Azathioprine in liver transplantation: a reevaluation of its use and a comparison with mycophenolate mofetil.

The Royal Free Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre and University Department of Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
American Journal of Transplantation (Impact Factor: 6.19). 07/2009; 9(8):1725-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02705.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) combined with steroids with or without azathioprine (AZA), have been a standard immunosuppression regimen after liver transplantation (LT). Since 2000 many centers have substituted AZA by mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). However, in LT the superiority of MMF over AZA is not clearly demonstrated. Therefore, we questioned the benefit of MMF versus AZA in LT with regard to rejection, renal dysfunction and hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and survival. Using a literature search, relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies were identified: two RCTs compared MMF to AZA only for acute rejection. Treated rejection was less with MMF in only one RCT (38.5% vs. 47.7%; p = 0.025), with no difference in patient and graft survival. No RCTs compared MMF and AZA in patients with CNI-related chronic renal dysfunction. Among two studies evaluating MMF, with substitution of AZA, one was stopped due to severe rejection. Recurrent HCV was less severe in 5/9 studies with AZA compared with 2/17 using MMF, six of which documented worse recurrence. Published data in LT show little, if any, clinical benefit of MMF versus AZA. RCTs should reevaluate AZA in LT. Evaluation of HCV replication and recurrence will be particularly important as AZA may have advantages over MMF.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unfortunately, abundant examples could be given of pitfalls in the current drug development paradigm-including in the design, conduct and evaluation of phase III clinical trials. This article discusses issues of particular relevance to clinical trials in nephrology, including the inappropriate use of placebo, publication of reports that emphasize potential treatment benefits over adverse reactions, the sometimes dubious impartiality of independent guidelines, and inadequate recruitment of elderly patients. This Perspectives article aims to highlight and summarize the flaws in the current drug development process, while suggesting a way forward that equally satisfies the requirements of academia, patients and the pharmaceutical industry. We suggest improvements to the drug development process and related legislation that intend to balance public needs with commercial aims and ensure effective drug evaluation by regulatory authorities.
    Nature Reviews Nephrology 08/2014; · 8.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the effects of different immunosuppressive regimens and avoidance on fibrosis progression in hepatitis C virus (HCV) liver transplant (LT) recipients.
    World journal of gastroenterology : WJG. 09/2014; 20(34):12217-25.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis represents the leading cause of liver transplantation in developed, Western and Eastern countries. Unfortunately, liver transplantation does not cure recipient HCV infection: reinfection universally occurs and disease progression is faster after liver transplant. In this review we focus on what happens throughout the peri-transplant phase and in the first 6-12 mo after transplantation: during this crucial period a completely new balance between HCV, liver graft, the recipient's immune response and anti-rejection therapy is achieved that will deeply affect subsequent outcomes. Nearly all patients show an early graft reinfection, with HCV viremia reaching and exceeding pre-transplant levels; in this setting, histological assessment is essential to differentiate recurrent hepatitis C from acute or chronic rejection; however, differentiating the two patterns remains difficult. The host immune response (mainly cellular mediated) appears to be crucial both in the control of HCV infection and in the genesis of rejection, and it is also strongly influenced by immunosuppressive treatment. At present no clear immunosuppressive strategy could be strongly recommended in HCV-positive recipients to prevent HCV recurrence, even immunotherapy appears to be ineffective. Nonetheless it seems reasonable that episodes of rejection and over-immunosuppression are more likely to enhance the risk of HCV recurrence through immunological mechanisms. Both complete prevention of rejection and optimization of immunosuppression should represent the main goals towards reducing the rate of graft HCV reinfection. In conclusion, post-transplant HCV recurrence remains an unresolved, thorny problem because many factors remain obscure and need to be better determined.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 08/2014; 20(32):11095-11115. · 2.43 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014