Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2000 Jul 15;70(1):105-11.

Randomized, prospective trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection after simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation

Affiliations
  • PMID: 10919583
Clinical Trial

Randomized, prospective trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection after simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation

R M Merion et al. Transplantation. .

Abstract

Background: In simultaneous kidney-pancreas (SPK) transplantation, manifestations of renal allograft rejection typically become evident before those of pancreatic rejection. This study compared mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in prevention of renal rejection after primary SPK transplantation.

Methods: In an open-label, randomized, multicenter study, patients received MMF 1.5 g twice daily (n=74) or AZA 1-3 mg/kg daily (n=76) for 1 year after transplantation. The incidence of rejection was assessed at 6 months. Adverse events were tracked through 1 year. Survival data are reported through 2 years.

Results: At 6 months, efficacy results for MMF vs. AZA patients, respectively, were the following: rejection (27% vs. 39%); rejection or death (34% vs. 42%); rejection, graft loss, death, or premature withdrawal (i.e., treatment failure; 41% vs. 55%). Six-month efficacy trends favored MMF, and time to rejection or treatment failure was significantly longer when compared with AZA (P=0.049). One-year efficacy results for MMF vs. AZA patients, respectively, were the following: treatment of renal rejection (35% vs. 47%); renal allograft loss or death (9% vs. 12%); pancreas allograft loss or death (15% vs. 14%). Five MMF patients (7%) and four (5%) in the AZA group died. More MMF than AZA patients developed opportunistic infections (54% vs. 38%), but the pathogens did not differ.

Conclusions: Trends for most efficacy parameters favored MMF over AZA, and time to renal allograft rejection or treatment failure was statistically significantly longer for MMF. The use of MMF in the treatment of SPK recipients is a useful advance.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources