The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Everolimus versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in the Prevention of Rejection in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: A 3-Year Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This 36-month, randomized, parallel-group study compared safety and efficacy of two doses of everolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in de novo renal-transplant recipients. METHODS: Renal-allograft recipients received 1.5 mg/day or 3 mg/day of everolimus or 2 g/day of MMF, plus full-dose cyclosporine (CsA) and corticosteroids after randomization. For at least their first year, patients received study medication according to a double-blinded, double-dummy design. Concerns over nephrotoxicity led to a protocol amendment to an open-label design with reduced CsA troughs. RESULTS: Incidences of primary efficacy failure at 36 months (biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or loss to follow-up) were everolimus 1.5 mg/day, 33.7% (65/193); everolimus 3 mg/day, 34.0% (66/194); and MMF, 31.1% (61/196) (P=0.810). Antibody-treated acute rejection at 36 months was significantly lower with everolimus 1.5 mg (9.8%) than MMF (18.4%, P=0.014). Discontinuation for adverse events was more frequent with everolimus and hemolytic uremic syndrome, lymphoproliferative disease, and proteinuria, and higher serum creatinine occurred at increased frequency relative to the MMF arm. Creatinine levels in the everolimus arms were stable in follow-up: the mean rise in creatinine over the first 6 months of the open-label phase was 3 micromol/L or greater with everolimus and 7 micromol/L with MMF. However, serum creatinine levels were lower in the MMF group throughout. Death and graft loss were higher in the everolimus arms (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: As part of triple-drug immunosuppression, everolimus (1.5 or 3 mg/day) was as efficacious as MMF, although the side-effect profile featured increased adverse events. Nephrotoxicity/calcineurin-inhibitor-related adverse events will require judicious lowering of CsA exposure with monitoring of everolimus troughs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Vigneri, P., Frasca, F., Sciacca, L., Pandini, G., & Vigneri, R. (2009) · Endocrine Related Cancer · doi:10.1677/erc-09-0087 · Cited by 1,009
Yee, K. W. L., Zeng, Z., Konopleva, M., Verstovsek, S., Ravandi, F., Ferrajoli, A., Thomas, D., Wierda, W., Apostolidou, E., Albitar, M., et al. (2006) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0764 · Cited by 285
Silva Jr., H. T., Cibrik, D., Johnston, T., Lackova, E., Mange, K., Panis, C., Walker, R., Wang, Z., Zibari, G., & Kim, Y. S. (2010) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03129.x · Cited by 269
Adverse events associated with mTOR inhibitors
Pallet, N., & Legendre, C. (2013) · Expert Opinion on Drug Safety · doi:10.1517/14740338.2013.752814 · Cited by 198
Metadata
- Authors
- Lorber, M. I., Mulgaonkar, S., Butt, K. M. H., Elkhammas, E., Mendez, R., Rajagopalan, P. R., Kahan, B., Sollinger, H., Li, Y., Cretin, N., & Tedesco, H.
- Venue
- Transplantation
- Published
- 2005-07-27
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 244-252
- ISSN
- 0041-1337 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2062156645
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.01
- 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: Everolimus versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in the Prevention of Rejection in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: A 3-Year Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.tp.0000164352.65613.24
- The paper
- Lorber, M. I., Mulgaonkar, S., Butt, K. M. H., Elkhammas, E., Mendez, R., Rajagopalan, P. R., Kahan, B., Sollinger, H., Li, Y., Cretin, N., & Tedesco, H. (2005). Everolimus versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in the Prevention of Rejection in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients: A 3-Year Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study. Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.tp.0000164352.65613.24
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.