Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A randomized double-blind comparative study of mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids in primary liver transplant recipients.

Acute hepatic allograft rejection occurs in approximately 50% to 60% of the patients undergoing liver transplantation. In this study, we compared the rate of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients randomized in a double-blind comparative study to treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine (AZA), both in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Five hundred sixty-five primary liver transplant recipients were randomly assigned to treatment with MMF, 1 g twice daily intravenously followed by 1.5 g twice daily orally (n = 278), or AZA, 1.0 to 2.0 mg/kg/d intravenously followed by oral administration (n = 287), in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year, and efficacy analysis was based on intent-to-treat methods. Acute rejection was defined according to the Banff histological criteria. The two study groups were balanced for demographic and clinical baseline characteristics. The incidence of acute rejection or graft loss was 47.7% in the AZA patients and 38.5% in the MMF patients (P <.03). The incidence of biopsy-proven and treated rejection censoring for graft loss was 40.0% in the AZA group versus 31.0% in the MMF group (P <.06). Steroid-resistant rejection requiring treatment with either OKT3 or antithymocyte globulin occurred in 8.2% of AZA patients versus 3.8% in MMF patients (P <.02). Patient and graft survival rates at 1 year posttransplantation were 85.4% in the AZA group and 85.3% in the MMF group (P = not significant). MMF was superior to AZA in preventing acute rejection in the first 6 months posttransplantation. MMF and AZA were equivalent in preventing graft loss at 1 year, and the safety profiles between the two immunosuppressive agents were similar.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app