Randomised trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for treatment of chronic active Crohn's disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Neurath MF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1727513 | biostudies-other | 1999 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, the standard therapy for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) consists of a combination of prednisolone and azathioprine. However, 15% of patients are intolerant to azathioprine which necessitates cessation of azathioprine or changes in therapy. In addition, not all patients achieve complete biochemical response (CR). Uncontrolled data indicate that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) can induce CR in a majority of patients. Better understanding of first-line treatment and robust evidence from randomised clinical trials are needed. The aim of this study was to explore the potential benefits of MMF as compared to azathioprine, both combined with prednisolone, as induction therapy in a randomised controlled trial in patients with treatment-naive AIH.MethodsCAMARO is a randomised (1:1), open-label, parallel-group, multicentre superiority trial. All patients with AIH are screened for eligibility. Seventy adult patients with AIH from fourteen centres in the Netherlands and Belgium will be randomised to receive MMF or azathioprine. Both treatment arms will start with prednisolone as induction therapy. The primary outcome is biochemical remission, defined as serum levels of alanine aminotransferase and immunoglobulin G below the upper limit of normal. Secondary outcomes include safety and tolerability of MMF and azathioprine, time to remission, changes in Model For End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-score, adverse events, and aspects of quality of life. The study period will last for 24 weeks.DiscussionThe CAMARO trial investigates whether treatment with MMF and prednisolone increases the proportion of patients in remission compared with azathioprine and prednisolone as the current standard treatment strategy. In addition, we reflect on the challenges of conducting a randomized trial in rare diseases.Trial registrationEudraCT 2016-001038-91 . Prospectively registered on 18 April 2016.
| S-EPMC9745715 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLong-term immunosuppressive treatment does not efficiently prevent relapses of lupus nephritis (LN). This investigator-initiated randomised trial tested whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was superior to azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance treatment.MethodsA total of 105 patients with lupus with proliferative LN were included. All received three daily intravenous pulses of 750 mg methylprednisolone, followed by oral glucocorticoids and six fortnightly cyclophosphamide intravenous pulses of 500 mg. Based on randomisation performed at baseline, AZA (target dose: 2 mg/kg/day) or MMF (target dose: 2 g/day) was given at week 12. Analyses were by intent to treat. Time to renal flare was the primary end point. Mean (SD) follow-up of the intent-to-treat population was 48 (14) months.ResultsThe baseline clinical, biological and pathological characteristics of patients allocated to AZA or MMF did not differ. Renal flares were observed in 13 (25%) AZA-treated and 10 (19%) MMF-treated patients. Time to renal flare, to severe systemic flare, to benign flare and to renal remission did not statistically differ. Over a 3-year period, 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, serum albumin, serum C3, haemoglobin and global disease activity scores improved similarly in both groups. Doubling of serum creatinine occurred in four AZA-treated and three MMF-treated patients. Adverse events did not differ between the groups except for haematological cytopenias, which were statistically more frequent in the AZA group (p=0.03) but led only one patient to drop out.ConclusionsFewer renal flares were observed in patients receiving MMF but the difference did not reach statistical significance.
| S-EPMC3002764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe treatment of chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (cHP) often includes systemic oral corticosteroids, but the optimal pharmacologic management remains unclear. The morbidity associated with prednisone has motivated the search for alternative therapies. We aimed to determine the effect of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine (AZA) on lung function in patients with cHP.MethodsPatients with cHP treated with either MMF or AZA were retrospectively identified from four interstitial lung disease centers. Change in lung function before and after treatment initiation was analyzed using linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM), adjusting for age, sex, smoking history, and prednisone use.ResultsSeventy patients were included: 51 were treated with MMF and 19 with AZA. Median follow-up after treatment initiation was 11 months. Prior to treatment initiation, FVC and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco) % predicted were declining at a mean rate of 0.12% (P < .001) and 0.10% (P < .001) per month, respectively. Treatment with either MMF or AZA was not associated with improved FVC (0.5% at 1 year; P = .46) but was associated with a statistically significant improvement in Dlco of 4.2% (P < .001) after 1 year of treatment. Results were similar in the subgroup of patients treated with MMF for 1 year; the FVC increased nonsignificantly by 1.3% (P = .103) and Dlco increased by 3.9% (P < .001).ConclusionsTreatment with MMF or AZA is associated with improvements in Dlco in patients with cHP. Prospective randomized trials are needed to validate their effectiveness for cHP.
| S-EPMC6026221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsAs previous real-world studies and meta-analyses have shown that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) might have better efficacy than azathioprine (AZA) in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), we conducted a propensity matching study to assess the efficacy and safety of MMF vs. AZA.MethodsAll 126 consecutive treatment-naive adult AIH patients, diagnosed and followed in our department since 2016, were included. Patients received prednisolone 0.5-1 mg/kg/day plus either AZA 1-2 mg/kg/day or 1.5-2 g/day MMF. The tapering of prednisolone was identical between groups.ResultsAfter propensity matching score and adjustment for known factors affecting response to treatment and outcome, 64 patients were included in the study (MMF = 32 and AZA = 32). Rates of non-response, complete biochemical response (CBR) at 6 and 12 months, and prednisolone withdrawal (6 months, 12 months, and end of follow-up) were identical between groups. However, MMF treatment was significantly associated with CBR at the end of follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 11.259; 95% CI: 1.3-97.4, p = 0.028]. AZA patients were more prone to stop treatment due to AZA intolerance/insufficient response (p = 0.0001). At the end of follow-up, the overall efficacy of each schedule was also significantly higher in the MMF group compared to the AZA group (p = 0.0001).ConclusionWe showed for the first time in a propensity matching study that MMF can be used as first-line therapy in AIH as attested by the significantly higher CBR at end of follow-up compared to AZA. Whether this better efficacy is also associated with higher histological remission rates and sustained CBR off immunosuppression needs further evaluation.
| S-EPMC8787111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted a double-blind, randomized multicenter trial to determine whether the addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) improves the efficacy of initial systemic treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The primary endpoint was resolution of chronic GVHD and withdrawal of all systemic treatment within 2 years, without secondary treatment. Enrollment of 230 patients was planned, providing 90% power to observe a 20% difference in success rates between the 2 arms. The study was closed after 4 years because the interim estimated cumulative incidence of success for the primary endpoint was 23% among 74 patients in the MMF arm and 18% among 77 patients in the control arm, indicating a low probability of positive results for the primary endpoint after completing the study as originally planned. Analysis of secondary endpoints showed no evidence of benefit from adding MMF to the systemic regimen first used for treatment of chronic GVHD. The estimated hazard ratio of death was 1.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.9-4.3) among patients in the MMF arm compared with the control arm. MMF should not be added to the initial systemic treatment regimen for chronic GVHD. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00089141 on August 4, 2004.
| S-EPMC2686178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The efficacy of azathioprine (AZA) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for interstitial lung disease (ILD) has been described, but mainly in connective tissue disease-associated ILD. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of AZA and MMF on lung function and prednisone dose in myositis-related ILD (M-ILD). METHODS:In this retrospective study, patients with M-ILD seen at Johns Hopkins and treated with AZA or MMF and no other steroid-sparing agents were included. Linear mixed-effects models adjusted for sex, age, antisynthetase antibody, and smoking status were used to compare the change in FVC % predicted, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (Dlco) % predicted, and prednisone dose. RESULTS:Sixty-six patients with M-ILD were treated with AZA and 44 with MMF. At treatment initiation, mean FVC % predicted and Dlco % predicted were significantly lower in the AZA group than in the MMF group. In both groups, FVC % predicted improved and the prednisone dose was reduced over 2 to 5 years; however, for Dlco % predicted, only the AZA group improved. The adjusted model showed no significant difference in posttreatment FVC % predicted or Dlco % predicted between groups (mean difference of 1.9 and -8.2, respectively), but a 6.6-mg lower dose of prednisone at 36 months in the AZA group. Adverse events were more frequent with AZA than MMF (33.3% vs 13.6%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS:In M-ILD, AZA treatment was associated with improved FVC % predicted and Dlco % predicted, and lower prednisone dose. Patients treated with MMF had improved FVC % predicted and lower prednisone dose. After 36 months, patients treated with AZA received a lower prednisone dose than those treated with MMF.
| S-EPMC6945652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe compared protection of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) against acute cellular rejection (ACR) and chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) in kidney transplant recipients on steroid-free, low-dose cyclosporine (CsA) microemulsion maintenance immunosuppression.Methods and findingsATHENA, a pragmatic, prospective, multicenter trial conducted by 6 Italian transplant centers, compared the outcomes of 233 consenting recipients of a first deceased donor kidney transplant induced with low-dose thymoglobulin and basiliximab and randomized to MMF (750 mg twice/day, n = 119) or AZA (75 to 125 mg/day, n = 114) added-on maintenance low-dose CsA microemulsion and 1-week steroid. In patients without acute clinical or subclinical rejections, CsA dose was progressively halved. Primary endpoint was biopsy-proven CAN. Analysis was by intention to treat. Participants were included between June 2007 and July 2012 and followed up to August 2016. Between-group donor and recipient characteristics, donor/recipient mismatches, and follow-up CsA blood levels were similar. During a median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow-up of 47.7 (44.2 to 48.9) months, 29 of 87 biopsied patients on MMF (33.3%) versus 31 of 88 on AZA (35.2%) developed CAN (hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.147 (0.691 to 1.904, p = 0.595). Twenty and 21 patients on MMF versus 34 and 14 on AZA had clinical [HR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.34 to 1.02); p = 0.057) or biopsy-proven subclinical [HR (95% CI): 1.49 (0.76 to 2.92); p = 0.249] ACR, respectively. Combined events [HR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.56 to 1.29); p = 0.438], patient and graft survival, delayed graft function (DGF), 3-year glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [53.8 (40.6;65.7) versus 49.8 (36.8;62.5) mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.50], and adverse events (AEs) were not significantly different between groups. Chronicity scores other than CAN predict long-term graft outcome. Study limitations include small sample size and unblinded design.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients on low-dose CsA and no steroids, MMF had no significant benefits over AZA. This finding suggests that AZA, due to its lower costs, could safely replace MMF in combination with minimized immunosuppression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494741; EUDRACT 2006-005604-14.
| S-EPMC8224852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/Aims. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance therapy for patients with Class III and Class IV lupus nephritis (LN), from a United States (US) perspective. Methods. Using a Markov model, we conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon. The modeled population comprised patients with proliferative LN who received maintenance therapy with MMF (2 gm/day) versus AZA (150 mg/day) for 3 years. Risk estimates of clinical events were based on a Cochrane meta-analysis while costs and utilities were retrieved from other published sources. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), and net monetary benefit. Results. The base-case model showed that, compared with AZA strategy, the ICER for MMF was $2,630,592/QALY at 3 years. Over the patients' lifetime, however, the ICER of MMF compared to AZA was $6,454/QALY. Overall, the ICER results from various sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not alter the conclusions of the model simulation. Conclusions. In the short term, an AZA-based regimen confers greater value than MMF for the maintenance therapy of proliferative LN. From a lifelong perspective, however, MMF is cost-effective compared to AZA.
| S-EPMC4639665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.
| S-EPMC2678035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in autoimmune disease is often limited by adverse effects. In this single-centre, open label, parallel design study, we investigated whether enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (MS) is better tolerated and therefore more efficacious than MMF in primary systemic vasculitis (PSV) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsForty patients with vasculitis or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) due to commence MMF for active disease or remission maintenance were randomized to receive either 1440 mg/day MS or 2000 mg/day MMF (18 PSV, 2 SLE per group) in addition to corticosteroids. Random allocation was performed by minimization for age, diagnosis and renal function using a computer algorithm. Twenty-five were treated for active disease (5 first-line therapy, 20 salvage therapy) and 15 for remission maintenance. The composite primary end point was treatment failure and/or drug intolerance over 12 months. Treatment failure was defined as failure to achieve remission by 6 months or disease relapse and treatment intolerance was defined as inability to tolerate and maintain the target dose of MS or MMF within 12 months.ResultsForty patients were included in the analyses. MS was associated with a lower primary end point rate [hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; 95% CI 0.17-0.80; P = 0.012] (11/20, 55% patients) compared with MMF (17/20, 85% patients). Treatment failure alone was less common in the MS group (HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.095-0.82; P = 0.020), although drug intolerance did not differ between groups (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.20-1.42; P = 0.21). Despite randomization, patients in the MMF group may have had a higher baseline risk for treatment failure; more MMF patients had refractory disease and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener's). A glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ≤40 mL/min was associated with intolerance. Serious adverse events were common (55% MMF and 45% MS patients).ConclusionsNo differences in treatment tolerance were observed between the MS and MMF groups. Despite similar treatment intolerance, MS was associated with improved efficacy in PSV and SLE compared with MMF. However, baseline group imbalances in factors potentially affecting remission and relapse may have influenced the results. Treatment intolerance was common and strongly associated with low GFR. Further treatment trials are warranted to investigate the effect of GFR on mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes (ISRCTN83027184; EUDRACT 2005-002207-16; Funding Novartis UK).
| S-EPMC4389135 | biostudies-literature