Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 216

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Three‐Year Efficacy and Safety Results from a Study of Everolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in de novo Renal Transplant Patients

Open access
Vítko, Štefan, Margreiter, Raimund, Weimar, Willem, Dantal, Jacques, Kuypers, Dirk, Winkler, Michael, Øyen, Ole, Viljoen, Hendrik G., Filiptsev, Pavel, Sadek, Sami, Li, Yulan, Cretin, Nathalie, Budde, Klemens·2005·American Journal of Transplantation

Abstract

Everolimus 1.5 or 3 mg/day was compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 2 g/day in a randomized, multicenter 36-month trial in de novo renal allograft recipients (n = 588) receiving cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA) and corticosteroids. The study was double-blind until all patients had completed 12 months, then open-label. By 36 months, graft loss occurred in 7.2, 16.7 and 10.7% of patients in the everolimus 1.5, 3 mg/day, and MMF groups, respectively (p = 0.0048 for everolimus 1.5 mg/day vs. 3 mg/day); efficacy failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death or lost to follow-up) occurred in 33.0, 38.9 and 37.2% of patients (p = 0.455 overall), respectively. Mortality and incidence of BPAR were comparable in all groups. Creatinine values were higher in everolimus groups, requiring a protocol amendment that recommended lower CsA exposure. Diarrhea, lymphocele, peripheral edema and hyperlipidemia were more common among everolimus-treated patients, whereas viral infections, particularly cytomegalovirus infection, increased in the MMF group. Overall safety and tolerability were better with MMF and everolimus 1.5 mg/day than with everolimus 3 mg/day. In conclusion, at 36 months, an immunosuppressive regimen containing everolimus 1.5 mg/day had equivalent patient, and graft survival and rejection rates compared with MMF in de novo renal transplant recipients, whereas everolimus 3 mg/day had inferior graft survival. Renal dysfunction in everolimus cohorts necessitates close monitoring.

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 · 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01063.x

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.

Citations

Cited by

See all 216

Metadata

Authors
Vítko, Š., Margreiter, R., Weimar, W., Dantal, J., Kuypers, D., Winkler, M., Øyen, O., Viljoen, H. G., Filiptsev, P., Sadek, S., Li, Y., Cretin, N., & Budde, K.
Venue
American Journal of Transplantation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
5
Issue
10
Pages
2521-2530
ISSN
1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031313581
Cited by
216
References
0
FWCI
7.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Three‐Year Efficacy and Safety Results from a Study of Everolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in de novo Renal Transplant Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01063.x
The paper
Vítko, Š., Margreiter, R., Weimar, W., Dantal, J., Kuypers, D., Winkler, M., Øyen, O., Viljoen, H. G., Filiptsev, P., Sadek, S., Li, Y., Cretin, N., & Budde, K. (2005). Three‐Year Efficacy and Safety Results from a Study of Everolimus Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in de novo Renal Transplant Patients. American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01063.x

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.