Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Clinical Transplantation |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | , , , , , , |
| In: | Clinical Transplantation, 28, 2014, 7, S. 783-788 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
Wiley
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Lopez‐Solis, Roberto DeVera, Michael Steel, Jennifer Fedorek, Sheila Sturdevant, Mark Hughes, Christopher Humar, Abhinav Lopez‐Solis, Roberto DeVera, Michael Steel, Jennifer Fedorek, Sheila Sturdevant, Mark Hughes, Christopher Humar, Abhinav |
|---|---|
| author |
Lopez‐Solis, Roberto DeVera, Michael Steel, Jennifer Fedorek, Sheila Sturdevant, Mark Hughes, Christopher Humar, Abhinav |
| spellingShingle |
Lopez‐Solis, Roberto DeVera, Michael Steel, Jennifer Fedorek, Sheila Sturdevant, Mark Hughes, Christopher Humar, Abhinav Clinical Transplantation Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil Transplantation |
| author_sort |
lopez‐solis, roberto |
| spelling |
Lopez‐Solis, Roberto DeVera, Michael Steel, Jennifer Fedorek, Sheila Sturdevant, Mark Hughes, Christopher Humar, Abhinav 0902-0063 1399-0012 Wiley Transplantation http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ctr.12379 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the setting of liver transplantation, mycophenolate mofetil (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>) may be used as an adjuvant therapy for immunosuppression to prevent graft rejection; however, its use may be limited due to severe gastrointestinal (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content>) side effects. In contrast, enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content>) may be associated with less severe side effects and hence better tolerability. We compared the side effects of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> to <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content> in liver transplant patients in a <jats:italic>de novo</jats:italic> study (Study I—randomized, prospective, double‐blinded) and a conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>). In both studies, the severity of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms was assessed at various time points using the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content>) survey, a validated survey of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms (abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, and constipation). In Study I, the symptoms of 30 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> (n = 15) were compared to 15 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>. A multivariate analysis of variance (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MANOVA</jats:styled-content>) of the total <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content> scores and symptom syndrome subscores revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the two medications over time. A conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>) with 29 participants, however, showed that over time, all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms improved significantly (p < 0.001) when the patients were treated with <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> instead of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>.</jats:p> Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil Clinical Transplantation |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1111/ctr.12379 |
| facet_avail |
Online |
| finc_class_facet |
Medizin |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTExMS9jdHIuMTIzNzk |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTExMS9jdHIuMTIzNzk |
| institution |
DE-Brt1 DE-D161 DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 DE-15 DE-Pl11 DE-Rs1 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 DE-D275 DE-Bn3 |
| imprint |
Wiley, 2014 |
| imprint_str_mv |
Wiley, 2014 |
| issn |
0902-0063 1399-0012 |
| issn_str_mv |
0902-0063 1399-0012 |
| language |
English |
| mega_collection |
Wiley (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
lopezsolis2014gastrointestinalsideeffectsinlivertransplantrecipientstakingentericcoatedmycophenolatesodiumvsmycophenolatemofetil |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| publisher |
Wiley |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Clinical Transplantation |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_unstemmed |
Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_full |
Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_fullStr |
Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_short |
Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_sort |
gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| topic |
Transplantation |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ctr.12379 |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| physical |
783-788 |
| description |
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the setting of liver transplantation, mycophenolate mofetil (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>) may be used as an adjuvant therapy for immunosuppression to prevent graft rejection; however, its use may be limited due to severe gastrointestinal (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content>) side effects. In contrast, enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content>) may be associated with less severe side effects and hence better tolerability. We compared the side effects of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> to <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content> in liver transplant patients in a <jats:italic>de novo</jats:italic> study (Study I—randomized, prospective, double‐blinded) and a conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>). In both studies, the severity of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms was assessed at various time points using the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content>) survey, a validated survey of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms (abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, and constipation). In Study I, the symptoms of 30 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> (n = 15) were compared to 15 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>. A multivariate analysis of variance (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MANOVA</jats:styled-content>) of the total <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content> scores and symptom syndrome subscores revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the two medications over time. A conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>) with 29 participants, however, showed that over time, all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms improved significantly (p < 0.001) when the patients were treated with <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> instead of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>.</jats:p> |
| container_issue |
7 |
| container_start_page |
783 |
| container_title |
Clinical Transplantation |
| container_volume |
28 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792335216619028491 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T14:40:49.364Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Gastrointestinal+side+effects+in+liver+transplant+recipients+taking+enteric%E2%80%90coated+mycophenolate+sodium+vs.+mycophenolate+mofetil&rft.date=2014-07-01&genre=article&issn=1399-0012&volume=28&issue=7&spage=783&epage=788&pages=783-788&jtitle=Clinical+Transplantation&atitle=Gastrointestinal+side+effects+in+liver+transplant+recipients+taking+enteric%E2%80%90coated+mycophenolate+sodium+vs.+mycophenolate+mofetil&aulast=Humar&aufirst=Abhinav&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1111%2Fctr.12379&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792335216619028491 |
| author | Lopez‐Solis, Roberto, DeVera, Michael, Steel, Jennifer, Fedorek, Sheila, Sturdevant, Mark, Hughes, Christopher, Humar, Abhinav |
| author_facet | Lopez‐Solis, Roberto, DeVera, Michael, Steel, Jennifer, Fedorek, Sheila, Sturdevant, Mark, Hughes, Christopher, Humar, Abhinav, Lopez‐Solis, Roberto, DeVera, Michael, Steel, Jennifer, Fedorek, Sheila, Sturdevant, Mark, Hughes, Christopher, Humar, Abhinav |
| author_sort | lopez‐solis, roberto |
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 783 |
| container_title | Clinical Transplantation |
| container_volume | 28 |
| description | <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the setting of liver transplantation, mycophenolate mofetil (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>) may be used as an adjuvant therapy for immunosuppression to prevent graft rejection; however, its use may be limited due to severe gastrointestinal (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content>) side effects. In contrast, enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content>) may be associated with less severe side effects and hence better tolerability. We compared the side effects of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> to <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content> in liver transplant patients in a <jats:italic>de novo</jats:italic> study (Study I—randomized, prospective, double‐blinded) and a conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>). In both studies, the severity of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms was assessed at various time points using the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content>) survey, a validated survey of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms (abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, and constipation). In Study I, the symptoms of 30 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> (n = 15) were compared to 15 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>. A multivariate analysis of variance (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MANOVA</jats:styled-content>) of the total <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content> scores and symptom syndrome subscores revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the two medications over time. A conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>) with 29 participants, however, showed that over time, all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms improved significantly (p < 0.001) when the patients were treated with <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> instead of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>.</jats:p> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ctr.12379 |
| facet_avail | Online |
| finc_class_facet | Medizin |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTExMS9jdHIuMTIzNzk |
| imprint | Wiley, 2014 |
| imprint_str_mv | Wiley, 2014 |
| institution | DE-Brt1, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275, DE-Bn3 |
| issn | 0902-0063, 1399-0012 |
| issn_str_mv | 0902-0063, 1399-0012 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T14:40:49.364Z |
| match_str | lopezsolis2014gastrointestinalsideeffectsinlivertransplantrecipientstakingentericcoatedmycophenolatesodiumvsmycophenolatemofetil |
| mega_collection | Wiley (CrossRef) |
| physical | 783-788 |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Clinical Transplantation |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Lopez‐Solis, Roberto DeVera, Michael Steel, Jennifer Fedorek, Sheila Sturdevant, Mark Hughes, Christopher Humar, Abhinav 0902-0063 1399-0012 Wiley Transplantation http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ctr.12379 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the setting of liver transplantation, mycophenolate mofetil (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>) may be used as an adjuvant therapy for immunosuppression to prevent graft rejection; however, its use may be limited due to severe gastrointestinal (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content>) side effects. In contrast, enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content>) may be associated with less severe side effects and hence better tolerability. We compared the side effects of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> to <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content> in liver transplant patients in a <jats:italic>de novo</jats:italic> study (Study I—randomized, prospective, double‐blinded) and a conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>). In both studies, the severity of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms was assessed at various time points using the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content>) survey, a validated survey of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms (abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, and constipation). In Study I, the symptoms of 30 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> (n = 15) were compared to 15 recipients receiving <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>. A multivariate analysis of variance (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MANOVA</jats:styled-content>) of the total <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GSRS</jats:styled-content> scores and symptom syndrome subscores revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the two medications over time. A conversion study (Study <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content>) with 29 participants, however, showed that over time, all <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">GI</jats:styled-content> symptoms improved significantly (p < 0.001) when the patients were treated with <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EC</jats:styled-content>‐<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MPS</jats:styled-content> instead of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MMF</jats:styled-content>.</jats:p> Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil Clinical Transplantation |
| spellingShingle | Lopez‐Solis, Roberto, DeVera, Michael, Steel, Jennifer, Fedorek, Sheila, Sturdevant, Mark, Hughes, Christopher, Humar, Abhinav, Clinical Transplantation, Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil, Transplantation |
| title | Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_full | Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_fullStr | Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_full_unstemmed | Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_short | Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_sort | gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| title_unstemmed | Gastrointestinal side effects in liver transplant recipients taking enteric‐coated mycophenolate sodium vs. mycophenolate mofetil |
| topic | Transplantation |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ctr.12379 |