Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil. (1st June 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lopez‐Solis, Roberto; DeVera, Michael; Steel, Jennifer; Fedorek, Sheila; Sturdevant, Mark; Hughes, Christopher; Humar, Abhinav
• Is Part Of: Clinical transplantation. Volume 28:Number 7(2014)
• Page Start: 783
• Page End: 788
• Publication Date: 2014-06-01
• Subjects: Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc -- Periodicals; 617.95
• DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12379
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0902-0063

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="ctr12379-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>In the setting of liver transplantation, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may be used as an adjuvant therapy for immunosuppression to prevent graft rejection; however, its use may be limited due to severe gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. In contrast, enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium (EC‐MPS) may be associated with less severe side effects and hence better tolerability. We compared the side effects of EC‐MPS to MMF in liver transplant patients in a <italic>de novo</italic> study (Study I—randomized, prospective, double‐blinded) and a conversion study (Study II). In both studies, the severity of GI symptoms was assessed at various time points using the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) survey, a validated survey of GI symptoms (abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, and constipation). In Study I, the symptoms of 30 recipients receiving EC‐MPS (n = 15) were compared to 15 recipients receiving MMF. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the total GSRS scores and symptom syndrome subscores revealed no significant difference (p &gt; 0.05) between the two medications over time. A conversion study (Study II) with 29 participants, however, showed that over time, all GI symptoms improved significantly (p &lt; 0.001) when the patients were treated with EC‐MPS instead of MMF.</p> </abstract>