Switching immunosuppression medications after renal transplantation--a common practice.

BACKGROUND: The rate of change to immunosuppression discharge regimens over time is unknown. We examined the frequency of changes to initial drug treatment regimens and factors associated with a drug change following renal transplantation. METHODS: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from adult recipients who underwent primary renal transplantation between January 1998 and December 2002 were analysed. The Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the frequency of regimen changes for the most common immunosuppression discharge regimens, type of change, and to examine switching between the calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus (Tacro) and ciclosporin United States Pharmacopera (USP) modified (CsA). Cox proportional hazard regression was used to examine recipient, donor and transplant characteristics associated with a drug change. RESULTS: The majority of patients experienced a change to their discharge regimen post-transplantation, and more changes were observed within higher-risk sub-groups of patients. Switching from CsA to Tacro was more common than Tacro to CsA. Significant factors associated with a drug change included those associated with graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Significant immunosuppression regimen changes occur during the first 4 years post-transplantation. It is possible that early graft survival benefits proven in prospective clinical trials may not translate into long-term success in clinical practice, possibly in part because efficacious regimens are not necessarily maintained long-term.

Mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy improves long-term outcomes after liver transplantation in patients with and without hepatitis C.

To evaluate the impact of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) on long-term outcomes of tacrolimus and corticosteroids, we analyzed data reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for 11,670 adult patients (3463 with hepatitis C [HCV]) who underwent primary, single-organ, liver transplantation between 1995 and 2001. Patients who were discharged from the hospital on tacrolimus-based immunosuppression with (n = 4466; n = 1323 HCV) or without MMF (n = 7204; n = 2140 HCV) were included in the analysis. Recipients treated at discharge with MMF, tacrolimus, and corticosteroids had significantly increased patient survival (81.0% vs. 77.0% at 4 years, P < 0.0001) and graft survival (76.4% vs. 72.9%, P < 0.0001), and lower rates of acute rejection (29.0% vs. 33.4%, P < 0.001) as compared to recipients treated at discharge with tacrolimus and corticosteroids alone. A trend toward lower rates of death from infection was observed (6.1% at 4 years for MMF vs. 7.1% at 4 years for tacrolimus and corticosteroids, P = 0.0508), but this result did not reach statistical significance. In multiple regression analyses, MMF triple therapy at discharge was associated with a reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, P < 0.001), graft loss (HR = 0.81, P < 0.001), acute rejection (HR = 0.89, P = 0.002), and death from infectious complications (HR = 0.80, P = 0.007). Outcomes were similar for the cohort with HCV.In conclusion, the addition of MMF at discharge to tacrolimus-based immunosuppression is associated with improved long-term outcomes after liver transplantation in patients with and without HCV.

Mycophenolate mofetil vs. azathioprine is associated with decreased acute rejection, late acute rejection, and risk for cardiovascular death in renal transplant recipients with pre-transplant diabetes.

Outcomes specifically in mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-treated diabetic renal transplant patients have not been previously reported. This study compared acute rejection (AR), late acute rejection (LAR), patient survival [and specifically death from cardiovascular (CV), infectious and malignant causes], incidence of post-transplant malignancies, and graft loss in MMF- or azathioprine (AZA)-treated renal transplant patients with pre-transplant diabetes. Outcomes were compared between MMF- (n = 14 144) and AZA- (n = 3001) treated diabetic patients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on all U.S. adult renal transplants performed between 1995 and 2002. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox multivariable regression and chi-square tests. MMF patients had less AR compared with AZA-treated patients (23.5% vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001) and less risk for LAR over 4 yr [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% CI 0.44, 0.92; p = 0.02]. While time to any-cause death did not differ between the groups, MMF treatment was associated with a 20% decreased risk of CV death (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.67, 0.97; p = 0.020) compared with AZA treatment. MMF patients also had a lower incidence of malignancies than AZA patients (2.2% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). These results suggest treatment with MMF compared with treatment with AZA in diabetic transplant patients is associated with less AR, less risk of LAR, a decreased risk of CV death, and a lower incidence of malignancies.

Differential effects of donor age in liver transplant recipients infected with hepatitis B, hepatitis C and without viral hepatitis.

The variable impact of specific risk factors on survival outcomes based on pre-transplantation diagnosis was analyzed in adult liver transplant recipients reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: 778 with hepatitis B (HBV), 3463 with hepatitis C (HCV) and 7429 without viral hepatitis. Graft and patient survival for the HBV and no viral hepatitis groups did not differ significantly. The HCV group had significantly lower graft (p = 0.0019) and patient survival (p < 0.0001) than the no viral hepatitis group. Patient survival was significantly lower (p = 0.0011) for HCV compared to HBV patients; differences in graft survival approached significance (p = 0.0561). Donor age, which was not a risk factor in patients with HBV, was the strongest predictor of graft loss and death in patients with HCV, starting with donors >40 years. Donor age >60 years was the strongest predictor of graft loss and death in patients without viral hepatitis. The risks of graft loss and death were reduced for patients on tacrolimus-based immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil, regardless of disease etiology. There are clear differences in risk factors for poor outcomes based on underlying liver disease, particularly with regard to the impact of donor age.

Sirolimus with neoral versus mycophenolate mofetil with neoral is associated with decreased renal allograft survival.

To evaluate the association between a regimen of cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA) + sirolimus (Rapa) treatment versus CsA and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and renal allograft survival, we analyzed 23 016 primary recipients reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between January 1, 1998 and July 26, 2003. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models correcting for demographic and clinical covariates were used to estimate the relative risks for CsA+Rapa versus CsA+MMF-treated patients reaching study endpoints. Subgroup analyses were conducted for recipient ethnicity and donor type. CsA+Rapa was associated with significantly lower graft survival (74.6% vs. 79.3% at 4 years, p = 0.002) and death-censored graft survival (83.7% vs. 87.2%, p = 0.003) compared to CsA+MMF. In multivariate analyses, CsA+Rapa was associated with a significantly increased risk for graft loss, death-censored graft loss and decline in renal function (HR = 1.22, p = 0.002; HR = 1.22, p = 0.018 and HR = 1.25, p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were obtained in recipient ethnicity and donor type subgroups. In summary, CsA+Rapa was associated with significantly worse graft survival and death-censored graft survival compared to CsA+MMF, and likely reflects full-dose CsA +Rapa. Outcomes regarding alternative strategies of Rapa utilization with reduced CsA, with alternative agents or with no calcineurin inhibitor cannot be extrapolated from these data.

Mycophenolate mofetil vs azathioprine in a large population of elderly renal transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been shown to decrease acute rejection episodes after kidney transplantation, and has been associated with better graft and patient survival vs azathioprine (AZA). Previous studies reported a higher risk of death due to infection in elderly recipients treated with MMF-based immunosuppression. METHODS: We analysed 5069 elderly ( > 65 years of age) primary renal allograft recipients treated with either MMF or AZA reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 1988 and 2000, and compared rates of acute rejection, late acute rejection, graft survival, death-censored graft survival, patient survival and death with a functioning graft. RESULTS: In Cox proportional hazard models, MMF was associated with lower rates of late acute rejection with 12 (RR = 0.72, P = 0.11) and 24 months (RR = 0.50, P = 0.028) of continuous therapy. In univariate analysis (Kaplan-Meier), MMF was associated with improved patient (P = 0.0003) and graft (P<0.0001) survival vs AZA, and trends toward improved patient and graft survival in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the efficacy of MMF-based immunosuppression in elderly transplant recipients and do not suggest an increased risk of death compared to treatment with AZA.

Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine therapy is associated with a significant protection against long-term renal allograft function deterioration.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the association of long-term continuous mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus azathioprine (AZA) therapy and renal allograft function, as measured by the slope of reciprocal creatinine, we analyzed 49,666 primary renal allograft recipients reported to the United States Renal Data System between October 31, 1988 and June 30, 1998. METHODS: The primary study endpoint was defined as a greater than 20% decrease below a 6-month baseline of 1/serum creatinine (SCr) (slope of reciprocal creatinine) at or beyond 1 year after transplantation. A secondary endpoint was defined as reaching an SCr value greater than 1.6 mg/dL. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the risk of reaching the study endpoints. Multivariate analyses were corrected for potential confounding covariates. RESULTS: According to the Cox proportional hazard model, 12-month continued therapy of MMF versus AZA was associated with a protective effect against declining renal function, as measured by the slope of reciprocal creatinine (relative risk [RR]=0.84, confidence interval 0.78-0.91, P<0.001). For 24-month continued therapy of MMF versus AZA, MMF was associated with a further decreased risk for a decline in renal function (RR=0.66, confidence interval=0.57-0.77, P<0.001). Furthermore, MMF was associated with a protective effect against reaching the SCr threshold of 1.6 mg/dL (RR=0.80, P<0.001) beyond 12 months posttransplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous use of MMF versus AZA was associated with a protective effect against declining renal function beyond 1 year after transplantation. Further study is needed to confirm that continued MMF therapy is protective against long-term deterioration in renal function.

Long-term use of mycophenolate mofetil is associated with a reduction in the incidence and risk of late rejection.

To evaluate the association of long-term continuous (minimum 1 year) mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) vs. azathioprine (AZA) therapy with the incidence of late acute rejection, we analyzed 47 693 primary renal allograft recipients reported to the United States Renal Data System between 1988 and 1998. The primary study endpoint was acute rejection beyond 1 year after transplantation. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the risk of reaching the study endpoints. All multivariate analyses were corrected for potential confounding covariates. Mycophenolate mofetil was associated with a 65% decreased risk of developing late acute rejection as compared to AZA (RR = 0.35, CI 0.27-0.45, p < 0.001). The incidence of acute rejection episodes at 2 and 3 years post-transplantation was significantly lower in the MMF group (0.9% at 2 years, 1.1% at 3 years) than the AZA group (6.1% at 2 years, 9.3% at 3 years). In the primary vs. repeat late rejection analysis, MMF patients exhibited a decreased late acute rejection risk of 72% (RR = 0.28, p < 0.001) and 60%, respectively (RR = 0.40, p < 0.001). In African Americans, the late acute rejection risk was 70% lower in MMF patients than AZA patients (RR = 0.30, p < 0.001). Further study is indicated to determine the optimal duration of MMF therapy after renal allograft transplantation.