Rheumatology

Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on August 9, 2006
Rheumatology 2007 46(3):442-445; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel244

This Article Abstract FREE Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 46/3/442    most recent kel244v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Search for citing articles in: ISI Web of Science (20) Request Permissions Disclaimer Google Scholar Articles by Nihtyanova, S. I. Articles by Denton, C. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nihtyanova, S. I. Articles by Denton, C. P. Related Collections Systemic Sclerosis Social Bookmarking          What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Mycophenolate mofetil in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis—a retrospective analysis

S. I. Nihtyanova, G. M. Brough, C. M. Black and C. P. Denton

Centre for Rheumatology, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG, UK.

Correspondence to: Christopher P. Denton, PhD, FRCP, Centre for Rheumatology, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG, UK. E-mail: c.denton{at}medsch.ucl.ac.uk

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
Objectives. We have assessed indications, duration and tolerability of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), and compared clinical outcome with a control cohort treated with other immunosuppressive drugs.

Methods. The clinical records of 109 patients treated with MMF and 63 control subjects receiving other immunosuppressive drugs were reviewed. Data covering a 5-yr period from commencement of treatment or until last assessment date were collected.

Results. MMF and control groups were well-matched in terms of basic demographic and clinical parameters. Treatment with MMF was very well tolerated. Of all patients, 12% experienced adverse reactions with gastrointestinal (GI) tract disturbances and infections being most frequent. MMF was discontinued due to disease stabilization in 9%, side effects in 8% and no effect on the disease activity in 14% of the patients. There was a significantly lower frequency of clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis in the MMF-treated cohort (P = 0.037) and significantly better 5-yr survival from disease onset and from commencement of treatment (P = 0.027 and P = 0.012, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of modified Rodnan skin score and forced vital capacity (FVC) change.

Conclusions. MMF is very well tolerated and appears to be at least as effective as the other current therapies for dcSSc. Our results provide support for further evaluation of MMF in a prospective trial.

KEY WORDS: Scleroderma, Systemic sclerosis (SSc), Treatment, Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
Although the ultimate pathology of systemic sclerosis (SSc) involves vascular damage and organ-based fibrosis, there is substantial evidence of immunological dysfunction and autoimmunity in scleroderma patients [1]. SSc has the highest case-specific mortality of all the autoimmune rheumatic conditions, and recent studies support the use of immunosuppressive treatment for the severe forms of the disease.

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an antiproliferative immunosuppressive agent metabolized in the body to mycophenolic acid, which inhibits the de novo synthesis of purines and thus suppresses T- and B-lymphocyte proliferation. It was shown to provide better protection against acute renal and cardiac transplant rejection than azathioprine (AZA), with better long-term patient and graft survival [2–6], and it was also used successfully as rescue therapy in patients with steroid-resistant acute and chronic hepatic graft rejection [7]. MMF is currently licenced for use in prophylaxis of renal, cardiac and hepatic transplant rejection in combination with ciclosporin A (CsA) and corticosteroids. In recent years, MMF was shown to be effective in the treatment of lupus nephritis (LN), and is now also used for other systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) manifestations [8–11].

The present study reviews indications, duration and tolerability of treatment with MMF in patients with SSc. A historical control cohort treated with other standard immunosuppressive therapies is used to compare frequency of major organ-based complications and survival.

	Patients and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
Study cohort
All of the subjects fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for SSc. Through our pharmacy records, we identified 109 patients treated with MMF. A control group of 63 patients was selected through filtering our scleroderma database. The inclusion criteria were diffuse disease, actively treated with immunosuppressive drugs (other than MMF) and no major immunosuppressive treatment prior to first assessment. The clinical records of all subjects were retrospectively reviewed.

Clinical assessment
For baseline in both groups, we used the last assessment before the treatment was initiated.The collected data covered the period from baseline to the most recent assessment date for MMF-treated patients and a period of 5 yrs from the commencement of treatment or until the last assessment date for the control group. In addition to basic demographic and clinical features, we recorded details about treatment regimen and any adverse events. Disease onset was defined by the first non-Raynaud's manifestation. Skin involvement was quantified by modified Rodnan skin score (mRss). Pulmonary involvement was defined as presence of any degree of fibrosing alveolitis demonstrated on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis (PF) was defined as a documented 15% reduction in FVC from baseline or FVC < 55%. Heart involvement was defined as haemodynamically significant pericardial disease or arrhythmia, or new onset congestive heart failure. Renal involvement was defined as documented renal crisis (RC). Gastrointestinal (GI) involvement was recorded as present when there was any degree of involvement of any part of the GI tract, and muscle involvement was defined as the presence of muscle weakness and the increased levels of creatine kinase (CK).

Statistical analysis
For the statistical analysis we used MINITAB 14 statistical software. Log-rank test was used to compare the time to major event in the two groups of patients. A value of P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
A comparison of the basic demographic parameters of the two patient groups are summarized in Table 1. The only major difference between the two groups in terms of organ involvement was in the proportion of patients with renal scleroderma (23% of the MMF cohort and <5% of the controls).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   TABLE 1. Basic demographic parameters, overlap syndromes, auto antibodies and organ involvement of the MMF-treated patients and the controls

 
Of the MMF cohort, 68% had received other immunosuppressive drugs before MMF with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (32.1%), AZA (18.3%), intravenous cyclophosphamide (ivCYC) and methotrexate (MTX) (14.7% each) being the most commonly used. The immunosuppressive agents used in the control group were AZA (39.7%), ATG (31.7%), D-penicillamine (30.2%), ivCYC (27%), oral CYC (20.6%), -interferon (12.7%) and MTX (11.1%). The most frequent indication for treatment in both groups was severe skin involvement usually in the context of active disease (81.7% of MMF cohort and 68.3% of the controls) and progressive lung fibrosis (27.5% and 47.6%, respectively). In 80% of the patients, the treatment with MMF was started within 36 months of the disease onset. Most of the remaining 20% had already received other immunosuppressive treatments and either had not responded to it or had developed side effects.

Of the patients treated with MMF, 79% received the drug for a period of 1 yr or more, 59 for 12–36 months. Sixty six per cent were still taking the drug at the time of data collection. The most commonly used treatment regimen (73.4% of the patients) was 2 g daily. Of all the patients, 24% received 1.5 g daily or less, and the majority of these had SSc renal involvement. MMF was discontinued in 34% of the patients. Nine per cent had stable disease and did not require active treatment, and 2.8% developed new problems requiring specific drug therapy. In 13.8% of the patients, MMF had no effect on the disease activity (patients had progression of their skin or lung disease despite being on full dose MMF). Twelve per cent had adverse reactions, and two-thirds of these had to stop taking MMF. GI tract disturbances and infections were most frequent (4.6 and 3.7%, respectively).There was no correlation between the severity of the side effects and the dose of MMF.

The control group had higher prevalence of PF (14.3%) at baseline compared with MMF-treated patients (7.3%), nevertheless over a 5-yr period 12% of the MMF cohort developed PF compared with 19% of the controls (P = 0.037). Figure 1 compares the survival of the two groups of patients from disease onset and from commencement of treatment. It is important to account for the fact that after the sixth year the number of patients at risk in the MMF group falls to half the initial. The 5-yr survival from disease onset was 95.4% among the MMF cohort and 85.7% among the controls (P = 0.027), while the 5-yr survival from the commencement of treatment among the MMF-treated patients was 91.7% compared with 77.8% in the control cohort (P = 0.012).

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PowerPoint slide]   FIG. 1. Five-yr survival from disease onset and the commencement of treatment in patients treated with MMF and control patients treated with other immunosuppressive agents.

 
A comparison between the mean mRss of the MMF and the control cohorts revealed a very similar degree of change from baseline (median mRss was 26 in both groups) to year 5 (median mRss of the MMF cohort was 11, while it was 15 for the controls), and the overall trend was similar to the expected as part of the natural course of the disease. Both the groups had slight improvement in the lung function from baseline to year 5 with very similar rate of increase in the median FVC, which at baseline was 83% predicted for both groups, while at year 5 it was 94% predicted in the MMF-treated patients and 92% in the control group.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
In this study, we report the largest single-centre cohort of SSc cases so far treated with MMF. We have compared them with an actively treated control group that did not receive the drug. Overall, mortality and clinically significant pulmonary involvement in patients treated with MMF were lower than in the control cohort. MMF was generally well-tolerated and the side effects experienced were not life threatening.

MMF was developed as an alternative to AZA with more selective mode of action and, therefore, fewer side effects [12]. It is currently licenced for use in prophylaxis of renal, cardiac and hepatic transplant rejection. Although outside its licenced indications, MMF has been used for the treatment of LN with good results. Chan et al. [8, 9] demonstrated that in patients with class IV LN combination of MMF and prednisolone is as effective as treatment with CYC and prednisolone followed by AZA and prednisolone but has much less adverse reactions. Contreras et al. [10] used monthly pulses of CYC for induction of remission in 59 patients with class III, IV and V LN followed by MMF, AZA or quarterly ivCYC as maintenance therapy. MMF was much better tolerated, and the event- and relapse-free survival among the MMF-treated patients was significantly better than the CYC-treated group with better (although not statistically significant) patient survival. Ginzler et al. [11] in a 24-week randomized, open-label trial demonstrated that MMF was superior to ivCYC in inducing remission in 140 patients with LN. The patients receiving MMF experienced fewer infections but had greater incidence of diarrhoea.

Currently there are only two studies assessing the use of MMF in SSc. Stratton et al. [13] treated 13 patients with recent-onset dcSSc with MMF as a maintenance therapy following induction with ATG. MMF was well-tolerated with GI side effects being the most common (three patients). Although two patients withdrew from the study because of ineffective treatment and one died before MMF treatment was started, the rest of the patients completed the study demonstrating improvement in skin score but no significant change in mean FVC. More recently Liossis et al. [14] in an open-label trial treated five patients with dcSSc and a recent-onset alveolitis with MMF and low-dose prednisolone for 4–6 months. There was significant improvement in DLCO and improvement in FVC, which almost reached statistical significance [14].

Although immunomodulatory therapies are often employed in dcSSc, there have been few positive controlled trials to support their use. Most of the studies evaluating CYC therapy in SSc have been uncontrolled. The best evidence for efficacy comes from two recently completed placebo controlled trials for scleroderma-associated pulmonary fibrosis. One of these, the scleroderma lung study (SLS), evaluated 162 patients over 12 months who received either placebo or oral CYC [15]. There was statistically significant benefit in favour of active treatment for FVC and skin score. The results of the fibrosing alveolitis in scleroderma trial (FAST) [16] also suggested superiority of ivCYC followed by oral AZA compared with placebo.

The 5-yr survival from disease onset of our MMF cohort was 95.4%, while the survival in the control group was 85.7%. In a prospective study of 249 Swedish patients Hesselstrand et al. [17] found the 5-yr survival, estimated from the time of enrolment in the study to be 86% with mean disease duration at referral 4.6 yrs. Mayes et al. [18] also report 5-yr survival from disease diagnosis among 706 cases of SSc in the United States to be 77.9%. Overall the survival in our control group seems to be comparable with that reported by the different authors while the survival in the MMF group is significantly higher.

A major limitation in our study is the retrospective design, which inevitably resulted in some missing data and a few of the patients did not have FVC and mRss measurements for every year of follow-up. All of the patients included in our study are from a single centre, and the decision of which immunosuppressive agent should be used for the treatment has been made by the same group of clinicians. In addition, the control patients often had an overlap syndrome or organ involvement requiring specific immunosuppressive treatment, which led to the PF over-representation in the group. Since renal crisis often occurs within the first year in SSc, before any major treatment is started, and because MMF is the immunosuppressant of choice in patients with renal impairment, there is an overrepresentation in the MMF group that is likely to reflect patient selection rather than drug effect. In addition, the patients included had different duration of follow-up. Only 58% of the MMF patients compared with 87% of the controls had a 3-yr follow-up and even fewer (26% of the MMF and 49% of the controls) had 5-yr follow-up.

In conclusion, our experience with MMF suggests that it is very well-tolerated, and may have comparable efficacy to other immunosuppressive agents currently used for the treatment of scleroderma. This could be more formally explored in prospective studies that compare similar patient cohorts treated with MMF or other immunosuppressive drugs, and ultimately by double-blind randomized controlled trials. Based on the encouraging results from this retrospective analysis further evaluation is warranted.

	Acknowledgements

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
This study was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Aspreva pharmaceuticals. Clinical research activities within the department are funded by Arthritis Research Campaign, The Raynaud's and Scleroderma Association and The Scleroderma Society.

This work was supported in part by an unrestricted educational grant from Aspreva Pharmaceuticals.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 

1. Denton CP and Black CM. (2004) Scleroderma – clinical and pathological advances. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 18:271–90.[Medline]
2. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. Transplantation (1996) 61:1029–37 [No authors listed].[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
3. Sollinger HW. (1995) Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation 60:225–32.[Web of Science][Medline]
4. Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, et al. (2000) Mycophenolate mofetil reduces late renal allograft loss independent of acute rejection. Transplantation 69:2405–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. Kobashigawa J, Miller L, Renlund D, et al. (1998) A randomized active-controlled trial of mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplant recipients. Mycophenolate Mofetil Investigators. Transplantation 66:507–15.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6. Eisen HJ, Kobashigawa J, Keogh A, et al. (2005) Mycophenolate Mofetil Cardiac Study Investigators. Three-year results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in cardiac transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 24:517–25.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Pfitzmann R, Klupp J, Langrehr JM, et al. (2003) Mycophenolatemofetil for immunosuppression after liver transplantation: a follow-up study of 191 patients. Transplantation 76:130–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
8. Chan TM, Li FK, Tang CS, et al. (2000) Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Hong Kong–Guangzhou Nephrology Study Group. N Engl J Med 343:1156–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Chan TM, Tse KC, Tang CS, Mok MY, Li FK. Hong Kong Nephrology Study Group. (2005) Long-term study of mycophenolate mofetil as continuous induction and maintenance treatment for diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 16:1076–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Contreras G, Pardo V, Leclercq B. (2004) Sequential therapies for proliferative lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 350:971–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Ginzler EM, Dooley MA, Aranow C. (2005) Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 353:2219–28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Allison AC. (2005) Mechanisms of action of mycophenolate mofetil. Lupus 14:s2–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Stratton RJ, Wilson H, Black CM. (2001) Pilot study of anti-thymocyte globulin plus mycophenolate mofetil in recent-onset diffuse scleroderma. Rheumatology 40:84–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Liossis SN, Bounas A, Andonopoulos AP. (2006) Mycophenolate mofetil as first-line treatment improves clinically evident early scleroderma lung disease. Rheumatology [Advance Access published on 20 February 2006].
15. Clements P, Furst DE, Silver RM, et al. ( November 2005) The Scleroderma Lung Study (SLS) Shows the Beneficial Effects of Cyclophosphamide (CYC) over Placebo (PL) in Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) Patients with Active Alveolitis. ACR 624.
16. Hoyles RK, Ellis RW, Herrick AL, et al. ( November 2005) Fibrosing Alveolitis in Scleroderma Trial (FAST) – a multi-centre prospective randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. ACR L29.
17. Hesselstrand R, Scheja A, Akesson A. (1998) Mortality and causes of death in a Swedish series of systemic sclerosis patients. Ann Rheum Dis 57:682–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Mayes MD, Lacey JV Jr, Beebe-Dimmer J, et al. (2003) Prevalence, incidence, survival, and disease characteristics of systemic sclerosis in a large US population. Arthritis Rheum 48:2246–55.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Submitted 27 March 2006; revised version accepted 26 May 2006.
CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. T. Derk, E. Grace, M. Shenin, M. Naik, S. Schulz, and W. Xiong A prospective open-label study of mycophenolate mofetil for the treatment of diffuse systemic sclerosis Rheumatology, December 1, 2009; 48(12): 1595 - 1599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Martini, A. V. Ramanan, F. Falcini, H. Girschick, D. P. Goldsmith, and F. Zulian Successful treatment of severe or methotrexate-resistant juvenile localized scleroderma with mycophenolate mofetil Rheumatology, November 1, 2009; 48(11): 1410 - 1413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Daoussis, S.-N. C. Liossis, A. C. Tsamandas, C. Kalogeropoulou, A. Kazantzi, C. Sirinian, M. Karampetsou, G. Yiannopoulos, and A. P. Andonopoulos Experience with rituximab in scleroderma: results from a 1-year, proof-of-principle study Rheumatology, September 15, 2009; (2009) kep093v2. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. Black, M. Matucci-Cerinic, and L. Guillevin Progress in systemic sclerosis: a 10-year perspective Rheumatology, June 1, 2009; 48(suppl_3): iii1 - iii2. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Khanna, D. E. Furst, P. J. Clements, D. P. Tashkin, and M. H. Eckman Oral Cyclophosphamide for Active Scleroderma Lung Disease: A Decision Analysis Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 926 - 937. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Scheja, R. Hesselstrand, M. Wildt, and A. Akesson Relapse of skin thickening after discontinuation or decrease of azathioprine therapy in a patient with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis Rheumatology, December 1, 2007; 46(12): 1862 - 1863. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract FREE Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 46/3/442    most recent kel244v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Search for citing articles in: ISI Web of Science (20) Request Permissions Disclaimer Google Scholar Articles by Nihtyanova, S. I. Articles by Denton, C. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nihtyanova, S. I. Articles by Denton, C. P. Related Collections Systemic Sclerosis Social Bookmarking          What's this?

Online ISSN 1462-0332 - Print ISSN 1462-0324

Copyright © 2009 British Society for Rheumatology

Oxford Journals Oxford University Press

• Site Map
• Privacy Policy
• Frequently Asked Questions

Other Oxford University Press sites: Oxford University Press Oxford Journals China Oxford Journals Japan American National Biography Booksellers' Information Service Children's Fiction and Poetry Children's Reference Corporate & Special Sales Dictionaries Dictionary of National Biography Digital Reference English Language Teaching Higher Education Textbooks Humanities International Education Unit Law Medicine Music Online Products Oxford English Dictionary Reference Rights and Permissions Science School Books Social Sciences Very Short Introductions World's Classics