Sozen MH, Dalgic A, Kozan R, Anadol AZ

Language: Spanish
References: 5
Page: 127-132
PDF size: 226.35 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Aim: This study assesses and compares GI, bone marrow (BM), and hepatotoxicity side effects of MMF and EC-MPS in the first 3 months after de-novo kidney transplantation. Material and Methods: Retrospective data from 100 kidney transplant recipients were analyzed between January 2016 and December 2021 at Gazi University Transplantation Center. Patients were divided into two groups: MMF (group A, n=68) and EC-MPS (group B, n=32). Side effects within the first three months post-transplantation were assessed, including gastrointestinal side effects (dyspepsia, bloating, diarrhea), bone marrow complications, and hepatotoxicity. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Results: In group A, we have not seen any side effects of MMF in 38% of recipients during the postoperative first three months. Sixty-two percent of recipients had the following side effects: gastrointestinal 22%, bone marrow 24%, and hepatotoxicity 16%. In group B, we have not seen any side effects of EC-MPS in 43% of recipients during the postoperative first three months. Fifty-seven percent of recipients experienced the following side effects: BM in 28%, GI in 25%, and hepatotoxicity in 4%. Management involved medication adjustments, with side effects ceasing in most cases. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study highlights the overall favorable safety profiles of MMF and EC-MPS in the early posttransplant period. However, it underscores the potential advantage of EC-MPS over MMF in hepatotoxicity, with EC-MPS demonstrating a lower incidence of hepatotoxicity than MMF.

REFERENCES

1. Golshayan D, Pascual M, Vogt B. Mycophenolic acidformulations in adult renal transplantation—Updateon efficacy and tolerability. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2009;5:341-51.

2. Sanford M, Keating GM. Enteric-coated mycophenolatesodium: A review of its use in the prevention of renaltransplant rejection. Drugs. 2008;68:2505-33.

3. Hardinger KL, Hebbar S, Bloomer T, Murillo D.Adverse drug reaction driven immunosuppressive drugmanipulations: A single-center comparison of entericcoatedmycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolatemofetil. Clin Transplant. 2008;22(5):555-61.

4. Ortega F, Sánchez-Fructuoso A, Cruzado JM, Gómez-Alamillo JC, Alarcón A, et al; MYVIDA Study GroupGastrointestinal quality of life improvement of renaltransplant recipients converted from mycophenolatemofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodiumdrugs or agents: mycophenolate mofetil and entericcoatedmycophenolate sodium. Transplantation.2011;92(4):426-32.

5. Langone AJ, Chan L, Bolin P, Cooper M. Enteric-coatedmycophenolate sodium versus mycophenolate mofetil inrenal transplant recipients experiencing gastrointestinalintolerance: a multicenter, double-blind, randomizedstudy. Transplantation. 2011;91:470-8.