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: Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium versus mycophenolate mofetil maintenance immunosuppression: outcomes analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database.
    Author: Irish W, Arcona S, Gifford RJ, Baillie GM, Cooper M.
    Journal: Transplantation; 2010 Jul 15; 90(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 20445488.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: A large, retrospective database analysis was conducted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients who received enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) maintenance immunosuppression at the time of discharge. METHODS: All primary kidney transplant patients who received either EC-MPS or MMF at time of discharge in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from 2004 to 2007 were included. Patients were excluded if they had received a previous kidney transplant, multiple organs, or combination therapy with everolimus at the time of discharge. Outcomes included graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and death with functioning graft, biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), new-onset diabetes mellitus, and renal function. The propensity score method was used to adjust for nonrandomized treatment selection. A total of 48,458 patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: At time of discharge, 10.4% of patients received EC-MPS (n=5057) and 89.6% received MMF (n=43,401). Propensity score-adjusted regression analysis showed that patients who received EC-MPS were at increased risk of BPAR (hazards ratio, 1.167; 95% confidence interval, 1.056-1.129; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted BPAR rate difference at 3 years posttransplantation was less than 2% (13.6% vs. 11.7%); statistically significant because of the large number of patients included in the analysis, but a difference that may not be clinically meaningful. No differences in graft survival, new-onset diabetes mellitus, or renal function were observed between the treatment groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]