These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Similar efficacy and safety of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS, myfortic) compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in de novo heart transplant recipients: results of a 12-month, single-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study.
    Author: Kobashigawa JA, Renlund DG, Gerosa G, Almenar L, Eisen HJ, Keogh AM, Lehmkuhl HB, Livi U, Ross H, Segovia J, Yonan N, ERL2401 Heart Study Investigators.
    Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant; 2006 Aug; 25(8):935-41. PubMed ID: 16890114.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS, myfortic) is an advanced formulation that delays the release of mycophenolic acid (MPA). Its efficacy and safety has been proven in several clinical trials in renal transplantation. METHODS: In a single-blind, multicenter trial, a total of 154 de novo heart transplant patients were randomized to either EC-MPS 1,080 mg twice daily or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 1,500 mg twice daily. Eligible patients included men or women aged 18 to 65 years, undergoing primary heart transplantation, who were treated with cyclosporine microemulsion and corticosteroids as basic immunosuppression. The primary study objective was to investigate the incidence of biopsy-proven and treated acute rejection, graft loss or death (defined as treatment failure) for EC-MPS vs MMF during the first 6 months of treatment in de novo heart transplant recipients. Secondary objectives included assessment of the overall safety and tolerability of EC-MPS vs MMF in the study population. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable, treatment failure at 6 months, was similar for both treatments: 52.6% for EC-MPS and 57.9% for MMF (2-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: -21.0% to 10.4%). At 12 months, treatment failure was 57.7% for EC-MPS and 60.5% for MMF (2-sided 95% CI: -18.4 to 12.7), and death and graft loss rate was 5.1% vs 9.2% for EC-MPS and MMF at 12 months, respectively (2-sided 95% CI: -12.2 to 4.1). The overall safety profile was similar for both groups. Significantly more patients on MMF had two or more study medication dose reductions during the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: These 6- and 12-month results show that EC-MPS is therapeutically similar to MMF in de novo heart transplant recipients and has a comparable safety profile.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]