ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Comparison of mid-term clinical outcome in heart transplantation patients using mycophenolate mofetil vs. enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Tacrolimus- and Mycophenolate-Mediated Toxicity: Clinical Considerations and Options in Management of Post-Transplant Patients.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is a prodrug of mycophenolic acid (MPA) and a key immunosuppressant for improving graft survival in patients with heart transplantation (HTx). However, dose reduction or interruption is occasionally needed due to gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) is an alternative form of MPA delivery to improve GI tolerability. In the present study, the efficacy of EC-MPS compared with MMF in HTx patients was investigated. Methods: In this retrospective study, the Korean Organ Transplant Registry (KOTRY) data were used to analyze the efficacy and rejection rate of MMF and EC-MPS. A total of 611 patients was enrolled from 2014 to February of 2021. Patients were divided based on the use of MMF or EC-MPS at 6 months post-HTx. Patients who were not prescribed MMF or EC-MPS were excluded. Graft survival, all-cause mortality, and treated rejection were compared between the two groups. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS; characteristics were compared using Pearson chi-square test and survival rate with Kaplan-Meier plot and log-rank test. Results: A total of 510 HTx patients was analyzed (mean age: 51.74 ± 13.16 years, males: 68.2%). At 6 months after HTx, 78 patients were taking EC-MPA (12.8%) and 432 patients were taking MMF (70.7%). The median follow-up was 42.0 months (IQR: 21.7-61.0 months). Post-HTx outcomes including overall survival, all cause mortality, acute cell mediated rejection (ACR), acute antibody mediated rejection (AMR), treated rejection, and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) were comparable between the two groups during follow-up. Conclusion: Notable differences were not observed in overall survival, all cause mortality, ACR, AMR, treated rejection, and CAV between MMF and EC-MPS groups. Efficacy of EC-MPS was similar to that of MMF in HTx patients during mid-term follow up after HTx.
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.