CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Transplantation: Methods and OutcomesRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsOrgan and Tissue Transplantation Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tacrolimus and cyclosporine have differential effects on the risk of development of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome: Results of a prospective, randomized international trial in lung transplantation

Treede, Hendrik, Glanville, Allan R., Klepetko, Walter, Aboyoun, Christina, Vettorazzi, Eik, Lama, Raffael, Bravo, Carlos, Knoop, Christiane, Aubert, John-David, Reichenspurner, Hermann·2012·The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
DOI 10.1016/j.healun.2012.03.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Chronic lung allograft dysfunction, which manifests as bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), is recognized as the primary cause of morbidity and mortality after lung transplantation. In this study we assessed the efficacy and safety of two de novo immunosuppression protocols to prevent BOS. Methods Our study approach was a multicenter, prospective, randomized (1:1) open-label superiority investigation of de novo tacrolimus vs cyclosporine, with both study arms given mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone after lung transplantation. Cytolytic induction therapy was not employed. Patients were stratified at entry for cystic fibrosis. Primary outcome was incidence of BOS 3 years after transplant (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary outcomes were survival and incidence of acute rejection, infection and other adverse events. Results Group demographic data were well matched: 110 of 124 tacrolimus vs 74 of 125 cyclosporine patients were treated per protocol (p < 0.01 by chi-square test). Cumulative incidence of BOS Grade ≥1 at 3 years was 11.6% (tacrolimus) vs 21.3% (cyclosporine) (cumulative incidence curves, p = 0.037 by Gray's test, pooled over strata). Univariate proportional sub-distribution hazards regression confirmed cyclosporine as a risk for BOS (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.77, p = 0.039). Three-year cumulative incidence of acute rejection was 67.4% (tacrolimus) vs 74.9% (cyclosporine) (p = 0.118 by Gray's test). One- and 3-year survival rates were 84.6% and 78.7% (tacrolimus) vs 88.6% and 82.8% (cyclosporine) (p = 0.382 by log-rank test). Cumulative infection rates were similar (p = 0.91), but there was a trend toward new-onset renal failure with tacrolimus (p = 0.09). Conclusions Compared with cyclosporine, de novo tacrolimus use was found to be associated with a significantly reduced risk for BOS Grade ≥1 at 3 years despite a similar rate of acute rejection. However, no survival advantage was detected.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.healun.2012.03.008

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. McCurry, 2002, Long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in human lung transplantation, Am J Transplant, 2, 159

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–130 of 130

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Treede, H., Glanville, A. R., Klepetko, W., Aboyoun, C., Vettorazzi, E., Lama, R., Bravo, C., Knoop, C., Aubert, J.-D., & Reichenspurner, H.
Affiliations
Universität Hamburg (DE)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
797-804
ISSN
1053-2498 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.healun.2012.03.008
OpenAlex
W2165001333
Cited by
130
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Organ and Tissue Transplantation Research
Keywords
bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, lung transplantation, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, de novo immunosuppression, mycophenolate mofetil, prednisolone, chronic lung allograft dysfunction, acute rejection, graft survival, cystic fibrosis, infection risk
MeSH terms
Adult, Bronchiolitis Obliterans, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Graft Rejection, Humans, Immunosuppressive Agents, International Cooperation, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Syndrome, Incidence, Survival Rate, Lung Transplantation, Tacrolimus, Cyclosporine, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review