Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium versus mycophenolate mofetil maintenance immunosuppression: Outcomes analysis of the united network for organ sharing/organ procurement and transplantation network database

Transplantation

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 23-30

  Irish, William ^a   Arcona, Stephen ^b   Gifford, Ryan J ^a   Baillie, G Mark ^a   Cooper, Matthew ^c  

^a CTI   (United States)

^b NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Immunosuppression; Kidney transplantation; MPA; Outcomes; Survival.; UNOS

Indexed keywords

ALEMTUZUMAB; BASILIXIMAB; CORTICOSTEROID; CREATININE; DACLIZUMAB; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; RAPAMYCIN; TACROLIMUS; THYMOCYTE ANTIBODY;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHRONIC ALLOGRAFT NEPHROPATHY; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DATA BASE; DEATH; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG DOSAGE FORM COMPARISON; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; GRAFT FAILURE; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY BIOPSY; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAINTENANCE THERAPY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SCORING SYSTEM;

DATABASES AS TOPIC; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; GRAFT REJECTION; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY FUNCTION TESTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; METHOTREXATE; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; PATIENT DISCHARGE; PATIENT SELECTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SIROLIMUS; TABLETS, ENTERIC-COATED; TRANSPLANTATION CHIMERA; TRANSPLANTATION, HOMOLOGOUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77954620480     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181de9193     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. OPTN., 2007 Annual report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: Transplant data, 1996-2007. Rockville, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation; Richmond, VA, United Network for Organ Sharing; Ann Arbor, MI
2. University Renal Research and Education Association 2007. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1996; 61: 1029.
3. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet 1995; 345: 1321.
4. Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation 1995; 60: 225.
5. Salvadori M, Holzer H, de Mattos A, et al. Enteric-coated mycopheno-late sodium is therapeutically equivalent to mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 231.
6. Budde K, Curtis J, Knoll G, et al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium can be safely administered in maintenance renal transplant patients: Results of a 1-year study. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 237.
7. Sollinger HW. Mycophenolates in transplantation. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 485.
8. Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Bullingham RE, et al. The pharmacokinetic- pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 672.
9. Hardinger KL, Brennan DC, Lowell J, et al. Long-term outcome of gastrointestinal complications in renal transplant patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Transpl Int 2004; 17: 609.
10. Knoll GA, MacDonald I, Khan A, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil dose reduction and the risk of acute rejection after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14: 2381.
11. Pelletier RP, Akin B, Henry ML, et al. The impact of mycophenolate mofetil dosing patterns on clinical outcome after renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 2003; 17: 200.
12. Tierce JC, Porterfield-Baxa J, Petrilla AA, et al. Impact of mycopheno-late mofetil (MMF)-related gastrointestinal complications and MMF dose alterations on transplant outcomes and healthcare costs in renal transplant recipients. Clin Transplant 2005; 19: 779.
13. Meier-Kriesche HU, KaplanB.Waiting timeon dialysisas the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes: A paired donor kidney analysis. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1377.
14. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation of incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457.
15. D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2265.
16. Lunceford J, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: A comparative study. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2937.
17. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York, Wiley 1989.
18. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics 1985; 41: 103.
19. Cox D. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J Royal Stat Soc B 1972; 34: 187.
20. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied survival analysis. New York, Wiley, 1999.
21. Cooper M, Deering KL, Slakey DP, et al. Comparing outcomes associated with dose manipulations of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium versus mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2009; 88: 514.
22. Takemoto SK, Arns W, Bunnapradist S, et al. Expanding the evidence base in transplantation: The complementary roles of randomized controlled trials and outcomes research. Transplantation 2008; 86: 18.
23. Gilmore AS, Helderman JH, Ricci JF, et al. Linking the US transplant registry toadministrative claims data: Expanding the potential oftrans-plant research. Med Care 2007; 45: 529.
24. Stirnemann PM, Takemoto SK, Schnitzler MA, et al. Agreement of immunosuppression regimens describedin Medicare pharmacy claims with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network survey. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17: 2299.
25. Sollinger H, Leverson G, Voss B, et al. Myfortic vs. CellCept: A large, single-center comparison [abstract 1263]. Presented at the American Transplant Congress, Toronto, Canada, 2008.