Cargando…

A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the comparison and its timing between mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. MATERIALS AND MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: DENG, Jin, LU, Yi, HE, Lihong, OU, Jihong, XIE, Hongping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8283438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33356028
http://dx.doi.org/10.3906/sag-1910-156
_version_ 1783723202560655360
author DENG, Jin
LU, Yi
HE, Lihong
OU, Jihong
XIE, Hongping
author_facet DENG, Jin
LU, Yi
HE, Lihong
OU, Jihong
XIE, Hongping
author_sort DENG, Jin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the comparison and its timing between mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RCTs of MMF versus CNI as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients were searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), and ClinicalTrials.gov. After screening relevant RCTs, two authors independently assessed the quality of included studies and performed a meta-analysis using RevMan5.3. Relative risk (RR) was used to report dichotomous data, while mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report continuous outcomes. The analysis was conducted using the random-effect model due to the expected heterogeneity among different studies. Four subgroups were allocated to compare MMF with CNI as maintenance immunosuppression: (1) after 3 months of CNI-based therapy, (2) after 6 months of CNI-based therapy, (3) after 12 months of CNI-based therapy, and (4) in recipients with allograft dysfunction. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs with 950 renal transplant recipients were included. This meta-analysis presented the following results upon comparison between MMF and CNI as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: (1) MMF significantly improved the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) not only in the comparison performed after 3, 6, or 12 months of CNI-based therapy but also in the comparison of recipients with allograft dysfunction, (2) MMF may increase the risk of acute rejection in the comparison performed after 3 months of CNI-based therapy, but no increase was noted in the comparison performed after 6 or 12 months of CNI-based therapy. CONCLUSION: Our present meta-analysis suggested that MMF followed at least 6 months of CNI-based therapy is an effective maintenance immunosuppressive regimen for kidney transplant recipients to improve renal function but not increase rejection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8283438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82834382021-08-02 A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials DENG, Jin LU, Yi HE, Lihong OU, Jihong XIE, Hongping Turk J Med Sci Article BACKGROUND/AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the comparison and its timing between mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RCTs of MMF versus CNI as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients were searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), and ClinicalTrials.gov. After screening relevant RCTs, two authors independently assessed the quality of included studies and performed a meta-analysis using RevMan5.3. Relative risk (RR) was used to report dichotomous data, while mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report continuous outcomes. The analysis was conducted using the random-effect model due to the expected heterogeneity among different studies. Four subgroups were allocated to compare MMF with CNI as maintenance immunosuppression: (1) after 3 months of CNI-based therapy, (2) after 6 months of CNI-based therapy, (3) after 12 months of CNI-based therapy, and (4) in recipients with allograft dysfunction. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs with 950 renal transplant recipients were included. This meta-analysis presented the following results upon comparison between MMF and CNI as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: (1) MMF significantly improved the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) not only in the comparison performed after 3, 6, or 12 months of CNI-based therapy but also in the comparison of recipients with allograft dysfunction, (2) MMF may increase the risk of acute rejection in the comparison performed after 3 months of CNI-based therapy, but no increase was noted in the comparison performed after 6 or 12 months of CNI-based therapy. CONCLUSION: Our present meta-analysis suggested that MMF followed at least 6 months of CNI-based therapy is an effective maintenance immunosuppressive regimen for kidney transplant recipients to improve renal function but not increase rejection. The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey 2021-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8283438/ /pubmed/33356028 http://dx.doi.org/10.3906/sag-1910-156 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
DENG, Jin
LU, Yi
HE, Lihong
OU, Jihong
XIE, Hongping
A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short A comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort comparison of mycophenolate mofetil and calcineurin inhibitor as maintenance immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8283438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33356028
http://dx.doi.org/10.3906/sag-1910-156
work_keys_str_mv AT dengjin acomparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT luyi acomparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT helihong acomparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT oujihong acomparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT xiehongping acomparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT dengjin comparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT luyi comparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT helihong comparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT oujihong comparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT xiehongping comparisonofmycophenolatemofetilandcalcineurininhibitorasmaintenanceimmunosuppressionforkidneytransplantrecipientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials