PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9028422

Mycophenolate mofetil: a unique immunosuppressive agent.

Abstract

The mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and dosage and administration of mycophenolate mofetil are reviewed. Mycophenolate mofetil is used to prevent or treat allograft rejection after solid-organ transplantation. A prodrug, mycophenolate mofetil is rapidly hydrolyzed to mycophenolic acid after oral administration. Mycophenolic acid inhibits de novo purine synthesis, resulting in antiproliferative effects on T and B lymphocytes. The absolute bioavailability of mycophenolic acid is 94% for oral administration; the maximum plasma concentration occurs after two hours. Mycophenolic acid undergoes hepatic glucuronidation to an inactive salt that is renally excreted. Clinical trials of mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant patients suggest that the drug is effective for the prevention of acute rejection and as rescue therapy. Clinical data on mycophenolate mofetil therapy in liver transplant patients are too limited to permit conclusions. Clinical trials of the drug for primary immunosuppression in heart transplant patients have not been conducted, but studies of this agent as rescue therapy suggest efficacy. Mycophenolic acid has proved useful for long-term management of psoriasis. The most common adverse effects of mycophenolate mofetil are gastrointestinal. Nephrotoxicity and overt hepatotoxicity have not been reported, but the drug may be linked to bone marrow suppression and certain malignancies. Mycophenolate mofetil is available as a 250-mg capsule for oral use. The recommended initial dosage is 1 g twice daily. Mycophenolate mofetil appears to be a useful addition to the armamentarium of immunosuppressive drugs, particularly for kidney transplant patients, but more study is needed to clarify its role.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K A Hood, D G Zarembski. 1997-02-01. Mycophenolate mofetil: a unique immunosuppressive agent.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp%2F54.3.285

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Hypoimmune platforms: from rejection to immune evasion and regulatory implications.

The growing gap between organ demand and clinical availability has renewed interest in immune-evasive graft strategies, yet rejection and lifelong immunosuppression remain major barriers to durable success. Advances in genome editing enable immune-evasive cell platforms designed to avoid immune recognition while replacing missing function in allogeneic settings. This review summarizes current strategies for engineering immune-evasive grafts that simultaneously suppress adaptive and innate immune responses. We discuss how coordinated modulation of antigen presentation and immune checkpoint pathways can protect transplanted allogeneic cells and tissues from T, NK, and macrophage-mediated rejection. We also present the emerging concept of integrating hypoimmune engineering with genetically modified porcine donors, where extensive genome editing has reduced, but not eliminated, xenogeneic immune barriers. Combining donor genome modification with immune-evasive graft design represents a promising conceptual advance toward xenograft survival, though whether full elimination of systemic immunosuppression is achievable remains to be established clinically. We further examine how the regulatory landscape for these products is evolving across major jurisdictions, and how differences in approval pathways, manufacturing standards, and long-term surveillance requirements shape the path to clinical translation. Finally, we outline the safety considerations and remaining limitations in immune evasion that must be addressed to enable clinical implementation.

Graft Rejection↗

The classification and treatment of antibody-mediated renal allograft injury: where do we stand?

Since the acceptance of the detection of C4d in allografts as a reliable tool to mark a humoral alloresponse, de novo antibody-induced graft injury has attracted much attention. Antibodies and B cells are the new frontier in transplantation. At this juncture carefully designed studies are critical in order to gain solid diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic knowledge about the role of antibodies in graft injury and to avoid any confusion and misconception. One prerequisite is the strict adherence to refined classification systems of renal transplant rejection that carefully split and categorize different phenotypes of humoral mediated graft damage and ideally also include information on anti-donor antibody specificity and titers. Sun and colleagues follow this concept and provide evidence that mixed cellular and antibody-mediated graft rejection can respond favorably to intensified immunosuppression with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. What will the future bring to treat rejection episodes with a dominant, co-dominant, or minor antibody response?

Graft Rejection↗