC0–24) is proportionate to dose in healthy subjects,64 although a recent study of MMF kinetics in kidney transplant recipients revealed a nonlinear relationship, with reduced bioavailability as doses increase from 250 mg to 2000 mg.65 The magnitude of the nonlinearity was greater (176%–76%) in combination with tacrolimus than with CsA (123%–90%). A recent multicenter crossover study comparing pharmacokinetics of two MMF preparations (Teva and Roche) in 43 stable kidney recipients found them to be comparable in all parameters studied.66 EC-MPS does not release MPA under acidic conditions (pH <5) as in the stomach but is highly soluble in a neutralpH environment like the intestine.67 Consistent with this property is a Tmax of 1.5–2.75 hours, substantially delayed compared with MMF.29 Gastrointestinal absorption is 93%, and absolute bioavailability of MPA after administration of EC-MPS is 72%. There is a substantial effect of food on MPA absorption with EC-MPS, although overall AUC is not affected; to avoid variability, it should always be taken on an empty stomach. Like MMF, EC-MPS pharmacokinetics are dose-proportional over its administration range, and its profile regarding metabolism and clearance (see later) is similar as well. An EC-MPS dose of 720 mg most closely approximates the MPA exposure of 1000 mg of MMF. 

Metabolism and Clearance MPA is rapidly metabolized to an inactive glucuronide (MPAG) via one or more isoforms of the UGT1 gene family of uridine diphosphate–glucuronosyl transferases in the

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates Tacrolimus

Estimated MPA AUC (mg•h/L)

100

80

60

40

20 Intercept: 23.016 Slope: 9.8287 R squared: 0.68636

0

A

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

MPA trough (mg/L)

Cyclosporine

Estimated MPA AUC (mg•h/L)

100

80

60

40

20 Intercept: 30.921 Slope: 7.6355 R squared: 0.32874

0

B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

MPA trough (mg/L)

Fig. 15.4 Linear regression analysis of the estimated mycophenolic acid (MPA) area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) versus trough in patients in the Opticept study receiving (A) tacrolimus and (B) cyclosporine. (From Gaston RS, Kaplan B, Shah T, et al. Fixed- or controlleddose MMF with standard- or reduced-dose calcineurin inhibitors: the Opticept trial. Am J Transplant 2009;1613.)

gastrointestinal tract, liver, and possibly kidney. Two minor metabolites also are formed: the acyl glucuronide and the phenolic glucoside68 (see Fig. 15.3) The apparent elimination half-life of MPA in healthy volunteers is 17.9 hours – a clearance of 11.6 L/h.69 At 8 to 12 hours after oral drug administration, 37% of patients (range 10%–61%) display a secondary peak in plasma MPA concentrations representing enterohepatic recirculation. The additional peak results from excreted MPAG in bile undergoing deglucuronidation by intestinal bacteria with subsequent reabsorption of MPA, and may account for up to 40% to 60% of the total dose interval MPA AUC.64,70

217

MPAG is the major urinary excretion product (93% of the radioactive parent compound); urinary excretion of MPA is negligible (1%). Fecal excretion accounts for 6%. Neither hemodialysis nor peritoneal dialysis significantly affects MPA plasma concentrations, although in multiple-dose studies either dialysis method may remove some MPAG. With renal dysfunction, there is a moderate increase in plasma MPA and a marked accumulation of MPAG. MPA binds tightly and extensively (97%), but reversibly, to serum albumin, decreasing its ability to inhibit IMPDH.71 The free fraction, constituting 1% to 3% of the total amount in the blood of stable patients, is cleared by biliary and renal routes. Hypoalbuminemia is associated with increased free MPA and greater MPA clearance. Renal allograft dysfunction also increases the MPA-free fraction because it decreases the binding of acidic drugs; in contrast, hepatic oxidative impairment produces no effect. Estimates of free MPA in ultrafiltrate samples have not been shown to offer any advantage over measurements of total MPA to predict therapeutic versus adverse reactions,69,72 except in the presence of impaired graft function.68 

Assays and Blood Monitoring The MPA parent compound is readily measured in plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography.73 In contrast, the widely available automated enzyme multiplier immunoassay technique (EMIT)74 yields 15% to 20% higher results because its antibody reagent cross-reacts with the acyl-MPAG metabolite (see Fig. 15.3), which may contribute to both immunosuppressive and toxic effects.75 Because of these properties, some have suggested the EMIT assay may be preferable and is the most widely utilized. The gold-standard pharmacokinetic measure of MPA exposure is a frequent sampling of blood over a 12-hour period, with the calculation of the AUC concentration-time exposure. MPA AUC can be calculated from either full (8 or more samples over 12 hours) or limited (2–5 samples over 4 hours) sampling strategies.76,77 Although the evidence is conflicting regarding utility, 12-hour predose (C0) MPA levels are convenient to obtain and have been utilized effectively in some studies.78,79 Correlation (r2) of the predose level with AUC of MMF ranges from 0.32 to 0.68 and may differ by concomitant CNI usage79,80 (Fig. 15.4). For ECMPS, variability in absorption means significantly poorer correlation between predose MPA level and AUC (r2 = 0.02). Long-term, intrapatient variability of both AUC and trough levels is relatively low.77 After the first few weeks after transplantation, dosenormalized MPA exposure increases by 30% to 50%, perhaps reflecting a decline in drug clearance, MPA saturation of tissues, or other factors.81,82 MPA exposure/dose relationships may also differ in settings other than kidney transplantation (e.g., liver and small-bowel transplantation, bone marrow transplantation).83,84 Typically, younger children require higher MMF doses per body mass index than older children or adults to achieve comparable MPA exposure.85 Considerable interpatient pharmacokinetic variability of MMF has been documented to be due to differences in hepatic/renal function,86 concurrent drug administration,

218

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

and the presence of diarrhea, but not to ethnicity or gender.87,88 Pharmacodynamic monitoring of patients receiving MPA therapy has been studied. Peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) from patients on MMF demonstrate reduced response to stimulation assays and diminished antibody production.40,89 However, so many other factors affect the proliferative activity of PBL in this setting that the clinical utility of these assays is modest. IMPDH assays are technically demanding and difficult to reproduce; in addition, the whole-blood matrix may not reflect the effect in activated lymphocytes, which are the cells of interest. Estimates of IMPDH activity in isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells indicate considerable interindividual variability. The time course of IMPDH inhibition, as measured by the production of xanthine monophosphate by isolated mononuclear cells, parallels the MPA plasma concentration.90 Patients with lower IMPDH levels before transplantation, indicative of genetic susceptibility to the drug, more frequently underwent dosage reductions within 6 months; pretransplant IMPDH activity has been suggested as a guide to MPA dosing in pediatric patients.91,92 It is unclear, however, whether levels of fluctuations in IMPDH activity can be of utility in predicting either efficacy or toxicity of MMF in clinical transplantation. 

and gastrointestinal side effects were reportedly “modest.”23 In general, adverse events, including invasive cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections, were more common in patients receiving 3 g (vs. 2 g) of MMF daily, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship. In the pivotal trials, adverse events accounted for study withdrawal in 15% of subjects in the MMF 3 g/day dose, 9% from MMF 2 g/day dose, and 5% from the comparator cohorts.100 Early on, these side effects were thought to be related to the MMF dose rather than to the plasma concentration of parent compound or its metabolites,82 and indeed adverse events often respond to MMF dose reduction. However, whereas findings have been somewhat inconsistent, more recent evidence has correlated gastrointestinal and hematologic adverse events to MPA exposure as well as dose.78,101 The frequency and severity of MMF-related adverse events are also influenced by the other immunosuppressants with which it is combined. The common clinical practice has been to reduce MMF dosing in response to adverse events; there is some evidence, however, that dose reduction can be associated with increased risk of rejection and graft failure, and should be approached cautiously.102

Drug–Drug Interactions In general, important drug–drug interactions with mycophenolates are rare. Cholestyramine may reduce MPA absorption.27 Antibiotic therapy disrupting the gastrointestinal flora may interfere with deglucuronidation and enterohepatic recirculation, decreasing drug levels. Because acyclovir and ganciclovir compete with MPAG for tubular secretion, they may increase drug concentration slightly, particularly among patients experiencing renal impairment. Coadministration of proton pump inhibitors has been reported to reduce exposure to MPA by 25% to 35%, but the clinical effect of this interaction is uncertain.27 Clearly, however, the most significant drug–drug interaction is with CsA: its importance is magnified because most dosing regimens of MMF and EC-MPS were established utilizing this combination. When either mycophenolate preparation is administered with CsA, subjects display lower MPA concentrations than those not receiving CsA or in whom the drug was discontinued.93,94 This effect is likely the result of reduced enterohepatic recirculation.95 In contrast, coadministration with tacrolimus does not alter MPA exposure compared with placebo, and MPA exposure in combination with sirolimus is likewise higher than observed with CsA.96,94,97 There appears to be no drug–drug interaction between belatacept and MMF. Similarly, the experimental Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib does not affect MPA pharmacokinetics.72 This property resulted in 37% greater MPA exposure in tofacitinib-treated (versus CsA) subjects in a phase IIb trial, with a profound influence on the outcomes in kidney transplant recipients.98 Finally, the corticosteroid complement of most regimens increases MPAG slightly by inducing hepatic glucuronosyl transferase.99 

One or more gastrointestinal symptoms from a constellation that includes diarrhea, indigestion, bloating, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, are the most commonly reported adverse effects of MMF therapy. In the European trial, the overall incidence of any gastrointestinal complaint was 53% and 46% for the MMF 3-g and 2-g doses, respectively, versus 42% in the placebo comparator arm.103 These adverse effects often improve with MMF dose reduction, or, in some cases, with the maintenance of the same total daily dose administered more frequently in smaller increments (e.g., 500 mg four times daily rather than 1000 mg twice daily). The most common and troublesome gastrointestinal adverse event is diarrhea, experienced by up to 35% of subjects in the pivotal trials using CsA, almost twice the frequency as in the comparator arms.100 Diarrhea occurs even more often, and with greater severity, when MMF is used in combination with tacrolimus (45% vs. 25% with CsA in one study).104 Because diarrhea also increases tacrolimus absorption and blood levels, its clinical consequence may be greater with this combination as well.105 In a registry analysis, Bunnapradist and colleagues found significantly increased risk of diarrhea (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37) associated with the tacrolimus/MMF combination, which, in turn, was linked to increased risk of graft failure (HR 2.13) and patient death (HR 2.04).106 After renal transplantation, however, diarrhea can be due to a variety of causes other than immunosuppressant therapy, including preexisting diabetic or uremic conditions, intercurrent infectious diseases, and concurrent antibiotic treatment.107 Maes and colleagues reported 60% of 26 cases of diarrhea were due to an infectious origin: CMV, Campylobacter, bacterial overgrowth, or, in another report, microsporidiosis.107,108 In the other 40%, erosive enterocolitis was attributed to MMF, characterized by faster colonic transit, crypt distortion, and focal inflammation, thought to represent a toxic action of the acyl-MPAG metabolite on absorptive cells, leading to a predominance of goblet cells.109 In the presence of

Clinical Toxicities of Mycophenolates The initial clinical trials of MMF indicated the absence of nep­ hrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, or hepatotoxicity. Myelotoxicity

GASTROINTESTINAL ADVERSE REACTIONS

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates

persistent diarrhea, colonic biopsy specimens have shown apoptosis of intestinal gland epithelial cells110 and atrophy of the intestinal villi, which has been documented to disappear a few months after MMF withdrawal.111 EC-MPS was developed specifically to mitigate the gastrointestinal toxicities associated with MMF by delaying absorption in the gastrointestinal tract with the goal of reducing peak levels and delivering the active drug to more distal portions of the bowel. Compared with MMF, EC-MPS showed equivalent efficacy and overall equivalent MPA drug exposure in kidney transplant patients, but very similar gastrointestinal adverse events when administered in a randomized fashion (with CsA and corticosteroids) to either de novo or stable recipients.30,31 Some conversion patients, however, showed marked improvement in EC-MPS, and, in another study of gastrointestinal intolerance of MMF, fewer dose changes of EC-MPS were required, with an apparently reduced symptom burden, better functioning, and improved health-related quality of life.112 

MYELOSUPPRESSION Dose-dependent myelosuppression has been observed with MMF. This was particularly notable in the European trial, as subjects receiving 3-g or 2-g doses of MMF had more anemia or leukopenia (26% and 24%, respectively) than placebo-treated controls (13%).24,26 However, in the other pivotal trials, hematopoietic adverse events may have occurred slightly less frequently with MMF than in azathioprine controls.24,25 As with gastrointestinal side effects, it should be remembered that among kidney recipients there may be multiple causes of anemia or leukopenia, including renal dysfunction and infection, as well as concomitant immunosuppressants and other drugs. A prospective study involving 978 patients at seven North American transplant centers documented anemia (hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL) in 10% of MMF-treated subjects and an association with recipient age, use of antiviral prophylaxis, and posttransplant dialysis.113 In the Fixed Dose-Concentration Controlled (FDCC) trial in Europe, anemia was reported in 38% of subjects.114 Greater MMF dose and MPA predose (C0) plasma concentrations have been correlated with decreased hemoglobin values among stable renal transplant recipients.115 Another study suggested an even better correlation of anemia with MPA metabolites, MPAG and acyl-MPAG than with MPA itself.116 Conversely, others have found no association.75,117 In a single-nucleotide polymorphism analysis of kidney recipients with MMF-related anemia, one study found a protective effect of the HUS1 allele, with interleukin12A and CYP2C8A genes associated with an increased risk for anemia.83 Other investigators, however, while confirming an association with CYP2C8A (but not the other genotypes) noted that expression of the “at-risk” phenotype is so rare (0.5% of population) as not to explain the observed frequency of anemia (or leukopenia).114 In the current era, leukopenia (fewer than 3000 leukocyte/mm3) is reported in 14% to 23% of kidney transplant recipients.113,114 A multivariable analysis (Cox regression) of Medicare-covered kidney recipients found a significant association between mycophenolate use and leukopenia (adjusted HR 1.21).118 Other documented risk factors for leukopenia included corticosteroid-free regimens, weight, previous kidney transplant,

219

decreased donor, and CMV seronegativity with a CMVpositive donor (and lengthier antiviral prophylaxis).113 MMF-related leukopenia may be associated with markedly abnormal neutrophil morphology.119 As with anemia, some, but not all, studies have shown MPA plasma concentrations and particularly free MPA AUC0–12h to be significantly related to severe infections and leukopenia.120,121 The leukopenia has been associated with stomatitis, particularly when combined with a sirolimus-based regimen.122 

INFECTIONS In the pivotal trials of CsA with MMF, whereas viral infections (herpes simplex and zoster, and tissue-invasive CMV) were more common in MMF-treated recipients than controls, other opportunistic infections were not.24–26 More recently, several studies have indicated significantly fewer herpes viral infections (especially CMV) with mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors than with mycophenolates.123 However, widespread use of antiviral prophylaxis is now the norm, and most centers now view CMV as a manageable problem.124 Recognition of BK virus infection and nephropathy coincided with the rapid assimilation of mycophenolates and tacrolimus into clinical practice, and most attribute its rise to more potent immunosuppression associated with these combinations.125 Aggressive screening of BK viruria or viremia, with immunosuppressant dose reduction (focused on mycophenolates), has diminished the effect of BK nephropathy on risk of allograft failure.126 Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) is a rare but debilitating central nervous system manifestation of polyomavirus infection, and it has been associated with mycophenolate use. Registry analysis of PML in the US found all reported cases in kidney recipients to be taking MMF, although MMF use was so ubiquitous that no statistical association could be documented.127 Another analysis of reported cases of PML in the US found a strong association with not only mycophenolates, but also azathioprine, CsA, cyclophosphamide, efalizumab, rituximab, and tacrolimus, among others, indicating a potential role for interactions among components of combination therapy and overall intensity of immunosuppression.128 Introduction of MMF therapy has been reported to produce a significant increase in hepatitis C virus viremia in some, but not all, patients receiving concomitant CsA.129 In contrast, MMF seems to show no significant effect on hepatitis B virus viremia despite in  vitro studies that suggested that it inhibited viral replication.130 Recent analysis of outcomes in kidney recipients with hepatitis C indicated no adverse effect of mycophenolate therapy on long-term graft or patient survival.131

NEOPLASTIC DISEASES Early experience with MMF was associated with a numerical increase in subjects with lymphoma compared with placebo or azathioprine control groups.100 However, large casecontrol studies now indicate little or no additional adverse effect of mycophenolates on the risk of lymphoma or other malignancy in patients receiving pharmacologic immunosuppression.132,133 Registry data also indicate malignancy

220

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

risk associated with MMF use to be similar to other immunosuppressants.134 Despite an emerging consensus that mTOR inhibitors may be associated with reduced malignancy risk, much of the purported benefit is in comparison to CNIs rather than mycophenolates.135,136 

PREGNANCY AND REPRODUCTION MMF demonstrated teratogenic effects at subclinical doses in animal studies,137 which generated caution regarding its use in both males and females of reproductive age. Avoidance of mycophenolates in males fathering children is no longer recommended. However, fetal malformations have been reported in the offspring of female kidney recipients taking MMF.138 Mycophenolates are now recognized by the US FDA as category D agents in pregnancy (positive evidence of human fetal risk, but the benefits from use in pregnant women may be acceptable despite risk).139 In a female recipient with stable kidney allograft function at least 1 year posttransplant who desires pregnancy, common practice is to convert from mycophenolate to azathioprine at least 6 weeks before discontinuing contraception.139 

Early Clinical Trials of Mycophenolates in Kidney Transplantation As mycophenolate emerged as a potential immunosuppressant in the late 1980s, azathioprine was the antiproliferative agent of choice, most commonly utilized with CsA and corticosteroids as triple therapy. A phase I/II dose-finding study of MMF in combination with polyclonal antibody induction, CsA, and corticosteroids in de novo kidney recipients indicated the therapeutic benefit of MMF at doses of 2 to 3 g/day.23 There was also suggested efficacy at these doses, demonstrated in the treatment settings of an ongoing or steroid-resistant acute renal rejection episode.140,141 Three blinded, randomized phase III trials were initiated in 1992. Patients in each trial were assigned to one of three treatment arms: a control group or one of two groups receiving MMF 2 g or 3 g daily, respectively. All patients also received CsA and prednisone. The primary end-point of each study was the prevention of acute rejection episodes during the first 6 months after transplantation, thought to be indicative of poorer 1-year and possibly long-term graft survival. The European Mycophenolate Mofetil Study compared MMF with placebo with no antibody induction therapy.26 At 6 months, 46% of those receiving placebo had experienced biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), versus only 17% (2 g) and 14% (3 g) of those randomized to MMF. The US Renal Transplant Study, which required polyclonal antibody induction for all patients and included an azathioprine control arm, yielded corresponding acute rejection rates of 38%, 20%, and 18%, respectively.24 The Tricontinental study, which included an azathioprine comparator but without antibody induction, demonstrated BPAR in 36%, 20%, and 15% of subjects, respectively.25 Each study also found significantly fewer histologic and clinically severe rejections among the MMF-treated cohorts. Thus each trial documented: (1) similar benefit of MMF compared with

azathioprine (or placebo) in the prevention of early rejection episodes, (2) fewer withdrawals in MMF-treated subjects due to treatment failure, and (3) more adverse effects in the 3-g than the 2-g MMF groups. Although none of the studies individually was powered to test efficacy in terms of graft survival, a planned pooled analysis of 12-month data from the three studies, with a total of 1493 randomized subjects, confirmed the benefit of MMF on acute rejection episodes: 20% and 17% in the two MMF arms versus 41% among controls, yielding a relative risk (RR) ratio of 0.46.100 There was significantly less steroidresistant rejection with MMF, and renal function at 1 year was substantially better (despite identical CsA exposure) in the MMF-treated patients. Despite a trend indicating fewer graft losses over time with MMF, the combined incidence of graft loss and death was 10%, 11%, and 12%, respectively, at 1 year (P = not significant). Longer-term follow-up failed to suggest a benefit of MMF versus azathioprine or placebo in the US or Tricontinental studies, although data from the European trial revealed that the 2-g, but not that 3-g, dose of MMF reduced death-censored graft loss compared with placebo: 9%, 13%, and 16%, respectively (P = 0.03).103 After FDA approval in 1995, MMF was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the US. By 1999, over 80% of the US kidney recipients were on MMF, usually in combination with CsA, and now its use is ubiquitous.28 From the beginning, pharmacoeconomic analyses documented benefit; the cost of adding MMF to a regimen was more than offset by reduced costs associated with diagnosing and treating acute rejection and its consequences.142,143 Subsequent analyses of clinical outcomes of almost 50,000 kidney recipients in the US Renal Data System (USRDS) suggested that prescription of MMF yielded significantly better early and late patient and graft survivals. The risk of late acute rejection episodes was reduced by 65%,144 with the risk of long-term deterioration of graft function reduced by 20% to 34%.144,145 More recently, Wagner and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of MMF versus azathioprine.146 They included 23 studies with 3301 patients and demonstrated that MMF significantly reduced death-censored graft loss (RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.99, P < 0.05) (Fig. 15.5) and acute rejection (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57–0.73, P < 0.01), (Fig. 15.6). Adverse events also had a slightly different profile with gastrointestinal symptoms being more common with MMF and thrombocytopenia and elevated liver enzymes with azathioprine. 

Combination Therapy Utilizing MMF or Azathioprine in Kidney Transplantation CYCLOSPORINES Shortly after the introduction of mycophenolates, CsA microemulsion (Neoral and generic, CsA-ME) began replacing its original oil-based formulation (Sandimmune). Data reported with the newer CsA-ME/MMF combinations generally confirmed the initial experience cited previously.147–149 The ELITE-Symphony trial, enrolling more than 1600 subjects, included two CsA-ME cohorts, normal

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates Study or subgroup

MMF

AZA

Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI

Weight

n/N

n/N

MMF US Study 1995

50/331

28/164

31.3 %

0.88 [ 0.58, 1.35 ]

MMF TRI Study 1996

39/335

25/162

25.8 %

0.75 [ 0.47, 1.20 ]

0/11

0/5

Mendez 1998

1/117

3/59

1.1 %

0.17 [ 0.02, 1.58 ]

Egfjord 1999

1/25

5/25

1.3 %

0.20 [ 0.03, 1.59 ]

Suhail 2000

0/20

0/20

Johnson 2000

9/72

9/76

7.5 %

1.06 [ 0.44, 2.51 ]

Ji 2001

0/56

2/50

0.6 %

0.18 [ 0.01, 3.64 ]

Busque 2001

0/23

0/23

Folkmane 2001

2/23

3/25

1.9 %

0.72 [ 0.13, 3.96 ]

Weimer 2002

2/31

0/25

0.6 %

4.06 [ 0.20, 80.94 ]

16/162

16/157

13.0 %

0.97 [ 0.50, 1.87 ]

Miladipour 2002

0/40

1/40

0.6 %

0.33 [ 0.01, 7.95 ]

Tuncer 2002

5/38

11/38

6.1 %

0.45 [ 0.17, 1.18 ]

Merville 2004

0/37

5/34

0.7 %

0.08 [ 0.00, 1.46 ]

7/124

7/124

5.4 %

1.00 [ 0.36, 2.77 ]

4/34

6/34

4.1 %

0.67 [ 0.21, 2.15 ]

1479

1061

100.0 %

0.78 [ 0.62, 0.99 ]

221

Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI

4 Longest duration of follow-up

Ling 1998

Sadek 2002

MYSS Study 2004 Joh 2005

Subtotal (95% CI)

Not estimable

Not estimable

Not estimable

0.002

0.1

1

Less with MMF

10

500

Less with AZA

Fig. 15.5  Forest plot shows the relative risk of graft loss: censored for death comparing mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine. Boxes represent relative risk in individual studies; diamonds represent summary effects. Horizontal bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CI). AZA, azathioprine; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil. (Adapted from Wagner M, Earley AK, Webster AC, et al. Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(12):CD007746.)

and reduced-dose (with MMF) and daclizumab induction.150 Rejection rates after 1 year approximated 25%, similar to those observed previously. Alternatively, a multicenter European study using CsA-ME demonstrated only modest insignificant reductions in acute rejection episodes with MMF compared with azathioprine (34% and 35%, respectively, after 1 year) and questioned the value of a 10- to 15-fold cost differential.151 Five-year follow-up likewise documented no evidence of a long-term benefit of MMF versus azathioprine with CsA-ME.152 Studies comparing MMF with sirolimus on everolimus (in combination with CsA) have typically shown comparable outcomes, with a differing side effect profile.153 With a significant percentage of CsA-treated recipients on standard doses of MMF or EC-MPS not achieving adequate exposure to MPA early after transplantation (see section on therapeutic drug monitoring later), a European trial examined the effect of a “loading dose” approach. Investigators found more adverse events but substantially less early rejection

(3% vs. 17% of subjects) using higher-than-standard doses of EC-MPS (2880 then 2160 mg/day) for 6 weeks.154 African Americans are generally considered at greater immunologic risk than others, and a subgroup analysis of the US pivotal trial documented a benefit of MMF for black recipients only in the 3-g dose group: an acute rejection rate of 12% compared with 32% in the 2-g group and 48% in the azathioprine cohort.155 These findings were seemingly confirmed in a single-center study: the standard 2-g dose of MMF produced no benefit in rejection risk among African Americans (relative risk 0.88), whereas white recipients fared much better (RR 0.35).149 Registry data, however, supported an overall benefit for African American recipients.156 Review of data from the pivotal trial and other studies found that the excess acute rejections among African Americans, and others, occurred quite early after transplantation, a time when MPA pharmacokinetics are not stable and MPA exposure at standard doses is low in a substantial number of recipients on CsA-based protocols.79,117,155,157

222

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice Study or subgroup

MMF

AZA

Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI

Weight

Risk Ratio MH,Random,95% CI

n/N

n/N

MMF US Study 1995

87/331

77/164

17.0 %

0.56 [ 0.44, 0.71 ]

MMF TRI Study 1996

105/335

81/162

19.2 %

0.63 [ 0.50, 0.78 ]

24/117

19/59

5.1 %

0.64 [ 0.38, 1.07 ]

Ling 1998

2/11

3/5

0.7 %

0.30 [ 0.07, 1.28 ]

Egfjord 1999

8/25

11/25

2.7 %

0.73 [ 0.35, 1.50 ]

Suhail 2000

2/20

7/20

0.7 %

0.29 [ 0.07, 1.21 ]

Johnson 2000

12/72

16/76

3.1 %

0.79 [ 0.40, 1.56 ]

Busque 2001

2/23

8/23

0.7 %

0.25 [ 0.06, 1.05 ]

Folkmane 2001

5/23

8/25

1.6 %

0.68 [ 0.26, 1.78 ]

11/56

22/50

3.7 %

0.45 [ 0.24, 0.83 ]

Sadek 2002

34/162

51/157

8.8 %

0.65 [ 0.44, 0.94 ]

COSTAMP Study 2002

59/243

83/246

13.7 %

0.72 [ 0.54, 0.95 ]

Tuncer 2002

7/38

13/38

2.2 %

0.54 [ 0.24, 1.20 ]

Weimer 2002

5/31

11/25

1.7 %

0.37 [ 0.15, 0.92 ]

Army Hospital 2002

1/17

3/16

0.3 %

0.31 [ 0.04, 2.71 ]

Sun 2002b

2/40

6/46

0.6 %

0.38 [ 0.08, 1.79 ]

Baltar 2002

1/14

5/12

0.4 %

0.17 [ 0.02, 1.27 ]

Miladipour 2002

4/40

10/40

1.3 %

0.40 [ 0.14, 1.17 ]

Keven 2003

3/24

3/17

0.7 %

0.71 [ 0.16, 3.10 ]

Merville 2004

5/37

7/34

1.3 %

0.66 [ 0.23, 1.87 ]

56/167

58/167

12.7 %

0.97 [ 0.72, 1.30 ]

10/34

7/34

2.0 %

1.43 [ 0.62, 3.31 ]

1860

1441

100.0 %

0.65 [ 0.57, 0.73 ]

4 Longest duration of follow-up

Mendez 1998

Ji 2001

MYSS Study 2004 Joh 2005

Subtotal (95% CI)

0.01

0.1

Less with MMF

1

10

100

Less with AZA

Fig. 15.6  Forest plot shows the relative risk of acute rejection, comparing mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine. Boxes represent relative risk in individual studies; diamonds represent summary effects. Horizontal bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CI). MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; AZA, azathioprine. (Adapted from Wagner M, Earley AK, Webster AC, et al. Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(12):CD007746.)

A subsequent study, conducted in stable renal allograft recipients, indicated no difference in MPA pharmacokinetics based on race or gender.87 In current practice, there is no evidence supporting long-term use of a 3-g dose in nonCsA-based regimens. A 2003 paper regarding late kidney allograft failure identified chronic CsA-induced nephrotoxicity as its principal etiology.158 The study was based on serial surveillance biopsies in recipients treated with CsA, azathioprine, and corticosteroids. A subsequent study from the same group, however, substituted MMF for azathioprine, found

substantially fewer changes suggestive of chronic allograft nephropathy and interpreted the data as indicating that MMF may attenuate CsA nephrotoxicity.159 Indeed, data from the earliest days of MMF use have suggested it may mitigate chronic allograft nephropathy.145 Patients in the USRDS registry who were maintained on MMF for at least 2 years were reported to show a 34% reduced risk of worsening renal function, with significantly less late rejection.145,160 A Spanish study indicated that MMF demonstrated a benefit for patients with chronic allograft nephropathy even when introduced late after transplantation, though contradictory

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates

data exist.161,162 It now appears that most late allograft failure is the result of immunologic mechanisms, with antibody-mediated injury playing a major role.163,164 The putative benefit of MMF in preserving renal function and preventing late graft failure may actually reside in its efficacy as an immunosuppressant with both anti-T cell and anti-B cell effects. 

TACROLIMUS Studies evaluating the tacrolimus/MMF combination began appearing in the mid-1990s. A single-center, randomized study evaluated adding MMF to a tacrolimus/steroid regimen and documented a reduction of acute rejection rates at 1 year from 44% to 27%.109 A subsequent multicenter trial157 reported 2 g/day of MMF reduced the incidence of acute rejection episodes compared with 1 g/day or azathioprine (9%, 32%, and 32%, respectively). The low acute rejection rate with the higher MMF dose, without overt evidence indicating greater risk of infection or malignancy, was thought to support the 2-g dose as optimal with tacrolimus; however, the mean time to rejection was 79 days, there was almost no rejection beyond 180 days in the 1-g MMF group, and, by 1 year, patients in the 2-g group had undergone dose reduction to a mean of 1.6 g/day (see section on therapeutic drug monitoring, later). In contrast, despite a 1-year rejection rate of 15% with the tacrolimus/MMF combination, another study failed to show a significant benefit of tacrolimus versus CsA-ME in combination with MMF on the incidence of acute rejection episodes, graft survival, or patient survival in 220 subjects.165 A subsequent analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data in recipients of living donor kidneys found greater risk of graft failure with the tacrolimus/MMF than with the CsA-ME/MMF combination.166 Although the Symphony trial documented fewer rejection episodes (12%) and better graft survival with tacrolimus/MMF than two CsA-ME-based control groups,150 a trial of modified-release tacrolimus documented efficacy and safety only similar to the CsA-ME/MMF control group.104 Eventually, efficacy and safety data obtained in two studies that compared tacrolimus with CsA-ME in combination with MMF led to the FDA’s approval of the tacrolimus/MPA regimen in 2009, at a recommended starting dose of 2g/day. With tacrolimus/MMF established as a new standard, several reports documented similar efficacy of tacrolimusbased protocols with sirolimus.167,168 In a randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing patients treated with MMF (n = 176) versus sirolimus (n = 185) (along with tacrolimus and steroids), there was no difference in rejection, graft survival, or patient survival. However, the MMF cohort displayed better renal function, less hypertension, and reduced hyperlipidemia.168 Among patients on a tacrolimus-based regimen, improvements in renal function were observed in 19 patients converted from sirolimus to MMF compared with 78 recipients remaining on sirolimus.169 

mTOR INHIBITORS Mycophenolates have been utilized with sirolimus in an attempt to avoid CNIs altogether. Patients receiving sirolimus (and presumably everolimus) in combination with mycophenolate have substantially greater MPA exposure

223

than patients on CsA, and many of the side effects of the two drugs are similar (e.g., diarrhea, myelosuppression), making the combination difficult for some patients to tolerate.96 However, an initial clinical study suggested that MMF paired with sirolimus was at least as effective as MMF/CsA to prevent acute rejection.170 In the Symphony study, one of four treatment groups received sirolimus after daclizumab induction in combination with MMF and corticosteroids.150 Almost 40% of the patients experienced acute rejection, with a high rate of study discontinuation, compromised graft survival, and relatively impaired glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in 1 year. In a conversion trial involving 830 patients switched between 6 and 120 months posttransplant from CNIs to sirolimus (in combination with MMF and corticosteroids), only subjects with baseline estimated GFR ≥40 mL/min demonstrated improved GFR 2 years later.171 Again, adverse effects were problematic, with converted patients experiencing more hyperlipidemia, anemia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and discontinuation from the study than those remaining on CNI-based therapy. A study of conversion from CsA-ME to everolimus demonstrated similar results: more acute rejection, with disappointing benefit in terms of GFR, adverse effects, and study discontinuation.172 Nonetheless, some studies have demonstrated, in patients able to tolerate the mTOR/mycophenolate combination, stability of kidney function over time and a trend to fewer malignancies.173,174 

BELATACEPT Belatacept (Nulojix) is a monoclonal antibody that blocks costimulation of lymphocytes by inhibiting the interaction between CD80/86 and CD28. Approved for use in kidney recipients by US and European authorities in 2011, it is the first biologic agent to be utilized as maintenance therapy. It is administered intravenously at varying intervals after transplantation, and, from its earliest trials, has been combined with mycophenolate and corticosteroids.175 Two treatment regimens (moderate and low intensity) of belatacept have been studied in three large multicenter trials involving almost 1500 patients. Efficacy in preventing acute rejection and promoting graft and patient survival is comparable to CsA, with better preservation of renal function.175–177 There may also be a benefit of the belatacept/ MMF combination in reducing the formation of de novo anti-HLA antibodies.177 In 2016, 7-year data from the BENEFIT study documented improved patient and graft survival among patients who remained on belatacept for the duration.178 Adverse effects were more common in a “moderate-intensity” belatacept cohort that received more of the agent early after transplantation; the “low-intensity” regimen is now approved for clinical use. The Emory group has recently published a novel protocol to reduce early acute rejection while capturing the long-term beneficial effect of a belatacept/MMF combination on renal function by adding tacrolimus for a short duration after transplantation.179 The belatacept/MMF combination was associated with more posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease than in comparator patients, particularly in those naïve for EpsteinBarr virus before transplantation; the combination is contraindicated in such patients. A single case of PML has also been reported.180 

224

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

Use of Mycophenolates to Minimize or Avoid Other Immunosuppressants

similar at 3 years with better renal function in those on everolimus. However, given recent evidence linking inadequate immunosuppression to late graft failure, enthusiasm for these protocols may be diminishing.186 

CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR MINIMIZATION

CNI AVOIDANCE

Although CNIs have played a major beneficial role in the evolution of modern transplantation, their use is associated with significant toxicities, including glucose intolerance and renal impairment. The efficacy and relative tolerability of mycophenolate have enabled downward recalibration of what is considered therapeutic levels or doses of both CsA and tacrolimus, potentially reducing their toxic effects. Early on, dose reduction was typically performed late (beyond 6–12 months) in response to declining renal function.181 The CAESAR trial tested full-dose versus lowdose CsA-ME (target C0 150–300 ng/mL vs. 50–100 ng/ mL) in combination with MMF and corticosteroids from the time of transplantation, with half the low-dose patients randomized to withdraw CsA-ME after 6 months.182 The withdrawal patients experienced significantly more acute rejection episodes, but only after CsA-ME was tapered and discontinued. The best outcomes were in the patients who remained on long-term, low-dose CsA-ME treatment, although GFR did not differ significantly from the full-dose patients. Likewise, in the Symphony trial, patients on lowdose CsA-ME fared comparably to those on full dose CsAME.150 However, patients on low-dose tacrolimus (target C0 3–7 ng/mL) demonstrated fewer rejections, better renal function, and better graft survival than patients in any of the three comparator groups. This effect remained evident with 3 years of follow-up.183 

Experience with an MMF/steroid maintenance regimen from the time of transplantation has typically not been good. In 98 low-risk kidney recipients, acute rejection episodes were observed in 53% within 12 months, requiring institution of CNIs.142 A smaller study confined to recipients of living donor kidneys also observed more rejection and little or no overall benefit.187 In contrast, a single-center report described 12 patients older than 50 years who received grafts from elderly donors and were successfully treated de novo with MMF, steroids, and an induction regimen of rabbit ATG.188 Durability of benefit may also be an issue; in a Spanish study, 65% of MMF-treated patients remained on an avoidance regimen at 12 months, but only 36% were CNI-free at 60 months.189 A more successful approach, though not uniformly so, has been the substitution of another agent for CNI at the time of transplantation. This was the basis of the belatacept experience (see earlier discussion) and has also provided the underpinnings for the development of tofacitinib.98 Experience with mTOR inhibitors from the time of transplantation has been mixed, with Kreis in France and Flechner at the Cleveland Clinic reporting good results,96,170 and Larson from the Mayo Clinic reporting neither advantage nor disadvantage from substituting sirolimus for tacrolimus.176 However, other studies, including Symphony, documented more rejection, a more problematic adverse event profile, and little or no benefit in renal function utilizing a MMF/ sirolimus combination in de novo patients.173,190 

CNI WITHDRAWAL Mycophenolates have also been used in attempts to eliminate CNIs completely from a maintenance regimen, again with the goal of averting chronic nephrotoxicity.158 One multicenter study of patients with deteriorating renal function at a mean of 6 years after transplantation documented significantly improved renal function at 6 and 12 months after stepwise withdrawal of CsA.184 A multicenter study compared 1-year outcomes of withdrawal at 3 months of either CsA (n = 44) or MMF (n = 40) from a three-drug regimen, including steroid therapy.185 Withdrawal of CsA was associated with better renal function, decreased blood pressure, and more favorable lipid profiles despite a twofold increase in acute rejection episodes. Several studies have substituted sirolimus for CNIs in otherwise stable patients, with generally good results. In a trial designated “Spare-theNephron,” stable patients 1 to 6 months posttransplant (on either tacrolimus or CsA-ME, as well as MMF and steroids) were randomized to remain on their CNI (mostly tacrolimus) or switch to sirolimus.174 Results at 2 years documented similar renal function between groups and a trend to less rejection and graft loss in the converted patients, with a different adverse event profile. The ZEUS trial randomized CsA-treated patients on EC-MPS to remain on CNIs or switched to everolimus at 4.5 months after transplantation.173 Despite more rejections among converted patients (13% vs. 5%, P = 0.01), patient and graft survival were

CORTICOSTEROID AVOIDANCE OR WITHDRAWAL Availability of a potent agent like MMF was anticipated, in combination with CsA, to allow elimination of long-term corticosteroid therapy and its attendant complications. A large National Institutes of Health-sponsored multicenter trial of steroid withdrawal at 3 months after transplantation using a CsA-ME/MMF regimen documented an increased risk of rejection episodes (particularly in minority patients), and resulted in early termination of the study.191 The FREEDOM study examined steroid avoidance and withdrawal in patients on CsA and EC-MPS after basiliximab induction; a control group that remained on maintenance steroids clearly fared best.192 In contrast, steroid withdrawal beginning at 3 months after transplantation showed no significant difference in rejection rates versus continued steroid therapy among European patients prescribed MMF/ tacrolimus193 or MMF/CsA-ME with antibody induction.194 Although the superior results of the later trials might be attributed to more potent baseline therapy, it might also represent a difference in patient populations. After completion of these trials, philosophy regarding the timing of steroid withdrawal changed: rather than in chronic, stable patients, the most advantageous time point might be early after transplantation, either avoiding steroids

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates

altogether or withdrawing under the cover of heavier immunosuppression with closer monitoring. A European study showed success with only a single methylprednisolone dose at transplant along with daclizumab induction and tacrolimus/MMF maintenance therapy: 89% of patients were steroid-free at 6 months, with less posttransplant diabetes and stable kidney function.195 In a large, randomized, blinded study where corticosteroids were withdrawn within 7 days of transplantation after lymphocyte depletion with rabbit ATG, tacrolimus/MMF combination was equally effective with or without maintenance steroids over 5 years posttransplant.196 In another large multicenter trial, depletional induction with alemtuzumab or rabbit ATG facilitated excellent outcomes over 3 years with tacrolimus/MMF/corticosteroid-free combination.197 It should be remembered that, beyond the early avoidance philosophy, use of MMF at standard doses (as mandated in these trials) with tacrolimus is associated with substantially greater MPA exposure than the CsA-based trials noted in the previous paragraph, with the enhanced exposure perhaps influencing outcomes. 

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Although fixed doses of MMF and EC-MPS have been the norm in most clinical trials and in practice, the marked interindividual variability in pharmacokinetics provides a rationale to implement therapeutic drug monitoring.198 Despite some interest in pharmacodynamic monitoring, only pharmacokinetic monitoring has been widely tested or implemented. In an early study designed to establish a data set around MPA exposure (AUC) among kidney transplant recipients, 150 were randomized to one of three dose groups of MMF (in combination with CsA and steroids).82 This study documented poor bioavailability early after transplantation that seemed to stabilize by week 12, when AUCs were almost double those seen in the first 2 weeks posttransplant. There were substantially fewer acute rejection episodes in patients with AUC > 30 mg/h/L. Patients in the highest MPA target group experienced more adverse events, which in this trial resulted in study discontinuation, but no upper limit to define toxicity risk could be determined. Although full 12-hour AUC measurement is unwieldy for clinical monitoring, limited sampling strategies correlate well with overall MPA exposure. Trough level monitoring correlates less well with AUC, but recent studies documented an r2 of 0.68 for patients also receiving tacrolimus (less so for CsAME), and low intraindividual variability77,79 (see Fig. 15.4). It should be reiterated that trough levels and AUC do not correlate (r2 = 0.02) for EC-MPS. Finally, concomitant drug therapy matters. Kuypers and colleagues documented the lowest risk for BPAR when both tacrolimus and MPA exposure were therapeutic, intermediate risk when one or the other (but not both) was therapeutic, and the greatest risk if both drugs were subtherapeutic.199 Three large, multicenter studies have prospectively tested the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring-based MMF dosing on clinical outcomes in kidney transplantation. In a French study (APOMYGRE), all subjects received CsA and steroids and were randomized to receive fixeddose or concentration-controlled (CC) MMF.75 MMF

225

exposure was measured via limited sampling AUC, and dose adjustments were made by study nurses according to a Bayesian algorithm. There was a significant benefit for the CC group at 12 months with less acute rejection and fewer treatment failures. The MMF dose was higher in the CC group at day 14 (P < 0.0001), month 1 (P < 0.0001), and month 3 (P < 0.01), as were median AUCs on day 14 (34 vs. 27 mg/h/L; P = 0.00001) and at month 1 (45 vs. 31 mg/h/L; P < 0.0001). Adverse events did not differ between groups. In contrast were two larger trials in Europe and the US. The FDCC study enrolled 901 European kidney transplant recipients, randomizing to either CC MMF dosing (target AUC 45 mg/h/L) or standard fixed dosing, in combination with CNIs (predominantly tacrolimus) and corticosteroids.117 Dose changes in the FDCC trial (as well as Opticept79) were made by investigators without specific guidance as to frequency or scope. The two treatment groups were largely indistinguishable, with similar MPA exposure in both at all time points and a similar frequency of acute rejection episodes and treatment failure. Again, however, there was a strong relationship between MPA exposure and risk of acute rejection; 37% of subjects had AUC <30 mg/h/L at day 3, more commonly in those taking CsA-ME than tacrolimus. In the Opticept trial conducted in the US, 720 patients were randomized to one of three groups: a control group on fixed-dose MMF and standarddose CNI (roughly 80% tacrolimus, 20% CsA) or one of two groups with CC MMF administration, and either standard dose or reduced-dose CNI.79 CC dosing of MMF was guided by trough MPA levels, with a target of 1.3 μL/mL for CsA patients and 1.9 μL/mL for those on tacrolimus. Antibody induction was allowed, with approximately a third of patients receiving rabbit ATG, a third basiliximab, and a third no induction. Again, the groups were largely indistinguishable, with similar outcomes, though almost all tacrolimus patients (with a starting MMF dose of 2 g daily) quickly displayed therapeutic MPA exposure: there was a strong relationship in these patients between adequate exposure (trough MPA level ≥ 1.6 μg/mL) and reduced risk of acute rejection (Fig. 15.7). A more recent consensus conference attempted to put these data into perspective. 200 AUC targets of 30 to 60 mg/h/L were recommended, with the upper limit established primarily as an indicator of no additional efficacy rather than associated with toxicity. Recommended trough concentrations are C 0 ≥ 1.3 mg/L with CsA and C 0 ≥1.9 mg/L in patients on tacrolimus. In both the FDCC and Opticept trials, a standard 2-g daily dose of MMF produced adequate early MPA exposure in almost all tacrolimus-treated patients, whereas in a significant percentage of patients on the CsA/MMF combination, it did not. 79,117 In standard patients, there was no indication that therapeutic drug monitoring improved clinical outcomes. The greatest clinical benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring might be expected in patients on dual immunosuppression, patients undergoing CNI- or steroid-sparing regimens, those at high immunologic risk, those with delayed graft function, or those with altered gastrointestinal, hepatic, or renal function. 200,201

226

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

Proportion of patients with first biopsy proven acute rejection

0.40

≥1.6 µg/mL <1.6 µg/mL

MPA trough level (P =0.0001)

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0

3

6

9

12

15

Time since first trial medication (months) Fig. 15.7  Mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposure and time to first biopsy-proven acute rejection episode. Cox proportional hazards model estimate with the abbreviated MPA area under the concentration-time curve, baseline hypertension/diabetes, and treatment effect (controls versus concentrationcontrolled dosing) as covariates. Cutoff point of ≥1.6 μg/mL was based on receiver operating characteristic analysis of the study data. (From Gaston RS, Kaplan B, Shah T, et al. Fixed- or controlled-dose MMF with standard- or reduced-dose calcineurin inhibitors: the Opticept trial. Am J Transplant 2009;1607.)

References













1. Allison AC, Eugui EM. Mechanisms of action of mycophenolate mofetil in preventing acute and chronic allograft rejection. Transplantation 2005;80(Suppl. 2):S181–90. 2. Eugui EM, Almquist SJ, Muller CD, et al. Lymphocyte-selective cytostatic and immunosuppressive effects of mycophenolic acid in vitro: role of deoxyguanosine nucleotide depletion. Scand J Immunol 1991;33(2):161–73. 3. Elion GB, Burgi E, Hitchings GH. Studies on condensed pyrimidine systems. IX. The synthesis of some 6-substituted purines. J Am Chem Soc 1952;74(2):411–4. 4. Elion GB, Bieber S, Hitchings GH. A summary of investigations with 2-amino-6-[(1-methyl-4-nitro-5-imidazolyl)thio]purine (B.W. 57-323) in animals. Cancer Chemother Rep 1960;8: 36–43. 5. Schwartz R, Dameshek W. Drug-induced immunological tolerance. Nature 1959;183(4676):1682–3. 6. Schwartz R, Dameshek W. The effects of 6-mercaptopurine on homograft reactions. J Clin Invest 1960;39:952–8. 7. Calne RY. The rejection of renal homografts. Inhibition in dogs by 6-mercaptopurine. Lancet 1960;1(7121):417–8. 8. Zukoski CF, Lee HM, Hume DM. The prolongation of functional survival of canine renal homografts by 6-mercaptopurine. Surg Forum 1960;11:470–2. 9. Elion GB, Callahan S, Nathan H, et al. Potentiation by inhibition of drug degradation: 6-substituted purines and xanthine oxidase. Biochem Pharmacol 1963;12(1):85–93. 10. Calne RY, Alexandre GP, Murray JE. A study of the effects of drugs in prolonging survival of homologous renal transplants in dogs. Ann NY Acad Sci 1962;99:743–61. 11. Murray JE, Merrill JP, Dammin GJ, et al. Kidney transplantation in modified recipients. Ann Surg 1962;156:337–55. 12. Murray JE, Merrill JP, Harrison JH, et  al. Prolonged survival of human-kidney homografts by immunosuppressive drug therapy. N Engl J Med 1963;268:1315–23. 13. Goodwin W, Mims M, Kaufman J. Human renal transplantation III. Technical problems encountered in six cases of kidney homotransplantation. Transact Am Assoc of Genito-Urinary Surg. 1961;54:116–25.

14. Starzl TE, Marchioro TL, Waddell WR. the reversal of rejection in human renal homografts with subsequent development of homograft tolerance. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1963;117:385–95. 15. Franklin TJ, Cook JM. The inhibition of nucleic acid synthesis by mycophenolic acid. Biochem J 1969;113(3):515–24. 16. Mitsui A, Suzuki S. Immunosuppressive effect of mycophenolic acid. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 1969;22(8):358–63. 17. Allison AC, Hovi T, Watts RW, et  al. Immunological observations on patients with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, and on the role of de-novo purine synthesis in lymphocyte transformation. Lancet 1975;2(7946):1179–83. 18. Allison AC, Kowalski WJ, Muller CJ, et  al. Mycophenolic acid and brequinar, inhibitors of purine and pyrimidine synthesis, block the glycosylation of adhesion molecules. Transplant Proc 1993;25(3 Suppl. 2):67–70. 19. Lee WA, Gu L, Miksztal AR, et  al. Bioavailability improvement of mycophenolic acid through amino ester derivatization. Pharm Res 1990;7(2):161–6. 20. Morris RE, Wang J, Blum JR, et al. Immunosuppressive effects of the morpholinoethyl ester of mycophenolic acid (RS-61443) in rat and nonhuman primate recipients of heart allografts. Transplant Proc 1991;23(2 Suppl. 2):19–25. 21. Platz KP, Sollinger HW, Hullett DA, et al. RS-61443—a new, potent immunosuppressive agent. Transplantation 1991;51(1):27–31. 22. Goldblum R. Therapy of rheumatoid arthritis with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1993;11(Suppl. 8):S117–9. 23. Sollinger HW, Deierhoi MH, Belzer FO, et al. RS-61443—a phase I clinical trial and pilot rescue study. Transplantation 1992;53(2):428–32. 24. 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(3):225–32. 25. 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. Transplantation 1996;61(7):1029–37. 26.  European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet 1995;345(8961):1321–5.

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates 27.  U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CellCept® (mycophenolate mofetil) full prescribing information. Available online at: www.acce ssdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/050722s021,050723 s019,050758s019,050759s024lbl.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2017. 28. Kaufman DB, Shapiro R, Lucey MR, et al. Immunosuppression: practice and trends. Am J Transplant 2004;4(Suppl. 9):38–53. 29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Myfortic® (mycophenolic acid) delayed release tablets. Prescribing information. Available online at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/050 791s007lbl.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2017. 30. Budde K, Curtis J, Knoll G, et  al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium can be safely administered in maintenance renal transplant patients: results of a 1-year study. Am J Transplant 2004;4(2):237– 43. 31. Salvadori M, Holzer H, de Mattos A, et  al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium is therapeutically equivalent to mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2004;4(2):231–6. 32. Ensor CR, Trofe-Clark J, Gabardi S, et  al. Generic maintenance immunosuppression in solid organ transplant recipients. Pharmacotherapy 2011;31(11):1111–29. 33. Molnar AO, Fergusson D, Tsampalieros AK, et al. Generic immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2015;350:h3163. 34. van Gelder T, Hesselink DA. Mycophenolate revisited. Transpl Int 2015;28(5):508–15. 35. Vincenti F, Klintmalm G, Halloran PF. Open letter to the FDA: new drug trials must be relevant. Am J Transplant 2008;8(4):733–4. 36. Giblett ER, Anderson JE, Cohen F, et al. Adenosine-deaminase deficiency in two patients with severely impaired cellular immunity. Lancet 1972;2(7786):1067–9. 37. Carr SF, Papp E, Wu JC, et al. Characterization of human type I and type II IMP dehydrogenases. J Biol Chem 1993;268(36):27286–90. 38. Colic M, Stojic-Vukanic Z, Pavlovic B, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil inhibits differentiation, maturation and allostimulatory function of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells. Clin Exp Immunol 2003;134(1):63–9. 39. Grailer A, Nichols J, Hullett D, et  al. Inhibition of human B cell responses in vitro by RS-61443, cyclosporine A and DAB486 IL-2. Transplant Proc 1991;23(1 Pt 1):314–5. 40. Kimball JA, Pescovitz MD, Book BK, et al. Reduced human IgG antiATGAM antibody formation in renal transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 1995;60(12):1379–83. 41. Figueroa J, Fuad SA, Kunjummen BD, et al. Suppression of synthesis of natural antibodies by mycophenolate mofetil (RS-61443). Its potential use in discordant xenografting. Transplantation 1993;55(6):1371–4. 42. Smith KG, Isbel NM, Catton MG, et al. Suppression of the humoral immune response by mycophenolate mofetil. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13(1):160–4. 43. Moon JI, Kim YS, Kim MS, et al. Effect of cyclosporine, mycophenolic acid, and rapamycin on the proliferation of rat aortic vascular smooth muscle cells: in vitro study. Transplant Proc 2000;32(7):2026–7. 44. Hauser IA, Renders L, Radeke HH, et  al. Mycophenolate mofetil inhibits rat and human mesangial cell proliferation by guanosine depletion. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999;14(1):58–63. 45. Badid C, Vincent M, McGregor B, et  al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces myofibroblast infiltration and collagen III deposition in rat remnant kidney. Kidney Int 2000;58(1):51–61. 46. Klupp J, Dambrin C, Hibi K, et  al. Treatment by mycophenolate mofetil of advanced graft vascular disease in non-human primate recipients of orthotopic aortic allografts. Am J Transplant 2003;3(7):817–29. 47. Azuma H, Binder J, Heemann U, et al. Effects of RS61443 on functional and morphological changes in chronically rejecting rat kidney allografts. Transplantation 1995;59(4):460–6. 48. Jolicoeur EM, Qi S, Xu D, et al. Combination therapy of mycophenolate mofetil and rapamycin in prevention of chronic renal allograft rejection in the rat. Transplantation 2003;75(1):54–9. 49. Shihab FS, Bennett WM, Yi H, et al. Combination therapy with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil: effects on the kidney and on transforming growth factor-beta1. Transplantation 2004;77(5):683–6. 50. Dell’Oglio MP, Zaza G, Rossini M, et  al. The anti-fibrotic effect of mycophenolic acid-induced neutral endopeptidase. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;21(12):2157–68.

227

51. Opelz G, Döhler B. Critical threshold of azathioprine dosage for maintenance immunosuppression in kidney graft recipients. Collaborative Transplant Study. Transplantation 2000;69(5):818–21. 52. Bach JF, Dardenne M. The metabolism of azathioprine in renal failure. Transplantation 1971;12(4):253–9. 53. Schütz E, Gummert J, Mohr FW, et al. Should 6-thioguanine nucleotides be monitored in heart transplant recipients given azathioprine? Ther Drug Monit 1996;18(3):228–33. 54. Fabre MA, Jones DC, Bunce M, et  al. The impact of thiopurine S-methyltransferase polymorphisms on azathioprine dose 1 year after renal transplantation. Transpl Int 2004;17(9):531–9. 55. Kurzawski M, Dziewanowski K, Gawrońska-Szklarz B, et  al. The impact of thiopurine s-methyltransferase polymorphism on azathioprine-induced myelotoxicity in renal transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2005;27(4):435–41. 56. Sanderson J, Ansari A, Marinaki T, et  al. Thiopurine methyltransferase: should it be measured before commencing thiopurine drug therapy? Ann Clin Biochem 2004;41(Pt 4):294–302. 57. Thompson AJ, Newman WG, Elliott RA, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a pharmacogenetic test: a trial-based evaluation of TPMT genotyping for azathioprine. Value Health 2014;17(1):22–33. 58. Lennard L, Murphy MF, Maddocks JL. Severe megaloblastic anaemia associated with abnormal azathioprine metabolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1984;17(2):171–2. 59. Coghill AE, Johnson LG, Berg D, et al. Immunosuppressive medications and squamous cell skin carcinoma: nested case-control study within the skin cancer after organ transplant (SCOT) cohort. Am J Transplant 2016;16(2):565–73. 60. Ducroux E, Martin C, Bouwes Bavinck JN, et  al. Risk of aggressive skin cancers after kidney retransplantation in patients with previous posttransplant cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas: a retrospective study of 53 cases. Transplantation 2017;101(4):e133–41. 61. Jiyad Z, Olsen CM, Burke MT, et  al. Azathioprine and risk of skin cancer in organ transplant recipients: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Transplant 2016;16(12):3490–503. 62. Safaeian M, Robbins HA, Berndt SI, et al. Risk of colorectal cancer after solid organ transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2016;16(3):960–7. 63. Hofbauer GF, Attard NR, Harwood CA, et al. Reversal of UVA skin photosensitivity and DNA damage in kidney transplant recipients by replacing azathioprine. Am J Transplant 2012;12(1):218–25. 64. Bullingham R, Monroe S, Nicholls A, et  al. Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of mycophenolate mofetil in healthy subjects after single-dose oral and intravenous administration. J Clin Pharmacol 1996;36(4):315–24. 65. de Winter BC, Mathot RA, Sombogaard F, et al. Nonlinear relationship between mycophenolate mofetil dose and mycophenolic acid exposure: implications for therapeutic drug monitoring. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;6(3):656–63. 66. Sunder-Plassmann G, Reinke P, Rath T, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetic study of two mycophenolate mofetil formulations in stable kidney transplant recipients. Transpl Int 2012;25(6):680–6. 67. Arns W, Breuer S, Choudhury S, et al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium delivers bioequivalent MPA exposure compared with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Transplant 2005;19(2):199–206. 68. Shaw LM, Korecka M, Venkataramanan R, et al. Mycophenolic acid pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics provide a basis for rational monitoring strategies. Am J Transplant 2003;3(5):534–42. 69. Atcheson BA, Taylor PJ, Mudge DW, et al. Mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics and related outcomes early after renal transplant. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005;59(3):271–80. 70. Bullingham RE, Nicholls AJ, Kamm BR. Clinical pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998;34(6):429–55. 71. Nowak I, Shaw LM. Mycophenolic acid binding to human serum albumin: characterization and relation to pharmacodynamics. Clin Chem 1995;41(7):1011–7. 72. Lamba M, Tafti B, Melcher M, et  al. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of mycophenolic acid coadministered with either tasocitinib (CP-690,550) or tacrolimus in adult renal allograft recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2010;32(6):778–81. 73. Holt DW. Monitoring mycophenolic acid. Ann Clin Biochem 2002;39(Pt 3):173–83. 74. Morris RG. Immunosuppressant drug monitoring: is the laboratory meeting clinical expectations? Ann Pharmacother 2005;39(1): 119–27.

228

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

75. Le Meur Y, Büchler M, Thierry A, et al. Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2007;7(11):2496–503. 76. Kiberd BA, Lawen J, Fraser AD, et al. Early adequate mycophenolic acid exposure is associated with less rejection in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2004;4(7):1079–83. 77. van Hest RM, Mathot RA, Vulto AG, et al. Within-patient variability of mycophenolic acid exposure: therapeutic drug monitoring from a clinical point of view. Ther Drug Monit 2006;28(1):31–4. 78. Borrows R, Chusney G, Loucaidou M, et al. Mycophenolic acid 12-h trough level monitoring in renal transplantation: association with acute rejection and toxicity. Am J Transplant 2006;6(1):121–8. 79. Gaston RS, Kaplan B, Shah T, et al. Fixed- or controlled-dose mycophenolate mofetil with standard- or reduced-dose calcineurin inhibitors: the Opticept trial. Am J Transplant 2009;9(7):1607–19. 80. de Winter BC, van Gelder T, Glander P, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid: a comparison between enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2008;47(12):827–38. 81. Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Bullingham RE, et al. The pharmacokineticpharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998;64(6):672–83. 82. van Gelder T, Hilbrands LB, Vanrenterghem Y, et al. A randomized double-blind, multicenter plasma concentration controlled study of the safety and efficacy of oral mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999;68(2):261–6. 83. Jacobson P, Huang J, Rydholm N, et al. Higher mycophenolate dose requirements in children undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). J Clin Pharmacol 2008;48(4):485–94. 84. Jain A, Venkataramanan R, Kwong T, et  al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in liver transplant patients after intravenous and oral administration of mycophenolate mofetil. Liver Transpl 2007;13(6):791–6. 85. Weber LT, Hoecker B, Armstrong VW, et al. Long-term pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in pediatric renal transplant recipients over 3 years posttransplant. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30(5):570–5. 86. Hwang S, Song GW, Jung DH, et  al. Intra-individual variability of mycophenolic acid concentration according to renal function in liver transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate monotherapy. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2017;21(1):11–6. 87. Pescovitz MD, Guasch A, Gaston R, et al. Equivalent pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in African-American and Caucasian male and female stable renal allograft recipients. Am J Transplant 2003;3(12):1581–6. 88. Shaw LM, Korecka M, Aradhye S, et al. Mycophenolic acid area under the curve values in African American and Caucasian renal transplant patients are comparable. J Clin Pharmacol 2000;40(6):624–33. 89. Ogawa N, Nagashima N, Nakamura M, et al. Measurement of mycophenolate mofetil effect in transplant recipients. Transplantation 2001;72(3):422–7. 90. Budde K, Braun KP, Glander P, et al. Pharmacodynamic monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in stable renal allograft recipients. Transplant Proc 2002;34(5):1748–50. 91. Fukuda T, Goebel J, Thøgersen H, et  al. Inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) activity as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of mycophenolic acid effects in pediatric kidney transplant recipients. J Clin Pharmacol 2011;51(3):309–20. 92. Quéméneur L, Flacher M, Gerland LM, et  al. Mycophenolic acid inhibits IL-2-dependent T cell proliferation, but not IL2-dependent survival and sensitization to apoptosis. J Immunol 2002;169(5):2747–55. 93. Gregoor PJ, de Sévaux RG, Hené RJ, et al. Effect of cyclosporine on mycophenolic acid trough levels in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999;68(10):1603–6. 94. Grinyó JM, Ekberg H, Mamelok RD, et al. The pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients receiving standard-dose or low-dose cyclosporine, low-dose tacrolimus or low-dose sirolimus: the Symphony pharmacokinetic substudy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24(7):2269–76. 95. Kobayashi M, Saitoh H, Tadano K, et  al. Cyclosporin A, but not tacrolimus, inhibits the biliary excretion of mycophenolic acid glucuronide possibly mediated by multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2004;309(3):1029–35.

96. Flechner SM, Goldfarb D, Modlin C, et al. Kidney transplantation without calcineurin inhibitor drugs: a prospective, randomized trial of sirolimus versus cyclosporine. Transplantation 2002;74(8):1070–6. 97. van Gelder T, Klupp J, Barten MJ, et al. Comparison of the effects of tacrolimus and cyclosporine on the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid. Ther Drug Monit 2001;23(2):119–28. 98. Vincenti F, Tedesco Silva H, Busque S, et  al. Randomized phase 2b trial of tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in de novo kidney transplant patients: efficacy, renal function and safety at 1 year. Am J Transplant 2012;12(9):2446–56. 99. Cattaneo D, Perico N, Gaspari F, et al. Glucocorticoids interfere with mycophenolate mofetil bioavailability in kidney transplantation. Kidney Int 2002;62(3):1060–7. 100. 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(1):39–47. 101. Kuypers DR, de Jonge H, Naesens M, et  al. Current target ranges of mycophenolic acid exposure and drug-related adverse events: a 5-year, open-label, prospective, clinical follow-up study in renal allograft recipients. Clin Ther 2008;30(4):673–83. 102. Bunnapradist S, Lentine KL, Burroughs TE, et  al. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reductions and discontinuations after gastrointestinal complications are associated with renal transplant graft failure. Transplantation 2006;82(1):102–7. 103. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation: 3-year results from the placebo-controlled trial. Transplantation 1999;68(3):391–6. 104. Silva HT, Yang HC, Abouljoud M, et  al. One-year results with extended-release tacrolimus/MMF, tacrolimus/MMF and cyclosporine/MMF in de novo kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2007;7(3):595–608. 105. Maes BD, Lemahieu W, Kuypers D, et al. Differential effect of diarrhea on FK506 versus cyclosporine A trough levels and resultant prevention of allograft rejection in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2002;2(10):989–92. 106. Bunnapradist S, Neri L, Wong W, et al. Incidence and risk factors for diarrhea following kidney transplantation and association with graft loss and mortality. Am J Kidney Dis 2008;51(3):478–86. 107. Maes BD, Dalle I, Geboes K, et al. Erosive enterocolitis in mycophenolate mofetil-treated renal-transplant recipients with persistent afebrile diarrhea. Transplantation 2003;75(5):665–72. 108. Guerard A, Rabodonirina M, Cotte L, et al. Intestinal microsporidiosis occurring in two renal transplant recipients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 1999;68(5):699–707. 109. Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VP, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of tacrolimus/prednisone versus tacrolimus/prednisone/ mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999;67(3):411–5. 110. Papadimitriou JC, Drachenberg CB, Beskow CO, et al. Graft-versus-host disease-like features in mycophenolate mofetil-related colitis. Transplant Proc 2001;33(3):2237–8. 111. Ducloux D, Ottignon Y, Semhoun-Ducloux S, et  al. Mycophenolate mofetil-induced villous atrophy. Transplantation 1998;66(8):1115–6. 112. Chan L, Mulgaonkar S, Walker R, et  al. Patient-reported gastrointestinal symptom burden and health-related quality of life following conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium. Transplantation 2006;81(9):1290–7. 113. Jacobson PA, Schladt D, Oetting WS, et al. Genetic determinants of mycophenolate-related anemia and leukopenia after transplantation. Transplantation 2011;91(3):309–16. 114. Bouamar R, Elens L, Shuker N, et  al. Mycophenolic acid-related anemia and leucopenia in renal transplant recipients are related to genetic polymorphisms in CYP2C8. Transplantation 2012;93(10):e39–40. 115. van Besouw NM, van der Mast BJ, Smak Gregoor PJ, et al. Effect of mycophenolate mofetil on erythropoiesis in stable renal transplant patients is correlated with mycophenolic acid trough levels. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999;14(11):2710–3. 116. Kuypers DR, Vanrenterghem Y, Squifflet JP, et  al. Twelve-month evaluation of the clinical pharmacokinetics of total and free mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolites in renal allograft recipients on low dose tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil. Ther Drug Monit 2003;25(5):609–22.

15 • Azathioprine and Mycophenolates 117. van Gelder T, Silva HT, de Fijter JW, et al. Comparing mycophenolate mofetil regimens for de novo renal transplant recipients: the fixeddose concentration-controlled trial. Transplantation 2008;86(8): 1043–51. 118. Hurst FP, Altieri M, Nee R, et  al. Poor outcomes in elderly kidney transplant recipients receiving alemtuzumab induction. Am J Nephrol 2011;34(6):534–41. 119. Banerjee R, Halil O, Bain BJ, et  al. Neutrophil dysplasia caused by mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 2000;70(11):1608–10. 120. Hubner GI, Eismann R, Sziegoleit W. Relationship between mycophenolate mofetil side effects and mycophenolic acid plasma trough levels in renal transplant patients. Arzneimittelforschung 2000;50(10):936–40. 121. Weber LT, Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, et al. The pharmacokineticpharmacodynamic relationship for total and free mycophenolic Acid in pediatric renal transplant recipients: a report of the german study group on mycophenolate mofetil therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(3):759–68. 122. van Gelder T, ter Meulen CG, Hené R, et  al. Oral ulcers in kidney transplant recipients treated with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 2003;75(6):788–91. 123. Nashan B, Gaston R, Emery V, et al. Review of cytomegalovirus infection findings with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-based immunosuppressive therapy in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2012;93(11):1075–85. 124. Kotton CN, Kumar D, Caliendo AM, et  al. International consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation. Transplantation 2010;89(7):779–95. 125. Hirsch HH, Brennan DC, Drachenberg CB, et  al. Polyomavirusassociated nephropathy in renal transplantation: interdisciplinary analyses and recommendations. Transplantation 2005;79(10):1277–86. 126. Hardinger KL, Koch MJ, Bohl DJ, et al. BK-virus and the impact of pre-emptive immunosuppression reduction: 5-year results. Am J Transplant 2010;10(2):407–15. 127. Neff RT, Hurst FP, Falta EM, et  al. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and use of mycophenolate mofetil after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2008;86(10):1474–8. 128. Schmedt N, Andersohn F, Garbe E. Signals of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy for immunosuppressants: a disproportionality analysis of spontaneous reports within the US Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21(11):1216–20. 129. Rostaing L, Izopet J, Sandres K, et  al. Changes in hepatitis C virus RNA viremia concentrations in long-term renal transplant patients after introduction of mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 2000;69(5):991–4. 130. Maes BD, van Pelt JF, Peeters JC, et al. The effect of mycophenolate mofetil on hepatitis B viral load in stable renal transplant recipients with chronic hepatitis B. Transplantation 2001;72(6):1165–6. 131. Luan FL, Schaubel DE, Zhang H, et al. Impact of immunosuppressive regimen on survival of kidney transplant recipients with hepatitis C. Transplantation 2008;85(11):1601–6. 132. Funch DP, Ko HH, Travasso J, et  al. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder among renal transplant patients in relation to the use of mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 2005;80(9): 1174–80. 133. Robson R, Cecka JM, Opelz G, et al. Prospective registry-based observational cohort study of the long-term risk of malignancies in renal transplant patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Am J Transplant 2005;5(12):2954–60. 134. Kasiske BL, Snyder JJ, Gilbertson DT, et al. Cancer after kidney transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2004;4(6):905–13. 135. Kauffman HM, Cherikh WS, Cheng Y, et  al. Maintenance immunosuppression with target-of-rapamycin inhibitors is associated with a reduced incidence of de novo malignancies. Transplantation 2005;80(7):883–9. 136. Stallone G, Schena A, Infante B, et  al. Sirolimus for Kaposi’s sarcoma in renal-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 2005;352(13): 1317–23. 137. Downs SM. Induction of meiotic maturation in vivo in the mouse by IMP dehydrogenase inhibitors: effects on the developmental capacity of ova. Mol Reprod Dev 1994;38(3):293–302. 138. Sifontis NM, Coscia LA, Constantinescu S, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients with exposure to mycophenolate mofetil or sirolimus. Transplantation 2006;82(12):1698–702.

229

139. McKay DB, Josephson MA. Pregnancy after kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3(Suppl. 2):S117–25. 140. Deierhoi MH, Kauffman RS, Hudson SL, et al. Experience with mycophenolate mofetil (RS61443) in renal transplantation at a single center. Ann Surg 1993;217(5):476–82; discussion 482–474. 141. Sollinger HW, Belzer FO, Deierhoi MH, et al. RS-61443 (mycophenolate mofetil). A multicenter study for refractory kidney transplant rejection. Ann Surg 1992;216(4):513–8; discussion 518–9. 142. Vincenti F, Monaco A, Grinyo J, et al. Multicenter randomized prospective trial of steroid withdrawal in renal transplant recipients receiving basiliximab, cyclosporine microemulsion and mycophenolate mofetil. Am J Transplant 2003;3(3):306–11. 143. Young M, Plosker GL. Mycophenolate mofetil: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in solid organ transplantation. Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20(10):675–713. 144. 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(8):1341–6. 145. Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 2000;69(11):2405–9. 146. Wagner M, Earley AK, Webster AC, et al. Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(12):CD007746. 147. Eckhoff DE, Young CJ, Gaston RS, et  al. Racial disparities in renal allograft survival: a public health issue? J Am Coll Surg 2007;204(5):894–902. discussion 902-3. 148. Irish W, Sherrill B, Brennan DC, et  al. Three-year posttransplant graft survival in renal-transplant patients with graft function at 6 months receiving tacrolimus or cyclosporine microemulsion within a triple-drug regimen. Transplantation 2003;76(12):1686–90. 149. Schweitzer EJ, Yoon S, Fink J, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces the risk of acute rejection less in African-American than in Caucasian kidney recipients. Transplantation 1998;65(2):242–8. 150. Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, et  al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007;357(25):2562–75. 151. 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(9433):503–12. 152. 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(6):1973–85. 153. Tedesco Silva H, Cibrik D, Johnston T, et al. Everolimus plus reducedexposure CsA versus mycophenolic acid plus standard-exposure CsA in renal-transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2010;10(6): 1401–13. 154. Sommerer C, Glander P, Arns W, et al. Safety and efficacy of intensified versus standard dosing regimens of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in de novo renal transplant patients. Transplantation 2011;91(7):779–85. 155. Neylan JF. Immunosuppressive therapy in high-risk transplant patients: dose-dependent efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in AfricanAmerican renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation 1997;64(9):1277–82. 156. Meier-Kriesche HU, Ojo AO, Leichtman AB, et al. Effect of mycophenolate mofetil on long-term outcomes in African American renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11(12):2366–70. 157. 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(5):875–80. 158. Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CL, et al. The natural history of chronic allograft nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2003;349(24):2326–33. 159. Nankivell BJ, Wavamunno MD, Borrows RJ, et  al. Mycophenolate mofetil is associated with altered expression of chronic renal transplant histology. Am J Transplant 2007;7(2):366–76. 160. 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(1):68–73. 161. Glicklich D, Gupta B, Schurter-Frey G, et al. Chronic renal allograft rejection: no response to mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 1998;66(3):398–9.

230

Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

162. Gonzalez Molina M, Seron D, Garcia del Moral R, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces deterioration of renal function in patients with chronic allograft nephropathy. a follow-up study by the Spanish Cooperative Study Group of Chronic Allograft Nephropathy. Transplantation 2004;77(2):215–20. 163. Gaston RS, Cecka JM, Kasiske BL, et al. Evidence for antibody-mediated injury as a major determinant of late kidney allograft failure. Transplantation 2010;90(1):68–74. 164. Sellarés J, de Freitas DG, Mengel M, et al. Understanding the causes of kidney transplant failure: the dominant role of antibody-mediated rejection and nonadherence. Am J Transplant 2012;12(2):388–99. 165. 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(5):834–41. 166. Bunnapradist S, Daswani A, Takemoto SK. Graft survival following living-donor renal transplantation: a comparison of tacrolimus and cyclosporine microemulsion with mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Transplantation 2003;76(1):10–5. 167. Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus and sirolimus versus tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (NEORAL) and sirolimus in renal transplantation: drug interactions and rejection at one year. Transplantation 2004;77(2):244–51. 168. Mendez R, Gonwa T, Yang HC, et  al. A prospective, randomized trial of tacrolimus in combination with sirolimus or mycophenolate mofetil in kidney transplantation: results at 1 year. Transplantation 2005;80(3):303–9. 169. Augustine JJ, Chang PC, Knauss TC, et al. Improved renal function after conversion from tacrolimus/sirolimus to tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2006;81(7):1004–9. 170. Kreis H, Cisterne JM, Land W, et al. Sirolimus in association with mycophenolate mofetil induction for the prevention of acute graft rejection in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 2000;69(7):1252–60. 171. Schena FP, Pascoe MD, Alberu J, et  al. Conversion from calcineurin inhibitors to sirolimus maintenance therapy in renal allograft recipients: 24-month efficacy and safety results from the CONVERT trial. Transplantation 2009;87(2):233–42. 172. Mjörnstedt L, Sørensen SS, von Zur Mühlen B, et al. Improved renal function after early conversion from a calcineurin inhibitor to everolimus: a randomized trial in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2012;12(10):2744–53. 173. Budde K, Lehner F, Sommerer C, et al. Conversion from cyclosporine to everolimus at 4.5 months posttransplant: 3-year results from the randomized ZEUS study. Am J Transplant 2012;12(6):1528–40. 174. Weir MR, Mulgaonkar S, Chan L, et  al. Mycophenolate mofetilbased immunosuppression with sirolimus in renal transplantation: a randomized, controlled Spare-the-Nephron trial. Kidney Int 2011;79(8):897–907. 175. Vincenti F, Larsen C, Durrbach A, et  al. Costimulation blockade with belatacept in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2005;353(8):770–81. 176. Larson TS, Dean PG, Stegall MD, et al. Complete avoidance of calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation: a randomized trial comparing sirolimus and tacrolimus. Am J Transplant 2006;6(3):514–22. 177. Vincenti F, Larsen CP, Alberu J, et al. Three-year outcomes from BENEFIT, a randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group study in adult kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2012;12(1):210–7. 178. Vincenti F. Belatacept and long-term outcomes in kidney transplantation. N Engl J Med 2016;374(26):2600–1. 179. Adams AB, Goldstein J, Garrett C, et  al. Belatacept combined with transient calcineurin inhibitor therapy prevents rejection and promotes improved long-term renal allograft function. Am J Transplant 2017;17(11):2922–36. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ ajt.14353. 180. Grinyó J, Charpentier B, Pestana JM, et al. An integrated safety profile analysis of belatacept in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2010;90(12):1521–7. 181. Pascual M, Curtis J, Delmonico FL, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of cyclosporine reduction in stable patients greater than 12 months after renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003;75(9):1501–5.

182. Ekberg H, Grinyó J, Nashan B, et al. Cyclosporine sparing with mycophenolate mofetil, daclizumab and corticosteroids in renal allograft recipients: the Caesar Study. Am J Transplant 2007;7(3):560–70. 183. Ekberg H, Bernasconi C, Tedesco-Silva H, et al. Calcineurin inhibitor minimization in the Symphony study: observational results 3 years after transplantation. Am J Transplant 2009;9(8):1876–85. 184. Suwelack B, Gerhardt U, Hohage H. Withdrawal of cyclosporine or tacrolimus after addition of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with chronic allograft nephropathy. Am J Transplant 2004;4(4):655– 62. 185. Schnuelle P, van der Heide JH, Tegzess A, et  al. Open randomized trial comparing early withdrawal of either cyclosporine or mycophenolate mofetil in stable renal transplant recipients initially treated with a triple drug regimen. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(2):536–43. 186. Hricik DE, Formica RN, Nickerson P, et  al. Adverse outcomes of tacrolimus withdrawal in immune-quiescent kidney transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;26(12):3114–22. 187. Tran HT, Acharya MK, McKay DB, et  al. Avoidance of cyclosporine in renal transplantation: effects of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11(10):1903–9. 188. Theodorakis J, Schneeberger H, Illner WD, et al. Nephrotoxicity-free, mycophenolate mofetil-based induction/maintenance immunosuppression in elderly recipients of renal allografts from elderly cadaveric donors. Transplant Proc 2000;32(Suppl. 1A):9S–11S. 189. Grinyó JM, Gil-Vernet S, Cruzado JM, et al. Calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression based on antithymocyte globulin and mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric kidney transplantation: results after 5 years. Transpl Int 2003;16(11):820–7. 190. Glotz D, Charpentier B, Abramovicz D, et al. Thymoglobulin induction and sirolimus versus tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. Transplantation 2010;89(12):1511–7. 191. Ahsan N, Hricik D, Matas A, et al. Prednisone withdrawal in kidney transplant recipients on cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil— a prospective randomized study. Steroid Withdrawal Study Group. Transplantation 1999;68(12):1865–74. 192. Vincenti F, Schena FP, Paraskevas S, et  al. A randomized, multicenter study of steroid avoidance, early steroid withdrawal or standard steroid therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2008;8(2):307–16. 193. Squifflet JP, Vanrenterghem Y, van Hooff JP, et  al. Safe withdrawal of corticosteroids or mycophenolate mofetil: results of a large, prospective, multicenter, randomized study. Transplant Proc 2002;34(5):1584–6. 194. Vanrenterghem Y, Lebranchu Y, Hené R, et  al. Double-blind comparison of two corticosteroid regimens plus mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 2000;70(9):1352–9. 195. Rostaing L, Cantarovich D, Mourad G, et  al. Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and daclizumab induction in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2005;79(7):807–14. 196. Woodle ES, First MR, Pirsch J, et  al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial comparing early (7 day) corticosteroid cessation versus long-term, low-dose corticosteroid therapy. Ann Surg 2008;248(4):564–77. 197. Hanaway MJ, Woodle ES, Mulgaonkar S, et  al. Alemtuzumab induction in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2011;364(20): 1909–19. 198. Bennett WM. Immunosuppression with mycophenolic acid: one size does not fit all. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003;14(9):2414–6. 199. Kuypers DR, Claes K, Evenepoel P, et al. Clinical efficacy and toxicity profile of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in relation to combined long-term pharmacokinetics in de novo renal allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004;75(5):434–47. 200. Le Meur Y, Borrows R, Pescovitz MD, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolates in kidney transplantation: report of The Transplantation Society consensus meeting. Transplant Rev 2011;25(2):58–64. 201. van Gelder T, Tedesco Silva H, de Fijter JW, et al. Renal transplant patients at high risk of acute rejection benefit from adequate exposure to mycophenolic acid. Transplantation 2010;89(5):595–9.