Volume 14, Issue 5 p. 1221
Letter to the Editor
Free Access

The Optimal MMF Dose in Tacrolimus Treated Patients

T. van Gelder

Corresponding Author

T. van Gelder

Department of Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Corresponding author: Teun van Gelder, [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
R. Bouamar

R. Bouamar

Department of Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
N. Shuker

N. Shuker

Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
D. Hesselink

D. Hesselink

Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
W. Weimar

W. Weimar

Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
B. Kaplan

B. Kaplan

Department of Nephrology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS

Search for more papers by this author
C. Bernasconi

C. Bernasconi

Limites Medial Research Ltd, Vacallo, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 17 March 2014
Citations: 3

To the Editor:

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor of Knotek et al 1. In their letter they propose a novel immunosuppressive strategy, aimed at treating de novo kidney transplant recipients with (very) low-dose tacrolimus and a higher mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dose. The hypothesis of their prospective study is that reduced exposure to tacrolimus will result in an improved histology in 1-year protocol biopsies (less interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy), while the higher MMF dose (3 g daily) compensates for the lower tacrolimus exposure and will maintain efficacy.

We feel that the observations in our analysis of three large, randomized-controlled trials 2 suggest that the currently targeted tacrolimus predose concentrations may be too high and that a further reduction of the target levels is possible without compromising efficacy. We agree that optimizing MMF exposure is likely to further improve the outcome. What the optimal MMF dose would be has been a matter of debate for some time. In the registration trials, MMF doses of 2 or 3 g per day were compared with placebo or azathioprine treatment. Patients in these studies were on full-dose cyclosporine (CsA) treatment. It may well be that in a setting of low-dose tacrolimus treatment (say target predose concentrations in the range of 3 ng/mL) higher MMF doses would offer a benefit.

It is known that in tacrolimus-treated patients an MMF dose of 2 g/day will result in mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposure below the target in 25% of patients in the first month after transplantation (and in CsA co-treated patients this occurs in no less than 50%). Temporary intensified dosing has been suggested to avoid reduced MPA exposure in the early posttransplant phase 3. Knotek et al 1 propose a 3 g MMF dose in the first week, and in half of the patients this dose is maintained thereafter. Whether or not a prolonged duration of higher MMF dosing would offer a benefit when very low tacrolimus concentrations are targeted remains to be seen. One could expect more MMF-related toxicity in a substantial proportion of patients, as observed in an older MMF dose finding study in tacrolimus-treated patients 4. Therapeutic drug monitoring for MPA may identify patients with over-exposure, and in such patients, dose reductions may improve tolerability to the proposed regimen 5.

  • T. van Gelder1,2,*, R. Bouamar1, N. Shuker2, D. Hesselink2, W. Weimar2, B. Kaplan3 and C. Bernasconi4

  • 1Department of Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

  • 2Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

  • 3Department of Nephrology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS

  • 4Limites Medial Research Ltd, Vacallo, Switzerland

  • *Corresponding author: Teun van Gelder, [email protected]

Disclosure

The authors of this manuscript have conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation. Dr. Hesselink has received lecture fees from Astellas Pharma. Dr. van Gelder has received lecture fees from Astellas Pharma, and Roche. Dr. Bernasconi has received consulting fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. All other authors have no conflicts to declare.

    The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.