ArticleIndian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion2016
Cyclosporine Plus Methotrexate or Cyclosporine Plus Mycophenolate Mofetil as Graft Versus Host Disease Prophylaxis in Acute Leukemia Transplant: Comparison of Toxicity, Engraftment Kinetics and Transplant Outcome.
Article in Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to compare two graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen, cyclosporine and methotrexate (CsA+MTX) with CsA+mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in 77 acute leukemia patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) between January 2008 and March 2013. Fifty-three patients received CsA+MTX while 24 received CsA+MMF. The incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis and grade 3-4 diarrhea was 74 and 6 % with CsA+MTX compared to 33 % and 21 % with CsA+MMF (P = 0.001 and 0.09 respectively). Forty-two (79 %) patients in CsA+MTX group required total parenteral nutrition compared to 14 (58 %) in CsA+MMF group (P = 0.09). The incidence of engraftment fever was 17 % with CsA+MTX and 41 % with CsA+MMF (P = 0.02). The median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 14 days and 13 days with CsA+MTX compared to 12 days and 10 days with CsA+MMF (P = 0.003 and 0.08 respectively). The incidence of any grade and grade II-IV acute GVHD was 45 and 13 % with CsA+MTX compared to 42 and 29 % with CsA+MMF (P = NS). Incidence of overall and extensive chronic GVHD was 57 and 38 % with CsA+MTX compared to 42 and 17 % with CsA+MMF (P = NS). Incidence of relapse was 38 % with CsA+MTX compared to 33 % with CsA+MMF (P = NS). TRM was 6 % with CsA+MTX and 21 % with CsA+MMF (P = NS). At 2 years, overall survival (OS) was 64 % in CsA+MTX group compared to 46 % in CsA+MMF group (P = NS). We conclude that CsA+MMF is associated with lesser toxicity, faster myeloid engraftment and similar rates of acute and chronic GVHD, TRM, relapse and OS compared to CsA+MTX in acute leukemia transplant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.