Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schnitzler, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Brennan, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schnitzler, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Brennan, D. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2003) 18: 1197-1200
© 2003 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Mycophenolate mofetil is associated with less death with function than azathioprine in cadaveric renal transplantation

Mark A. Schnitzler1,2,, Karen E. Craig6, Karen E. Hardinger5, Jeffrey A. Lowell1,3 and Daniel C. Brennan1,4

1 Pharmaco-economic Transplant Research, 2 The Health Administration Program, 3 Department of Surgery and 4 Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, 5 The Saint Louis College of Pharmacy, St Louis, MI and 6 Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR, USA

Background. A previous study has argued that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is associated with a reduced incidence of death with function when compared to azathioprine (AZA) in cadaveric renal transplantation. This study was designed to verify this result because methodological issues bring these findings into question.

Methods. The data used in this study was derived from records of renal transplants performed in 1995 and 1996 as recorded in the UNOS Scientific Renal Transplant Registry and supplied by the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Univariate and multivariate survival analysis was used to compare rates of death with function. Covariate characteristics of the donor, recipient, procedures, early outcomes and the transplant centre were considered.

Results. 12 251 recipients of cadaveric renal transplants were identified as having received either MMF or AZA, but not both. The relative risk of death with function calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method was 21% less for MMF patients (P=0.005). MMF had from 21% (P=0.008) to 24% (P=0.001) reductions in relative risk by multivariate methods.

Conclusions. The use of MMF is associated with a reduction in the incidence of death with a functioning graft in cadaveric renal transplantation. These results verify previous analyses.

Keywords: azathioprine; cadaveric renal transplantation; death with function; immunosuppression; mycophenolate mofetil

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Mark A. Schnitzler, PhD, The Health Administration Program, Washington University School of Medicine, 4547 Clayton Avenue, St Louis, MI 63110, USA. Email: schnitz{at}wueconc.wustl.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
LupusHome page
D Jayne
Current management of lupus nephritis: popular misconceptions
Lupus, March 1, 2007; 16(3): 217 - 220.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
LupusHome page
A Sinclair and R Baildon
Mycophenolate mofetil: an overview
Lupus, November 1, 2006; 15(11_suppl): 70 - 77.
[PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
K. C. Abbott, J. R. Bucci, C. S. Matsumoto, S. J. Swanson, L. Y.C. Agodoa, K. C. Holtzmuller, D. F. Cruess, and T. G. Peters
Hepatitis C and Renal Transplantation in the Era of Modern Immunosuppression
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., November 1, 2003; 14(11): 2908 - 2918.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.