, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 37–53 | Cite as

Mycophenolate Mofetil

Suggested Guidelines for Use in Kidney Transplantation
Therapy in Practice


Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressive drug designed to inhibit inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH). IMPDH is a key enzyme in the de novo purine synthesis of lymphocytes. It is crucially important for proliferative responses of human T and B lymphocytes. The inhibition of IMPDH thus leads to selective lymphocyte suppression. After successful use in various in vitro and animal models, MMF was brought to clinical trial in patients undergoing transplantation. The drug is rapidly and completely absorbed following oral administration. Pilot studies of administration with cyclosporin and corticosteroids suggested a significant reduction in the incidence of organ rejection at dosages of 1 to 3 g/day As a result of these studies, 3 pivotal randomised double-blind multicentre trials, involving nearly 1500 patients, were designed to investigate the effects of addition of MMF to different standard immunosuppressive protocols on the prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. After 6 months, the rates of biopsy-proven rejection were significantly reduced in patients receiving MMF. In combination with cyclosporin and corticosteroids, the adverse effect profile resembled that of azathioprine. Most adverse effects were associated with the gastrointestinal tract, the blood system and opportunistic infections. MMF offers improved immunosuppressive therapy following renal and probably other solid organ transplantation. MMF has been licensed since 1995 for the prevention of acute renal allograft rejection in most countries. It has been used in different combinations of immunosuppressive drugs and in various dosages and regimens.


Tacrolimus Acute Rejection Renal Transplant Recipient Chronic Rejection Delay Graft Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Koyama H, Cecka JM. Rejection episodes. Clin Transpl 1992; 391–404Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kliem V, Eberhard OK, Oldhafer K, et al. FK 506 in the treatment of steroid- and OKT3-resistant rejection in renal transplant recipients: reduced dosage and anti-infective prophylaxis. Transplant Proc 1996; 28 (6): 3166–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindholm A, Ohlman S, Albrechtsen D, et al. The impact of acute rejection episodes on long-term graft function and outcome in 1347 primary renal transplants treated by 3 cyclosporine regimens. Transplantation 1993; 56 (2): 307–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Almond PS, Matas A, Gillingham K, et al. Risk factors for chronic rejection in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1993; 55 (4): 752–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allison AC, Eugui EM. The design and development of an immunosuppressive drug, mycophenolate mofetil. SpringerSemin Immunopathol 1993; 14 (4): 353–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil. Kidney Int 1995 (Suppl. ); 52: S14–7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Platz KP, Sollinger HW, Hullet DA, et al. RS-61443 — a new, potent immunosuppressive agent. Transplantation 1991; 51 (1): 27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giblett ER, Ammann AJ, Wara DW, et al. Nucleoside-phosphorylase deficiency in a child with severely defective T-cell immunity and normal B-cell immunity. Lancet 1975; 1 (7914): 1010–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allison AC, Hovi T, Watts RWE, et al. Immunological observations on patients with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, and on the role of de novo purine synthesis in lymphocyte transformation. Lancet 1975; 2 (7946): 1179–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allison AC, Eugui EM. Preferential suppression of lymphocyte proliferation by mycophenolic acid and predicted long-term effects of mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Transplant Proc 1994; 26 (6): 3205–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kusumi T, Tsuda M, Katsunuma T, et al. Dual inhibitory effect of bredinin. Cell Biochem Funct 1988; 7 (3): 201–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Streeter DG, Witkowski JT, Khare GP, et al. Mechanism of action of l-β-D-ribofuranosyl-l,2,4-triazole-3-carboxamide (Virazole), a new broad-spectrum antiviral agent. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1973; 70 (4): 1174–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooney DA, Jayaram HN, Gebeyehu G, et al. The conversion of 2-β-D-ribofuranosylthiazole-4-carboxamide to an analogue of NAD with potent IMP dehydrogenase-inhibitory properties. Biochem Pharmacol 1982; 31 (11): 2133–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franklin TJ, Cook JM. The inhibition of nucleic acid synthesis by mycophenolic acid. Biochem J 1969; 113 (3): 515–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gosio B. Richerche batterilogiche e chimiche sulle alterazióni del mais. Riv Ig Sanita Pubblica Ann 1896; 7: 825–49Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Natsumeda Y, Carr SF. Human type I and II IMP dehydrogenase as drug targets. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993; 696: 88–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zimmermann AG, Gu JJ, Laliberte J, et al. Inosine-5′-monophosphate dehydrogenase: regulation of expression and role in cellular proliferation and T lymphocyte activation. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 1998; 61: 181–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sintchak MD, Nimmesgern E. The structure of inosine 5′-monophos-phate dehydrogenase and the design of novel inhibitors. Immunopharmacology 2000; 47 (2–3): 163–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SollingerHW, Beizer OF, Deierhoi MH, et al. RS-61443 (mycophenolate mofetil): a multicenter study for refractory kidney transplant rejection. Ann Surg 1992; 216 (4): 513–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schutz E, Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid: comparison of HPLC and immunoassays reveals new MPA metabolites. Transplant Proc 1998; 30 (4): 1185–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schutz E, Shipkova M, Armstong VW, et al. Identification of a pharmacologically active metabolite of mycophenolic acid in plasma of transplant recipients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Chem 1999; 45 (3): 419–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sollinger HW, Deierhoi MH, Belzer FO, et al. RS-61443 — a phase I clinical trial and pilot rescue study. Transplantation 1992; 53 (2): 428–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Investigational brochure: mycophenolate mofetil (RS-61443-000), 11th ed. Palo Alto: Syntex Research, July 1996Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zucker K, Rosen A, Tsaroucha A, et al. Unexpected augmentation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in combination therapy, and analogous in vitro findings. Transplant Immunol 1997; 5 (3): 255–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smak Gregoor PJH, van Gelder T, Hesse CJ, et al. Mycophenolic acid plasma concentrations in kidney allograft recipients treated with or without cyclosporin, a cross-sectional study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14 (3): 706–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zucker K, Tsaroucha A, Olson L, et al. Evidence that tacrolimus augments the bioavailability of mycophenolate mofetil through the inhibition of mycophenolic acid glucuronidation. Ther Drug Monit 1999; 21 (1): 35–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smak Gregoor PJH, DeSévaux RGL, Hené RJ, et al. Effect of cyclosporine on mycophenolic acid trough levels in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999; 68 (10): 1603–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaplan B, Meier-Kriesche HU, Friedman G, et al. The effect of renal insufficiency on mycophenolic acid protein binding. J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 39 (7): 715–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cho S, Hodge E, Navarro M, and the International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil improves long-term graft survival following renal transplantation in patients experiencing delayed graft function. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 (1–2): 322–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bullingham RES, Nicholls A, Hale M. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil (RS61443): a short review. Transplant Proc 1996; 28 (2): 925–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet 1995; 345 (8961): 1321–5Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1996; 61 (7): 1029–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sollinger HW forthe US Renal TransplantMycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1995; 60 (3): 225–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Gelder T, Hilbrands LB, Vanrenterghem Y, et al. Arandomized double-blind, multicenter plasma concentration controlled study of the safety and efficacy of oral mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rej ection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68 (2): 261–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Bullingham RE, et al. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64 (6): 672–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Langman LJ, LeGatt DF, Halloran PF, et al. Pharmacodynamic assessment of mycophenolic acid-induced immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1996; 62 (5): 666–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sanquer S, Breil M, Baron C, et al. Induction of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase activity after long-term treatment with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 65 (6): 640–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanquer S, Breil M, Baron C,et al. Trough blood concentrations in long-term treatment with mycophenolate mofetil. Lancet 1998; 351 (9115): 1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    The Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Refractory Rejection Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil for the treatment of refractory, acute, cellular renal transplant rejection. Transplantation 1996; 61 (5): 722–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klintmalm GB, Ascher NL, Busuttil RW, et al. RS-61443 for treatment-resistant human liver rejection. Transplant Proc 1993; 25 (l Pt 1): 697PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kirklin JK, Bourge RC, Naftel DC, et al. Treatment for recurrent heart rejection with mycophenolate mofetil (RS-61443): initial clinical experience. J Heart Lung Transplant 1994; 13 (3): 444–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Solez K, Axelsen RA, Benediktsson H, et al. International standardisation of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Int 1993; 44 (2): 411–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Halloran P, Mathew T, Tomlanovich S, et al. for the International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplant Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: a pooled efficacy analysis of three randomized, double-blind, clinical studies in prevention of rejection [published erratum appears in Transplantation Feb 27 1997; 63 (4): 618] Transplantation 1997; 63 (1): 39–47Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mathew TH for the Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. A blinded long-term randomized multicenter study of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in cadaveric renal transplantation: results at 3 years [published erratum appears in Transplantation 1998 Sep 27; 66 (6): 817] Transplantation 1998; 65 (11): 1450–4Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34 (2): 296–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 2000; 69 (11): 2405–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Neylan JF. Immunosuppressive therapy in high-risk transplant patients. Dose-dependent efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in African-American renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1997; 64 (9): 1277–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Woellwarth J v, Behrend M, Schlitt JH, et al. A new immunosuppressive protocol with high dose mycophenolate mofetil for kidney transplantation in sensitized patients. Transplant Proc. In pressGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    The Mycophenolate Mofetil Acute Renal Rejection Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil for the treatment of a first acute renal allograft rejection [published erratum appears in Transplantation 1998; 65 (7): following table of contents]. Transplantation 1998; 65: 235–41Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Weir MR, Anderson L, Fink JC, et al. A novel approach to the treatment of chronic allograft nephropathy. Transplantation 1997; 64 (12): 1706–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Grinyo JM, Gil-Vernet S, Seron D, et al. Steroid withdrawal in mycophenolate mofetil-treated renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1997; 63 (11): 1688–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hricik DE, Kupin WL, First ML. Steroid-free immunosuppression after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 1994; 4 Suppl. 8: S10–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hilbrands LB, Hoitsma AT, Koene AP. The effect of immunosuppressive drugs on quality of life after renal transplantation. Transplantation 1995; 59 (9): 1263–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Opelz G. Superior long-term kidney graft survival in patients on maintenance immunosuppression with cyclosporine and azathioprine. Transplant Proc 1993; 25 (1 Pt 2): 1289–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Opelz G. Influence of treatment with cyclosporine, azathioprine and steroids on chronic allograft failure. The Collaborative Transplant Study. Kidney Int 1995; 52: S89–92Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kupin W, Venkat KK, Goggins M. Improved outcome of steroid withdrawal in mycophenolate mofetil-treated primary cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 (1–2): 1131–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lebranchu Y, for the M55002 Study Group. Comparison of two corticosteroid regimens in combination with CellCept and cyclosporine A for prevention of acute allograft rejection: 12-month results of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 (1–2): 249–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ahsan N, Hricik D, Matas A, et al. for the Steroid Withdrawal Study Group. Prednisolone withdrawal in kidney transplant recipients on cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil — a prospective randomized study. Transplantation 1999; 68 (12): 1865–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sinclair NR forthe Canadian Multicenter Transplant Study Group. Low-dose steroid therapy in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients with well-functioning grafts. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 147 (5): 645–57Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ponticelli C, Tarantino A, Montagnino G. Controlled trials with cyclosporine in kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 1994; 26 (5): 2490–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Birkeland SA. Steroid-free immunosuppression after kidney transplantation with antithymocyte globulin induction and cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy. Transplantation 1998; 66 (9): 1207–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sells RA, Bakran A, Brown MW, et al. Aprospective randomised study of CS A monotherapy versus CSA plus mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1998; 30 (8): 4098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hall BM, Tiller DJ, Hardie I. Comparison of three immunosuppressive regimens in cadaver renal transplantation: long term cyclosporine, short term cyclosporine followed by azathioprine and prednisolone. NEngl J Med 1988;318 (23): 1499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Morris PJ, French ME, Dunhill MS, et al. A controlled trial of cyclosporine withdrawal in renal transplantation with conversion to azathioprine and prednisolone after three months. Transplantation 1983; 36 (3): 273–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Versluis DJ, Wenting GJ, Derkx FHM, et al. Who should be converted from cyclosporin A to conventional immunosuppression in kidney transplantation and why. Transplantation 1987; 44 (3): 387–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sagalowsky AI, Reisman ME, Dawidson I, et al. Late conversion carries risk of irreversible rejection. Transplant Proc 1988; 3 Suppl. 3: 157–60Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hollander AAMJ, van Saase JLCM, Kootte AMM, et al. Beneficial effects of conversion from cyclosporine to azathioprine after kidney transplantation. Lancet 1995; 345 (8950): 610–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pedersen EB, Hansen HE, Kornerup HJ, et al. Long term graft survival after conversion from cyclosporine to azathioprine 1 year after renal transplantation: a prospective, randomized study from 1 to 6 years after transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1993; 8 (3): 250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    MacPhee IAM, Radley JA, Briggs JD, et al. Long-term outcome of a prospective randomized trial of conversion from cyclosporine to azathioprine treatment one year after renal transplantation. Transplantation 1998; 66 (9): 1186–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Smak Gregoor PJHS, van Gelder T, van Besouw NM, et al. Randomized study on the conversion of treatment with cyclosporine to azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil followed by dose reduction. Transplantation 2000; 70 (1): 143–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hueso M, Bover J, Seron D, et al. Low-dose cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients with sub-optimal renal function. Transplantation 1998; 66 (12): 1727–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tran HTB, Acharya MK, McKay DB, et al. Avoidance of cyclosporine in renal transplantation: effects of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11 (10): 1903–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ducloux D, Fournier V, Bresson-Vautrin C, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients with cyclosporine-associated nephrotoxicity. Transplantation 1998; 65 (11): 1504–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Roth D, Colona J, Burke GW, et al. Primary immunosuppression with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil for renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1998; 65 (2): 248–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VP, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of FK506/prednisone vs. FK506/azathioprine in renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 1995; 27 (1): 814–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VP, et al. A prospective, randomized trail to compare tacrolimus and prednisone with and without mycophenolate mofetil in patients undergoing renal transplantation: first report. J Urol 1998; 160 (6 Pt 1): 1982–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VP, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of tacrolimus/prednisone versus tacrolimus/prednisone/mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999; 67 (3): 411–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Miller J, for the FK506/MMF Dose-ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group. Tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients: one year results of a multicenter, randomized dose ranging trial. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 (1–2): 276–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VP, et al. Tacrolimus in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1996; 28 (4): 2117–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Pirsch J, Bekersky I, Vincenti F, et al. Coadministration of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in stable kidney transplant patients: pharmacokinetics and tolerability. J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 40 (5): 527–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kreis H, Cisterne JM, Land W, et al., for the Sirolimus European Renal Transplant Study Group. Sirolimus in association with mycophenolate mofetil induction for the prevention of acute graft rejection in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 2000; 69 (7): 1252–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Gulanikar AC, McDonald AS, Sungertekin U, et al. The incidence and impact of early rejections episodes on graft outcome in recipients of first cadaver kidney transplants. Transplantation 1992; 53 (2): 328–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Vanrenterghem YFC. Acute rejection and renal allograft outcome. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1995; 10 Suppl. 1: 29–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    O’Hair DP, McManus RP, Komorowski R. Inhibition of chronic rejection in primate cardiac xenografts using mycophenolate mofetil. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 58 (5): 1311–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Glichlich D, Gupta B, Schurter-Frey G, et al. Chronic renal allograft rejection. No response to mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation 1998 Aug; 66 (3): 398–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kliem V, Boeck A, Eisenberger U, et al. Treatment of chronic renal allograft failure by addition of mycophenolate mofetil: single-center experience in 40 patients. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 (1–2): 1312–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kliem V, Tiroke T, Ehlerding G, et al. Successful therapy of chronic renal allograft failure by enhanced immunosuppression. Transplant Proc 1998; 30 (4): 1207–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ferraris JR, Tambutti ML, Redal MA, et al. Conversion from azathioprine to mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplant recipients with chronic rejection. Transplantation 2000; 70 (2): 297–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Birkeland SA, Larsen KE, Rohr N. Pediatrie renal transplantation without steroids. Pediatr Nephrol 1998; 12 (2): 87–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Filler G, Ehrich J. Mycophenolate mofetil for rescue therapy in acute renal transplant rejection in children should always be monitored by measurement of trough concentration [letter]. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997; 12 (2): 374–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Benfield MR, Stablein D, Tejani A. Trends in immunosuppressive therapy: a report of the North American Pediatrie Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). Pediatr Transplant 1999; 3 (1): 27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Neu AM, Benfield M. What is the role for mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 1999; 3 (1): 83–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Benfield MR, Symons JM, Bynon S, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 1999; 3 (1): 33–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Seikaly MG. Mycophenolate mofetil — is it worth the cost? The in-favor opinion. Pediatr Transplant 1999; 3 (1): 79–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Butani L, Palmer J, Baluarte HJ, et al. Adverse effects of mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplant recipients with presumed chronic rejection. Transplantation 1999; 68 (1): 83–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Filler G, Gellermann J, Zimmering M, et al. Effect of adding mycophenolate mofetil in paediatric renal transplant recipients with chronical cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Transpl Int 2000; 13 (3): 201–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Filler G, Zimmering M, Mai I. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil are influenced by concomitant immunosuppression. Pediatr Nephrol 2000; 14 (2): 100–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Oellerich M, Shipkova M, Schutz E, et al. for the German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil Therapy in Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipients. Pharmacokinetic and metabolic investigations of mycophenolic acid in pediatrie patients after renal transplantation: implications for therapeutic drug monitoring. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22 (1): 20–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Weber LT, Schutz E, Lamersdorf T, et al. for the German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF) Therapy. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid (MPA) and free MPA in paediatric renal transplant recipients — a multicentre study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14 (S4): 33–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Filler G, Mai I. Limited sampling strategy for mycophenolic acid area under the curve. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22 (2): 169–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Roberti I, Reisman L. A comparative analysis of the use of mycophenolate mofetil in pediatrie vs adult renal allograft recipients. Pediatr Transplant 1999; 3 (3): 231–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Ducloux D, Ottignon Y, Semhoun-Ducloux S, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil-induced villous atrophy. Transplantation 1998; 66 (8): 1115–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kaplan B, Meier-Kriesche HU, Jacobs MG, et al. Prevalence of cytomegalovirus in the gastrointestinal tract of renal transplant recipients with persistent abdominal pain. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34 (1): 65–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    van Besouw NM, Van der Mast B, Smak Gregoor PJH, et al. Effect of mycophenolate mofetil on erythropoiesis in stable renal transplant patients is correlated with mycophenolic acid trough levels. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14 (11): 2710–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Sarmiento JM, Dockrell DH, Schwab TR, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil increases cytomegalovirus invasive organ disease in renal transplant patients. Clin Transplant 2000; 14 (2): 136–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Sarmiento JM, Munn SR, Paya CV, et al. Is cytomegalovirus infection related to mycophenolate mofetil after kidney transplantation? Acase-control study. Clin Transplant 1998; 12 (5): 371–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    ter Meulen CG, Wetzels JF, Hilbrands LB. The influence of mycophenolate mofetil on the incidence and severity of primary cytomegalovirus infections and disease after renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15 (5): 711–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Noble S, Faulds D. Ganciclovir: an update of its use in the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients. Drugs 1998; 56 (1): 115–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Bienvenu B, Thervet E, Bedrossian J, et al. Development of cytomegalovirus resistance to ganciclovir after oral maintenance treatment in a renal transplant recipient. Transplantation 2000; 69 (1): 182–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation: 3-year results from the placebo-controlled trial. Transplantation 1999; 68 (3): 391–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    O’Gara MJ, Lee CH, Weinberg GA, et al. IMP dehydrogenase from Pneumocystis carinii as a potential drug target. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41 (1): 40–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Behrend M, Kolditz M, Kliem V, et al. Malignancies in patients under long-term immunosuppression after kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 1997; 29 (1–2): 834–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Jacobs F, Mamzer-Bruneel MF, Skhiri H, et al. Safety of the mycophenolate mofetil-allopurinol combination in kidney transplant recipients with gout. Transplantation 1997; 64 (7): 1087–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Opelz G, Henderson R. Incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in kidney and heart transplant recipients. Lancet 1993; 342 (8886–8887): 1514–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hanto DW, Frizzera G, Gajl-Peczalska KJ, et al. Epstein-Barr virus, immunodeficiency, and B cell lymphoproliferations. Transplantation 1985; 39 (5): 461–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Eberhard OK, Kliem V, Brunkhorst R. Five cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma in kidney graft recipients. Possible influence of the immunosuppressive therapy. Transplantation 1999 67: 180–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Vella JP, Mosher R, Sayegh MH. Kaposi’s sarcoma after renal transplantation [letter]. N Engl J Med 1997; 336 (24): 1761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Lee PC, Wang YW, Su IJ, et al. Immunosuppressive drugs and HHV-8 in a patient with a renal transplant and Kaposi’s sarcoma [letter]. Lancet 1998; 351 (9110): 1175–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Hussein MM, Mooij JM, Roujouleh HM. Regression of post-transplant Kaposi sarcoma after discontinuing cyclosporin and giving mycophenolate mofetil instead. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15 (7): 1103–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Khosla UM, Martin JE, Baker GM, et al. One-year, single-center cost analysis of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine following cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1999; 31 (1–2): 274–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Wütherich RP, Weinreich T, Ambühl PM, et al. Reduced kidney transplant rejection rate and pharmacoeconomic advantage of mycophenolate mofetil. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14 (2): 394–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Louis-Touizer C, Nuijten MJ, Bayle F, et al. Economic contribution of mofetil mycofenolate as preventive immunosuppressive treatment after renal transplantation from cadaver [in French]. Presse Med 1996; 25 (33): 1577–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Arnold AN, Wombolt DG, Whelan TV, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil, with cyclosporine and prednisone, reduces early rejection while allowing the use of less antilymphocytic agent induction and cyclosporine in renal recipients with delayed graft function. Clin Transplant 2000; 14 (4 Pt 2): 421–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Baker GM, Martin JE, Jang R, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in primary cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1998; 30 (8): 4082–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung für Viszeral- und TransplantationschirurgieMedizinische Hochschule HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations