We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Results of a randomized, prospective, multicenter trial of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in the prevention of acute lung allograft rejection.
Transplantation 2001 June 28
BACKGROUND: Although the use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has reduced the incidence of acute rejection in heart and kidney allograft recipients, its role in lung transplantation remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter study in lung transplant recipients to determine whether MMF decreases episodes of acute allograft rejection when compared with azathioprine (AZA).
METHODS: Between March of 1997 and January of 1999, 81 consecutive lung transplant recipients from two centers were prospectively randomized to receive cyclosporine, corticosteroids, and either 2 mg/kg per day of AZA or 1 g twice daily of MMF. The primary study endpoint was biopsy-proven acute allograft rejection over the first 6 months posttransplant. Secondary endpoints included clinical rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, adverse events, and survival. Surveillance bronchoscopies were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months, or if clinically indicated. Pathologists interpreting the biopsy results were blinded to the randomization. Results were analyzed according to intention-to-treat. Between group comparisons of means and proportions were made by using two sample t tests and Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Six-month survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log rank test.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were prospectively randomized to receive AZA, and 43 MMF. The incidence of biopsy proven grade II or greater acute allograft rejection at 6 months was 58% in the AZA group and 63% in the MMF group (P=0.82). The 6-month survival rates in the MMF and AZA groups were 86% and 82%, respectively (P=0.57). Rates of CMV infection and adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute rejection rates and overall survival at 6 months are similar in lung transplant recipients treated with either MMF- or AZA-based immunosuppression.
METHODS: Between March of 1997 and January of 1999, 81 consecutive lung transplant recipients from two centers were prospectively randomized to receive cyclosporine, corticosteroids, and either 2 mg/kg per day of AZA or 1 g twice daily of MMF. The primary study endpoint was biopsy-proven acute allograft rejection over the first 6 months posttransplant. Secondary endpoints included clinical rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, adverse events, and survival. Surveillance bronchoscopies were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months, or if clinically indicated. Pathologists interpreting the biopsy results were blinded to the randomization. Results were analyzed according to intention-to-treat. Between group comparisons of means and proportions were made by using two sample t tests and Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Six-month survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log rank test.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were prospectively randomized to receive AZA, and 43 MMF. The incidence of biopsy proven grade II or greater acute allograft rejection at 6 months was 58% in the AZA group and 63% in the MMF group (P=0.82). The 6-month survival rates in the MMF and AZA groups were 86% and 82%, respectively (P=0.57). Rates of CMV infection and adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute rejection rates and overall survival at 6 months are similar in lung transplant recipients treated with either MMF- or AZA-based immunosuppression.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app