Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A BLINDED, LONG-TERM, RANDOMIZED MULTICENTER STUDY OF MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL IN CADAVERIC RENAL TRANSPLANTATION: Results at Three Years1,2

Mathew, Timothy H.·1998·Transplantation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Three large-scale clinical trials conducted in North America, Europe, and Australia showed that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) decreases the incidence of acute renal allograft rejection in the first 6 months after transplant compared with placebo or azathioprine. This study extends the randomized, prospective, double-blind trial of MMF conducted by the Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. METHODS: Patients (n=503) were randomized to receive 100-150 mg of azathioprine (AZA) (n=166), 2 g of MMF (n=173), or 3 g of MMF (n=164) per day, in conjunction with cyclosporine and prednisone from the time of transplantation. RESULTS: During the first 6 months, the incidence of biopsy-proven acute graft rejection (BPR) was reduced by approximately 50% in the MMF 2 g (19.7%) and MMF 3 g (15.9%) groups compared with the AZA group (35.5%). The incidence of treatment failure during the first 6 months, including BPR, death, graft loss, and early withdrawal without prior BPR, was significantly decreased: AZA, 50%, compared with MMF 2 g, 38.2% (P=0.0287), and MMF 3 g, 34.8% (P=0.0045). At 3 years after transplant, both intent-to-treat and on-study (censoring at 90 days after treatment) analyses of graft and patient survival showed a trend toward advantage for MMF 2 g and 3 g vs. AZA (intent-to-treat: 81.9% and 84.8% vs. 80.2%; on-study: 84.0% and 86.4% vs. 82.7%), although this trend did not reach statistical significance. Rejection was the principal cause of graft loss in all groups: AZA, 9.9%; MMF 2 g, 5.8%; and MMF 3 g, 3.0%. Graft function (intent-to-treat and on-study) was comparable in all three groups at 3 years. Gastrointestinal toxicity, leukopenia, and tissue-invasive cytomegalovirus disease were more common in the MMF 3 g group both during and after the first posttransplant year. Lymphoproliferative disorders were diagnosed in one AZA (0.6%), two MMF 2 g (1.2%), and three MMF 3 g (1.8%) patients. Other (non-lymphoproliferative disorders, noncutaneous) malignancies occurred in six AZA (3.7%), four MMF 2 g (2.3%), and nine MMF 3 g (5.5%) patients. Mortality was comparable in all three groups (AZA, 8.6%; MMF 2 g, 4.7%; MMF 3 g, 9.1%) by 3 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: MMF significantly reduced the incidence of rejection in the first 6 months, but there was not a significant improvement in graft survival throughout the 3 years after cadaver kidney transplantation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007890-199806150-00007

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
Mathew, T. H.
Venue
Transplantation
Published
1998-06
Volume
65
Issue
11
Pages
1450-1454
ISSN
0041-1337 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021142445
Cited by
391
References
0
FWCI
31.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A BLINDED, LONG-TERM, RANDOMIZED MULTICENTER STUDY OF MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL IN CADAVERIC RENAL TRANSPLANTATION: Results at Three Years1,2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007890-199806150-00007
The paper
Mathew, T. H. (1998). A BLINDED, LONG-TERM, RANDOMIZED MULTICENTER STUDY OF MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL IN CADAVERIC RENAL TRANSPLANTATION: Results at Three Years1,2. Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-199806150-00007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.