Mycophenolate mofetil and sirolimus combination in renal transplantation.

Servei de Nefrologia, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, University of Barcelona, Feixa Llarga s/n, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08907 Barcelona, Spain.
American Journal of Transplantation (Impact Factor: 6.19). 10/2006; 6(9):1991-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01398.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and sirolimus (SRL) are potent non-nephrotoxic xenobiotic immunosuppressants. Their complementary properties may provide the rationale for their combination in induction and maintenance regimens. MMF, a reversible inhibitor of inosin monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) acts as an antiproliferative drug; and SRL, an mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) inhibitor, inhibits cell proliferation driven by growth factors. Early experiences with the use of the SRL, MMF and steroid combination yielded insufficient prophylaxis of acute rejection. However, the introduction of induction therapy with mono- or polyclonal antilymphocyte antibodies to the SRL-MMF and steroid combination brings an efficient acute rejection prophylaxis, while improving renal function and/or reducing of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN). However, adverse events related to the use of this drug combination (mainly haematological and surgery-related) result in a high rate of discontinuations in some trials, which may hamper the potential benefits of this calcineurin-inhibitor (CNI)-free strategy. Also, currently under investigation is whether in long-term immunosuppression, in MMF-treated patients, CNIs can be replaced by SRL to avoid and/or halt progression of chronic nephropathy and to improve graft survival. However, some authors reported a high proportion of patients with oral ulcers and proteinuria after switching to SRL. In short, refining the use of MMF and SRL may provide a better risk/benefit ratio to pave the way towards non-nephrotoxic immunosuppression.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Kidney transplantation improves quality of life and reduces the risk of mortality. A majority of the success of kidney transplantation is attributable to the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), cyclosporine and tacrolimus, and their ability to reduce acute rejection rates. However, long-term graft survival rates have not improved over time, and although controversial, evidence does suggest a role of chronic CNI toxicity in this failure to improve outcomes. Consequently, there is interest in reducing or removing CNIs from immunosuppressive regimens in an attempt to improve outcomes. Several strategies exist to spare calcineurin inhibitors, including use of agents such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), mycophenolate sodium (MPS), sirolimus, everolimus or belatacept to facilitate late calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal, beyond 6 mo post-transplant; or using these agents to plan early withdrawal within 6 mo; or to avoid the CNIs all together using CNI-free regimens. Although numerous reviews have been written on this topic, practice varies significantly between centers. This review organizes the data based on patient characteristics (i.e., the baseline immunosuppressive regimen) as a means to aid the practicing clinician in caring for their patients, by matching up their situation with the relevant literature. The current review, the first in a series of two, examines the potential of immunosuppressive agents to facilitate late CNI withdrawal beyond 6 mo post-transplant, and has demonstrated that the strongest evidence resides with MMF/MPS. MMF or MPS can be successfully introduced/maintained to facilitate late CNI withdrawal and improve renal function in the setting of graft deterioration, albeit with an increased risk of acute rejection and infection. Additional benefits may include improved blood pressure, lipid profile and serum glucose. Sirolimus has less data directly comparing CNI withdrawal to an active CNI-containing regimen, but modest improvement in short-term renal function is possible, with an increased risk of proteinuria, especially in the setting of baseline renal dysfunction and/or proteinuria. Renal outcomes may be improved when sirolimus is used in combination with MMF. Although data with everolimus is less robust, results appear similar to those observed with sirolimus.
    World journal of transplantation. 06/2014; 4(2):57-80.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although current immunosuppression is highly effective in avoiding acute rejection, it is associated with nephrotoxicity, cardiovascular morbidity, infection, and cancer. Thus, new drugs dealing with new mechanisms, as well as minimizing comorbidities, are warranted in renal transplantation. Few novel drugs are currently under investigation in Phase I, II, or III clinical trials. Belatacept is a humanized antibody that inhibits T-cell co-stimulation and has shown encouraging results in Phase II and III trials. Moreover, two new small molecules are under clinical development: AEB071 or sotrastaurin (a protein kinase C inhibitor) and CP-690550 or tasocitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor). Refinement in selecting the best combinations for the new and current immunosuppressive agents is probably the main challenge for the next few years.
    Kidney International Supplements. 08/2011; 1(2):47-51.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and sirolimus (SRL) have been used for calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) minimization to reduce nephrotoxicity after liver transplantation. In this prospective, open-label, multicenter study, patients undergoing transplantation from July 2005 to June 2007 who were maintained on MMF/CNI were randomized 4 to 12 weeks after transplantation to receive MMF/SRL (n = 148) or continue MMF/CNI (n = 145). The primary efficacy endpoints were the mean percentage change in the calculated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and a composite of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death, and loss to follow-up 12 months after transplantation. Patients were followed for a median of 519 days after randomization. MMF/SRL was associated with a significantly greater renal function improvement from the baseline with a mean percentage change in GFR of 19.7 ± 40.6 (versus 1.2 ± 39.9 for MMF/CNI, P = 0.002). The composite endpoint demonstrated the noninferiority of MMF/SRL versus MMF/CNI (16.4% versus 15.4%, 90% confidence interval = -7.1% to 9.0%). The incidence of BPAR was significantly greater with MMF/SRL (12.2%) versus MMF/CNI (4.1%, P = 0.02). Graft loss (including death) occurred in 3.4% of the MMF/SRL-treated patients and in 8.3% of the MMF/CNI-treated patients (P = 0.04). Malignancy-related deaths were less frequent with MMF/SRL. Adverse events caused withdrawal for 34.2% of the MMF/SRL-treated patients and for 24.1% of the MMF/CNI-treated patients (P = 0.06). The use of MMF/SRL is an option for liver transplant recipients who can benefit from improved renal function but is associated with an increased risk of rejection (but not graft loss). Liver Transpl, 2013. © 2013 AASLD.
    Liver Transplantation 06/2013; 19(7). · 3.79 Impact Factor