Safe conversion of mycophenolate mofetil to azathioprine in kidney transplant recipients with sirolimus-based immunosuppression

Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Modern immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation usually use a combination of two or three agents of different classes to prevent rejection and maintain graft function. Most frequently, calcineurin-inhibitors (CNI) are combined with corticosteroids and a proliferation-inhibitor, either azathioprine (AZA) or mycophenolic acid (MPA). MPA has largely replaced AZA as a first line agent in primary immunosuppression, as MPA is believed to be of stronger immunosuppressive potency than AZA. However, treatment with MPA is more costly, which calls for a comprehensive assessment of the comparative effects of the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

This review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to look at the benefits and harms of MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation. Both agents were compared regarding their efficacy for maintaining graft and patient survival, prevention of acute rejection, maintaining graft function, and their safety, including infections, malignancies and other adverse events. Furthermore, we investigated potential effect modifiers, such as transplantation era and the concomitant immunosuppressive regimen in detail.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (to 21 September 2015) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs about MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppression after kidney transplantation were included, without restriction on language or publication type.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from each study. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and the results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies (94 reports) that involved 3301 participants. All studies tested mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an MPA, and 22 studies reported at least one outcome relevant for this review. Assessment of methodological quality indicated that important information on factors used to judge susceptibility for bias was infrequently and inconsistently reported.MMF treatment reduced the risk for graft loss including death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.0) and for death-censored graft loss (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99, P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference for MMF versus AZA treatment was found for all-cause mortality (16 studies, 2987 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29). The risk for any acute rejection (22 studies, 3301 participants: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73, P < 0.01), biopsy-proven acute rejection (12 studies, 2696 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.68) and antibody-treated acute rejection (15 studies, 2914 participants: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.65, P < 0.01) were reduced in MMF treated patients. Meta-regression analyses suggested that the magnitude of risk reduction of acute rejection may be dependent on the control rate (relative risk reduction (RRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.09, P = 0.08), AZA dose (RRR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01, P = 0.10) and the use of cyclosporin A micro-emulsion (RRR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65, P = 0.07). Pooled analyses failed to show a significant and meaningful difference between MMF and AZA in kidney function measures.Data on malignancies and infections were sparse, except for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections. The risk for CMV viraemia/syndrome (13 studies, 2880 participants: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) was not statistically significantly different between MMF and AZA treated patients, whereas the likelihood of tissue-invasive CMV disease was greater with MMF therapy (7 studies, 1510 participants: RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.61). Adverse event profiles varied: gastrointestinal symptoms were more likely in MMF treated patients and thrombocytopenia and elevated liver enzymes were more common in AZA treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MMF was superior to AZA for improvement of graft survival and prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. These benefits must be weighed against potential harms such as tissue-invasive CMV disease. However, assessment of the evidence on safety outcomes was limited due to rare events in the observation periods of the studies (e.g. malignancies) and inconsistent reporting and definitions (e.g. infections, adverse events). Thus, balancing benefits and harms of the two drugs remains a major task of the transplant physician to decide which agent the individual patient should be started on.

[Current indications of azathioprine in nephrology]

Azathioprine is an immunosuppressive agent belonging to the antimetabolite family whose action blocks purine synthesis. It inhibits lymphocyte proliferation. In recent years, several trials have clarified the role of this compound used for three main indications: lupus glomerulonephritis, necrotizing vasculitis associated with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies and renal involvement, and kidney transplantation. This review of the literature details practical conditions for the use of azathioprine in these three situations.

Cost-effective immunosuppressive options for solid organ transplantation: a guide to lower cost for the renal transplant recipient in the USA

Of the numerous risks associated with immunotherapy for the prevention of rejection, cost is perhaps the most universal. In the USA and some other countries, the costs of immunosuppression make transplantation unavailable for some medically viable transplant candidates, and for others who receive a transplant, the long-term costs are economically crippling. Minimization and tapering of immunosuppression, use of generics, manipulation of metabolism, infection surveillance instead of prophylaxis, and advantageous routes of administration are some strategies that can be employed to reduce immunotherapy expense. Using these strategies, we describe an immunosuppression regimen for kidney transplantation that might be only a third of the cost of current 'standard' regimens in the USA. Such a regimen might allow some patients who might not otherwise qualify economically to safely receive a kidney transplant. The purpose of creating an alternative, lower-cost immunotherapy regimen is to give patients a choice. Responsible stewardship of scarce donor organs is the primary, and clearly appropriate, limiting factor.