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: A randomized trial comparing triple-drug and double-drug therapy in renal transplantation.
    Author: Ponticelli C, Tarantino A, Montagnino G, Aroldi A, Banfi G, De Vecchi A, Zubani R, Berardinelli L, Vegeto A.
    Journal: Transplantation; 1988 May; 45(5):913-8. PubMed ID: 3285536.
    Abstract:
    A controlled trial was carried out in 86 cadaveric and 14 living haploidentical renal transplant recipients to compare the effects of low doses of cyclosporine (CsA), azathioprine (Aza) and steroids with those of higher doses of CsA plus steroids. Patients were followed for 12-26 months after transplantation. The actuarial 2-year patient and graft survival rate was 100% for living-donor transplants. In cadaver renal transplants the 2-year patient survival rate was 100% for patients assigned to the triple regimen and 93% for those allocated to the double regimen. The actuarial 2-year cadaver graft survival rates were 86% and 90.6%, respectively. There were significantly more patients who had severe infections (P less than 0.05), particularly interstitial pneumonia (P less than 0.005), in the double-therapy group. On the other hand, there were more patients who rejected and more patients with severe rejections; more pulses of steroids were also required for patients on the triple regimen, although these differences were not significant. The mean trough blood levels of cyclosporine at the various times were about half as high in patients on triple therapy. There were no differences between the two groups in creatinine clearance at any time. A control renal biopsy, taken from patients with stable renal function after 6-12 months, showed only mild abnormalities. The lesions were semiquantitatively assessed. There was a higher score for interstitial infiltrate in patients on triple therapy (P less than 0.05). On the other hand, the incidence and the mean score of interstitial fibrosis were greater in patients on double therapy, although these differences were not significant. Thus, although similar results were obtained with both regimens, at the doses we used double therapy seems to have more powerful immunosuppressive effects and may prevent rejection, either acute or chronic, better. However, it might expose the patient to a greater risk of infection and of cyclosporine-related nephrotoxicity than triple therapy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]