ArticleBlood advances2026
Azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for pediatric autoimmune cytopenia: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in Blood advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractData on the immunosuppressants azathioprine (AZA) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in autoimmune cytopenia (AIC) are limited, and no direct comparison exists. We analyzed the failure-free survival (FFS; time from AZA/MMF initiation to another non-first-line treatment, or death) of both treatments in the prospective nationwide pediatric OBS'CEREVANCE cohort. We included 343 patients (chronic immune thrombocytopenia, n = 161; autoimmune hemolytic anemia, n = 74; Evans syndrome, n = 108). They received AZA (n = 276) or MMF (n = 104; 37 sequentially received both) as monotherapy for a median duration of 11.3 (range, 0.01-149.0) months. Older age was associated with higher FFS for AZA, whereas secondary AIC was associated with higher FFS for MMF. AIC type had no effect. In a propensity score (PS)-matched cohort, AZA and MMF showed similar FFS (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.52; P = .71), with 1-year FFS rates of 73% and 76%, respectively. In subgroup analyses, AZA was associated with higher FFS in PS-matched patients diagnosed at an age of ≥10 years, whereas MMF was associated with higher FFS in PS-matched patients diagnosed at an age of <10 years and in those with confirmed secondary AIC (although with suboptimal matching). Rates of grade ≥3 infection were similar between the 2 drugs, at ∼2% new cases per year. In summary, AZA and MMF demonstrated comparable overall FFS and infection risk. However, our data suggest that AZA may be more beneficial in children diagnosed at an age of ≥10 years, whereas MMF may be more beneficial in those diagnosed at an age of <10 years and possibly in patients with secondary AIC.
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.