ArticleRespiratory medicine2025
Outcomes in lung transplant recipients on azathioprine compared to mycophenolate.
Article in Respiratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- European society for organ transplantation clinical practice guideline on prevention and treatment of chronic lung allograft dysfunction.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Guideline
- Updates, Management, and Future of Diagnosing and Managing Chronic Lung Allograft Dysfunction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introA three-drug immunosuppression regimen to prevent graft loss is the cornerstone of therapy following lung transplantation. Direct comparisons between maintenance regimens including mycophenolate (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) are limited in the lung transplant population.
methodsWe completed a retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years of age) lung transplant recipients at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) from January 1, 2009 through July 1, 2022 and compared outcomes in patients on AZA vs MMF. Our primary outcome was clinically significant acute cellular rejection. Secondary outcomes included graft loss, drug interruption, chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), and infection. Analyses were performed with Multivariable Cox Regression with transplant era and induction immunosuppression agent as covariables.
results224 patients were included, 88 on AZA and 136 on MMF. The risk of clinically significant rejection was greater in the AZA group compared to the MMF group (HR, 1.76; 95 % CI 1.12-2.79; P = 0.02). Medication interruption was also higher in the AZA (HR, 1.47; 95 % CI 1.04-2.08; P = 0.026). Rates of CLAD, graft loss, and infection were similar between the groups.
conclusionIn this cohort, MMF was associated with lower risk of clinically significant acute cellular rejection and drug interruption when compared to AZA. Similar rates of CLAD, graft loss, and infection were observed.
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.