The use of mycophenolate mofetil in transplant recipients.

With the development of new immunosuppressive agents, the focus of anti-rejection therapy has shifted from prevention of acute allograft rejection to an emphasis on sufficient immunosuppression with minimal toxicity. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is a recently developed immunosuppressive drug, which acts to inhibit T and B cell proliferation by blocking the production of guanosine nucleotides required for DNA synthesis. It also prevents the glycosylation of adhesion molecules that are involved in attachment of lymphocytes to endothelium and potentially in leukocyte infiltration of an allograft during an immune response. High-quality randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that MMF, when used with cyclosporine (CsA) and steroids, reduces the frequency and severity of acute rejection episodes in kidney and heart transplants, improves patient and graft survival in heart allograft recipients and increases renal allograft survival at 3 years. It has also been effective in reversing acute and resistant rejection episodes in heart, kidney and liver recipients. The ability of MMF to facilitate sparing of other immunosuppressive agents, particularly in CsA-related nephrotoxicity, is also promising. By permitting reduction in CsA doses, MMF may stabilize or improve renal graft function in patients with CsA-related nephrotoxicity or chronic allograft nephropathy. Early results of phase I and II trials evaluating MMF therapy in liver and combined pancreas/kidney transplant recipients are encouraging. The main adverse effects associated with oral or intravenous MMF are gastrointestinal and hematologic in nature. Although the direct costs of using MMF vs. azathioprine (AZA) are higher, the decreased incidence and treatment of acute rejection in patients treated with MMF supports its use as a cost-effective option during the first year following transplantation.Thus, MMF has become an important therapeutic tool in the transplant clinician's armamentarium. Ongoing issues to be resolved in clinical trials include the role of MMF in the absence of other potent agents, e.g., as monotherapy or with a steroid but without calcineurin inhibitor; whether MMF will have an impact on chronic allograft dysfunction; and the cost-effectiveness of treatment following the first year of transplantation.

Evaluation of a diagnostic protocol using screening diagnostic peritoneal lavage with selective use of abdominal computed tomography in blunt abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: The optimal method of evaluating blunt abdominal trauma remains controversial. A combination of a sensitive screening test, diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), and a specific test, abdominal computed tomography (CT), may be a safe, efficient approach to adult blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: A prospective cohort study compared a protocol using screening DPL followed by selective use of abdominal CT (DPL/abdominal CT) and the use of abdominal CT alone in the evaluation of hemodynamically stable, adult blunt trauma patients. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven adult blunt trauma patients were initially evaluated by DPL (n = 71) or abdominal CT (n = 96). Emergency department evaluation required less time in the DPL/abdominal CT group than in the abdominal CT alone group (41 minutes vs. 2.5 hours; p < 0.001). There were no missed injuries in the DPL/abdominal CT group versus seven missed injuries in the abdominal CT group (p = 0.02). There were no nontherapeutic celiotomies in either study group. CONCLUSION: Screening DPL, followed by abdominal CT if positive, is a safe, efficient method of evaluating adult blunt abdominal trauma that reduces the time required to evaluate the abdomen, does not result in increased nontherapeutic celiotomies, results in fewer missed injuries, and reduces the overall use of abdominal CT.