Suppression of allograft rejection is central to successful organ transplantation; thus, immunosuppressive agents are crucial for successful allograft function. Immunosuppressive drugs are used for induction (intense immunosuppression in the initial days after transplantation), maintenance, and reversal of established rejection. This review considers the use of immunosuppressive drugs in organ transplantation, focusing on renal transplantation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra033540

Immunosuppressive Drugs for Kidney Transplantation

Mycophenolate mofetil and its mechanisms of action.

Guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive drugs in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders: recommendations of an expert panel

The pharmacokinetics of the immunosuppressant mycophenolate mofetil have been investigated in healthy volunteers and mainly in recipients of renal allografts. Following oral administration, mycophenolate mofetil was rapidly and completely absorbed, and underwent extensive presystemic de-esterification. Systemic plasma clearance of intravenous mycophenolate mofetil was around 10 L/min in healthy individuals, and plasma mycophenolate mofetil concentrations fell below the quantitation limit (0.4 mg/L) within 10 minutes of the cessation of infusion. Similar plasma mycophenolate mofetil concentrations were seen after intravenous administration in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment, implying that the de-esterification process had not been substantially affected. Mycophenolic acid, the active immunosuppressant species, is glucuronidated to a stable phenolic glucuronide (MPAG) which is not pharmacologically active. Over 90% of the administered dose is eventually excreted in the urine, mostly as MPAG. The magnitude of the MPAG renal clearance indicates that active tubular secretion of MPAG must occur. At clinically relevant concentrations, mycophenolic acid and MPAG are about 97% and 82% bound to albumin, respectively. MPAG at high (but clinically realisable) concentrations reduced the plasma binding of mycophenolic acid. The mean maximum plasma mycophenolic acid concentration (Cmax) after a mycophenolate mofetil 1 g dose in healthy individuals was around 25 mg/L, occurred at 0.8 hours postdose, decayed with a mean apparent half-life (t1/2) of around 16 hours, and generated a mean total area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC infinity) of around 64 mg.h/L. Intra- and interindividual coefficients of variation for the AUC infinity of the drug were estimated to be 25% and 10%, respectively. Intravenous and oral administration of mycophenolate mofetil showed statistically equivalent MPA AUC infinity values in healthy individuals. Compared with mycophenolic acid, MPAG showed a roughly similar Cmax about 1 hour after mycophenolic acid Cmax, with a similar t1/2 and an AUC infinity about 5-fold larger than that for mycophenolic acid. Secondary mycophenolic acid peaks represent a significant enterohepatic cycling process. Since MPAG was the sole material excreted in bile, entrohepatic cycling must involve colonic bacterial deconjugation of MPAG. An oral cholestyramine interaction study showed that the mean contribution of entrohepatic cycling to the AUC infinity of mycophenolic acid was around 40% with a range of 10 to 60%. The pharmacokinetics of patients with renal transplants (after 3 months or more) compared with those of healthy individuals were similar after oral mycophenolate mofetil. Immediately post-transplant, the mean Cmax and AUC infinity of mycophenolic acid were 30 to 50% of those in the 3-month post-transplant patients. These parameters rose slowly over the 3-month interval. Slow metabolic changes, rather than poor absorption, seem responsible for this nonstationarity, since intravenous and oral administration of mycophenolate mofetil in the immediate post-transplant period generated comparable MPA AUC infinity values. Renal impairment had no major effect on the pharmacokinetic of mycophenolic acid after single doses of mycophenolate mofetil, but there was a progressive decrease in MPAG clearance as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) declined. Compared to individuals with a normal GFR, patients with severe renal impairment (GFR 1.5 L/h/1.73m2) showed 3-to 6-fold higher MPAG AUC values. In rental transplant recipients during acute renal impairment in the early post-transplant period, the plasma MPA concentrations were comparable to those in patients without renal failure, whereas plasma MPAG concentrations were 2- to 3-fold higher. Haemodialysis had no major effect on plasma mycophenolic acid or MPAG. Dosage adjustments appear to not be necessary either in renal impairment or during dialysis. (ABSTRACT TRUN

Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Mycophenolate Mofetil

Background. To confirm the results of a number of studies conducted in Europe, the United States, and Japan, this multicenter, randomized trial compared the 12-month efficacy and safety of tacrolimus- and cyclosporine-based immunosuppressive regimens in the prevention of renal allograft rejection. Methods. A total of 448 renal transplant recipients were recruited from 15 centers and assigned to receive triple-drug therapy consisting of tacrolimus (n=303) or cyclosporine (n=145) in conjunction with azathioprine and low-dose corticosteroids. Results. At 12 months after transplantation, tacrolimus therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the frequency of both acute (tacrolimus 25.9% vs. cyclosporine 45.7%; P<0.001 [absolute difference: 19.8%, 95% confidence interval: 10.0-29.6%]) and corticosteroid-resistant rejection (11.3% vs. 21.6%; P=0.001 [absolute difference: 10.3%, 95% confidence interval: 2.5-18.2%]). Actuarial 1-year patient (tacrolimus 93.0% vs. cyclosporine 96.5%; P=0.140) and graft survival rates (82.5% vs. 86.2%; P=0.380) did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. Overall, the safety profiles of the tacrolimus- and cyclosporine-based regimens were quite comparable. Infections, renal impairment, neurological complications, and gastrointestinal complaints were frequently reported but were mostly reversible in both groups. Higher incidences of elevated serum creatinine, tremor, diarrhea, hyperglycemia, diabetes mellitus, and angina pectoris were reported in the tacrolimus treatment group, whereas acne, arrhythmia, gingival hyperplasia, and hirsutism were more frequent with cyclosporine treatment. Conclusions. The significant reduction in the incidence of episodes of allograft rejection observed with tacrolimus therapy may have important long-term implications given the prognostic influence of rejection on graft survival.

Multicenter randomized trial comparing tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine in the prevention of renal allograft rejection - A report of the European Tacrolimus Multicenter Renal Study Group

Mycopehenolate mofetil (MMF) is a powerful immunosuppressant that inhibits the proliferation of T and B lymphocytes by blocking the enzyme inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase. MMF has been shown to prevent acute graft rejection in animal experiments and may have an important role in clinical renal transplantation. We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multi-center trial to compare the efficacy and safety of MMF and azathioprine within standard immunosuppressive regimen for patients receiving a first or second cadaveric renal graft. A total of 503 patients were randomized to groups receiving MMF 3 g (n=164), MMF 2 g (n=173), or azathioprine (AZA) 100-150 mg (n=166) daily. All were treated simultaneously with equivalent doses of cyclosporine and oral corticosteroids and followed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as the occurrence of biopsy-proven graft rejection, graft loss, patient death, or discontinuation of the study drug during the first 6 months after transplantation. Treatment failure occurred in 50.% of patients in the AZA group by 6 months after transplantation, compared with 34.8% in the MMF 3g group (P=0.0045) and 38.2 % in the MMF 2g group (P=0.0287). Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 15.9% of patients in the MMF 3 g group and 19.7% in the MMF2 g group, compared with 35.5% in the AZA group. Rejection of histologic severity grade II or more developed in 6.1 %, 10.4% and 19.9% of patients in the MMF 3 g, MMF 2 g, and AZA groups, respectively. Patients receiving MMF required less frequent and less intensive treatment for acute rejection: 24.4% of patients on MMF 3 g and 31.0% on MMF 2 g were tested for acute rejection, compared with 47.5% on AZA. Only 4.9% on MMF 3 g and 8.8% on MMF 2 g required antilymphocyte antibodies for treatment of severe or steroid-resistant rejection, compared with 15.4% of the patients on AZA. At 1 year after transplantation, graft survival in the MMF groups was marginally superior to that in the AZA group, although this difference was not statistically significant. Gastrointestinal toxicity and tissue-invasive cytomegalovirus infection were more common in the MMF 3 g group. Noncutaneous malignancies occurred in six patients on MMF 3 g, three patients on MMF 2 g, and four patients on AZA. Lymphoproliferative disorders occurred in two patients per MMF group, compared with one patient receiving AZA. MMF appears to be an important advance in prophylaxis following renal transplantation. It is associated with a significantly lower rate of treatment failure compared with AZA during the first 6 months after renal transplantation and produces a clinically important reduction in the incidence, severity, and treatment of acute graft rejection. These differences persist throughout the first year of follow-up. Clinical benefit was greatest with a dose of MMF 3 g/day, but gastrointestinal effects, invasive cytomegalovirus infection, and malignancies were slightly more common at that dose. The appropriate dose may lie between 2 g and 3 g per day and may require individualization depending on clinical course or other factors.

Geoff Duggin

Papers

A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation