ライフサイエンスコーパス: MMF

1 MMF (10 mM) was also delivered intravitreally to mouse e

2 MMF did not induce apoptosis, oxidative stress, loss of

3 MMF dose was significantly reduced in the CSWD group by

4 MMF had a stronger effect on activated PB T cells than o

5 MMF induced system xc(-), Nrf2, and hypoxia-inducible fa

6 MMF introduction may be associated with improvement or s

7 MMF is likely to be noninferior to cyclophosphamide for

8 MMF may have superior efficacy to intravenous cyclophosp

9 MMF reduced proteinuria (albumin to creatinine ratio) fr

10 MMF stimulates multiple pathways in retinal cells that p

11 MMF treatment also reduced renal fibrosis in SHR-A3 (3.9

12 MMF was detectable at both sides of the biculture and wa

13 MMF was introduced because of renal function decline in

14 enced a rejection episode: MMF/pred (27.0%), MMF/CsA (6.8%) and MMF/CsA/pred (1.4%) (P<0.001).

15 ter 235 patients (of 372) were enrolled: 116 MMF, 119 placebo.

16 ed ninety-six patients (EC-MPS group: n=199; MMF group: n=197) were included.

17 t 2 years was higher in the MMF group (30.2% MMF vs. 21.9% EC-MPS, P=0.0004).

18 s similar (everolimus 1.5 mg 10.6% [30/282], MMF 9.2% [25/271]).

19 infections were as follows: etanercept 48%, MMF 44%, denileukin 62%, and pentostatin 57%.

20 of 1 cyclophosphamide-treated patient and 9 MMF-treated patients.

21 The mathematical model incorporating a MMF-inhibited positive feedback loop between H1N1-specif

22 In addition, MMF was shown to be superior to azathioprine in decreasi

23 es formula) regression line before and after MMF initiation was +2.01 mL/min per year (P<0.001) on av

24 Hg/y, P=0.014), which was not observed after MMF withdrawal.

25 Rejection rates were higher among MMF+CsA recipients in both EBV groups.

26 pisode: MMF/pred (27.0%), MMF/CsA (6.8%) and MMF/CsA/pred (1.4%) (P<0.001).

27 ediately posttransplant plus basiliximab and MMF (without maintenance corticosteroids) was associated

28 ontext of an established ATG, anti-CD154 and MMF-based immunosuppressive regimen prolonged GTKO.hCD46

29 s on triple regimen with steroids, a CNI and MMF were randomized into either the concentration-contro

30 more efficient than cyclosporine A (CsA) and MMF, but recent studies have challenged this assumption.

31 potent immunosuppression with RATG, FK, and MMF for nonsensitized primary kidney or kidney/pancreas

32 tion rates, graft survival and function, and MMF doses in a large cohort of patients.

33 RAPA >/=0.5 mg/Kg, FK506 >/=0.5 mg/Kg, and MMF >/=120 mg/kg had detrimental effects on islet engraf

34 Long-term target TAC trough level and MMF dosing were 5 to 7 ng/mL and 1,000 mg b.i.d. in grou

35 cidence of 52.8% and 48.9% in the EC-MPS and MMF cohorts, respectively (NS).

36 triple CNI-based regimen with prednisone and MMF that evaluated late concentration-controlled withdra

37 mmunosuppression, combined with steroids and MMF.

38 atory state), group B received lower TAC and MMF dosing and corticosteroid avoidance.

39 Understanding TAC and MMF exposure in the context of corticosteroid-sparing pr

40 ed dosing and greater withholding of TAC and MMF occurring in that group.

41 plantation to a CS-free regimen with Tac and MMF starting at 3 g/d and dose adjusted from day 5 accor

42 ived similar exposure to both tacrolimus and MMF at 1 and 2 years.

43 e exact impact of exposure to tacrolimus and MMF is not well understood.

44 liximab induction followed by tacrolimus and MMF maintenance or to alemtuzumab induction followed by

45 ograft using a combination of tacrolimus and MMF with mild diarrhea and in 12 controls.

46 rrhea while on treatment with tacrolimus and MMF.

47 rrhea while on treatment with tacrolimus and MMF.

48 influenced the glomerular filtration rate at MMF initiation (slow progressive deterioration) but not

49 Graft survival between MMF and EC-MPS patients was not different during the stu

50 ailed NRF2-dependent mechanisms modulated by MMF that lead to cytoprotection are unknown.

51 cell activation and seems to be modulated by MMF.

52 days (P = 0.003) in the presence of anti-CD3/MMF/FK-506 treatment for liver-Tx and BM-Tx, respectivel

53 38% with CNI-MTX and 27% versus 20% with CNI-MMF GVHD prophylaxis.

54 ansplant, ITT analysis, SRL/MMF, n = 34; CNI/MMF, n = 26) was 63.2 +/- 28.5 mL/min/1.73 m in the SRL/

55 at 12 months compared with those kept on CNI/MMF.

56 in the SRL/MMF arm and 12 (19.4%) in the CNI/MMF arm.

57 p and 59.2 +/- 27.2 mL/min/1.73 m in the CNI/MMF group and was not statistically significant, but the

58 n in the SRL/MMF group compared with the CNI/MMF group.

59 in the SRL/MMF group and 6 (9.7%) in the CNI/MMF group.

60 we conducted a retrospective study comparing MMF and EC-MPS in all consecutive kidney transplants (n=

61 ical tests were performed in 100 consecutive MMF patients (age [mean +/- SD], 45.9 +/- 12 y; 74% wome

62 zed as intention-to-treat (TAC-MMF n=30; CsA-MMF n=30).

63 TAC-MMF and 90.0%, 83.3%, and 80.0% for CsA-MMF (P=ns).

64 s was in TAC-MMF 64.0% and 45.8%, and in CsA-MMF 36.0% (log-rank 3.0, P=0.085) and 8.0% (log-rank 9.0

65 s significantly higher in TAC-MMF versus CsA-MMF (65.5% vs. 21.7%, log-rank 8.3, P=0.004).

66 ansplant, she is maintained on cyclosporine, MMF and prednisone with no PRES recurrence.

67 ft survival was best in the group with 3 g/d MMF and worst in the group with 2 g/d MMF.

68 3 g/d MMF and worst in the group with 2 g/d MMF.

69 aintained up to 6 months, Tac and fixed-dose MMF (2 g/d) (arm B).

70 SSc patients whose MRSS will improve during MMF treatment, suggesting that gene expression in skin m

71 ng CsA therapy and in 64% of patients during MMF therapy (P=0.06).

72 7 DZB(-)MMF(-) EBV reactivators, the 9 DZB(+)MMF(+) reactivators tended to have more prolonged viremi

73 mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) including DZB(+)MMF(+), DZB(-)MMF(+), DZB(+)MMF(-), and DZB(-)MMF(-).

74 including DZB(+)MMF(+), DZB(-)MMF(+), DZB(+)MMF(-), and DZB(-)MMF(-).

75 subject developed herpes zoster and 1 DZB(-)MMF(+) subject had Bell's palsy possibly related to VZV.

76 baseline VZV-seropositive subjects, 1 DZB(-)MMF(-) subject developed herpes zoster and 1 DZB(-)MMF(+

77 Compared with 7 DZB(-)MMF(-) EBV reactivators, the 9 DZB(+)MMF(+) reactivators

78 MF(+), DZB(-)MMF(+), DZB(+)MMF(-), and DZB(-)MMF(-).

79 mofetil (MMF) including DZB(+)MMF(+), DZB(-)MMF(+), DZB(+)MMF(-), and DZB(-)MMF(-).

80 reactivations, including 1 symptomatic DZB(-)MMF(+) subject.

81 randomized to receive prednisone with either MMF or placebo.

82 23 patients experienced a rejection episode: MMF/pred (27.0%), MMF/CsA (6.8%) and MMF/CsA/pred (1.4%)

83 North American Mississippi Migratory Flyway (MMF) over three autumn migratory seasons.

84 induced P53 nuclear translocation following MMF administration, leading to cell-cycle inhibition and

85 for mTORi+TAC, 0.45 (95% CI: 0.28-0.72) for MMF+CsA, and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.39-1.80) for mTORi+CsA user

86 zed for MMF/pred, 76 for MMF/CsA, and 73 for MMF/CsA/pred.

87 atients were randomized for MMF/pred, 76 for MMF/CsA, and 73 for MMF/CsA/pred.

88 for mTORi+TAC, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.65-0.99) for MMF+CsA, and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.57-1.42) for mTORi+CsA, ver

89 A better understanding of risk factors for MMF intolerance might help in planning alternate strateg

90 Our data identify a mechanism for MMF-mediated cytoprotection in human astrocytes that fun

91 splantation, 63 patients were randomized for MMF/pred, 76 for MMF/CsA, and 73 for MMF/CsA/pred.

92 neumoniae and mycoplasma membrane fractions (MMF) with high affinity.

93 Conversion from MMF to EC-MPS may be associated with improvements in pre

94 d quality of life in patients converted from MMF to EC-MPS versus patients who continued with MMF-bas

95 redominantly exposed to monomethyl fumarate (MMF), the bioactive metabolite of DMF, which can stabili

96 renal allograft recipients (n=2217) who had MMF introduced 6 months to more than 20 years posttransp

97 On the other hand, MMF alone or in association with FK506 significantly pro

98 nfection, especially in patients with higher MMF exposure and elevated tacrolimus trough levels at M3

99 dose reductions was significantly higher in MMF-treated patients (hazard ratio=1.703, P<0.0001).

100 ucose hypometabolism that was most marked in MMF patients with FSC dysfunction.

101 ucose hypometabolism that was most marked in MMF patients with FSC dysfunction.

102 Glomerular injury scores were reduced in MMF-treated SHR-A3 from 1.6 to 1.4 (P<0.002).

103 Tubulo-interstitial injury was reduced in MMF-treated SHR-A3 from 2.62 to 2.0 (P=0.001).

104 il (MMF) and combination therapies including MMF, at serum trough levels and higher, are toxic for th

105 to convert from CNI (calcineurin inhibitor)/MMF to sirolimus (SRL)/MMF had a significantly greater i

106 This study provides mechanistic insight into MMF-mediated cytoprotection via NRF2, OSGIN1, and P53 in

107 ggest a protective role for SP-A in limiting MMF-stimulated mucin production that occurs through inte

108 ient and donor characteristics, longitudinal MMF doses, and graft loss in 525 kidney transplantation

109 ly maintained on Tac, mycophenalate mofetil (MMF) and prednisone.

110 osuppression included mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (2 g/day), tacrolimus (target trough 4-8 ng/mL), si

111 dose cyclosporine, or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 3 g/day with standard-dose cyclosporine (plus corti

112 Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and combination therapies including MMF, at serum t

113 lactic drugs, such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and cyclosporine A (CsA), are often used together a

114 osporine A (CsA) with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and steroids after heart transplantation (HTX) are

115 ) in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and those maintained on a regimen of Tac and SRL wi

116 odium (EC-MPS) versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and to examine the impact of dose manipulations on

117 tacrolimus (Tac) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) are considered more efficient than cyclosporine A (

118 nd B-cell markers and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dosage.

119 rawal, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for 1 month followed by randomization to switch to

120 re increasingly using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (

121 and dose-intensified mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) further adjusted individually.

122 (CNI) withdrawal with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has not become routine practice, due to concerns ab

123 Rapamycin and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) have been used for maintenance immunosuppression wi

124 long-term effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in renal transplantation, its introduction at diffe

125 e dose adjustments of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in this setting.

126 daclizumab (DZB) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) including DZB(+)MMF(+), DZB(-)MMF(+), DZB(+)MMF(-),

127 rse effects caused by mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) inhibition may be genetically determined, and if so

128 The use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is associated with less acute rejection than azathi

129 The prodrug ester mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is frequently used in solid-organ and stem cell tra

130 odium (EC-MPS) versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) maintenance immunosuppression at the time of discha

131 osttransplantation to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or Everolimus combined with cyclosporine A (CsA) an

132 igned to test whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus corticosteroids was superior to corticosteroid

133 Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) side effects often prompt dose reduction or discont

134 n with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) therapy in renal transplantation, we analyzed the p

135 that conversion from mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) sig

136 S) improvement during mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) treatment.

137 ffects of late CNI or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) withdrawal on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

138 ffects of late CNI or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) withdrawal on echocardiographic parameters.

139 ith tacrolimus (TAC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and corticosteroids.

140 sirolimus, tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and cyclosporine/sirolimus.

141 of tacrolimus (TAC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisone with BKN in renal allograft recipie

142 nation of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and steroids.

143 nitially treated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclosporine A (CsA), and prednisone (pred).

144 early CW (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), daclizumab, and corticosteroids until day 4) with

145 ion of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

146 were comparable with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

147 methotrexate (MTX) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

148 the immunosuppressant mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

149 h corticosteroids and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

150 inhibitor as follows: mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)/mycophenolate sodium+tacrolimus (TAC), MMF+cyclospo

151 6, 0.1 mg/kg per day)/mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, 60 mg/kg per day), and anti-CD3 (50 mug/day) either

152 0.1-0.5-1 mg/kg ip), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; 60-120-300 mg/kg oral) or vehicle for 14 days.

153 1-year treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; target plasma mycophenolic acid trough level of 1.5

154 and antipsoriatic agent monomethylfumarate (MMF) on the expression and functional activity of the cy

155 re randomized to an equimolar dose of EC-MPS+MMF placebo or continue on their MMF-based regimen+EC-MP

156 es in patients with macrophagic myofascitis (MMF) and the relationship with cognitive dysfunction thr

157 01), CSA versus FK (OR 1.69, P<0.001) and no MMF versus MMF (OR 1.39, P<0.001) were also associated w

158 r prophylaxis (24%) were randomized to a non-MMF arm.

159 The addition of MMF to corticosteroids as initial therapy for acute GVHD

160 he past 10 years have led to the adoption of MMF for the treatment of lupus nephritis and nonrenal lu

161 rn could represent a diagnostic biomarker of MMF in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and cognit

162 ence or absence of varying concentrations of MMF (0-5000 muM) for 0 to 24 hours.

163 High doses of MMF (>/= 2 g/d) led to lower seroconversion rates, small

164 ys were then used to evaluate the effects of MMF on endogenous antioxidant machinery.

165 ELISA, and quantitative PCR, the effects of MMF, CsA, and the combination of both drugs were studied

166 ovariance, all (18)F-FDG PET brain images of MMF patients were compared with those of a reference pop

167 However, the long-term impact of MMF versus AZA is less well studied.

168 unction before and after the introduction of MMF were analyzed.

169 receptor (EGFR) was evident in the lungs of MMF-challenged mice when SP-A was absent.

170 Thus, pharmacodynamic monitoring of MMF is a strategy that could potentially improve patient

171 and the utility of therapeutic monitoring of MMF levels.

172 e of immunosuppression or in the presence of MMF/FK-506 combination.

173 fully understand the best dosing regimen of MMF for induction versus maintenance treatment, total du

174 ould receive personalized dosing regimens of MMF, which would maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity

175 The efficacy and safety of MMF in patients with severe renal impairment requires fu

176 understanding of the efficacy and safety of MMF in the treatment of SLE.

177 found little evidence for the superiority of MMF over AZA.

178 blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of MMF versus AZA, together with cyclosporine and steroids,

179 hen the SRL group was split further based on MMF inclusion.

180 ersion rates were especially low in those on MMF of 2 g or greater daily (44.4% vs 71.4%; P = 0.047).

181 Interestingly, only MMF could preserve the activated CB regulatory T-cell po

182 ective trial receiving Rapamycin (n = 84) or MMF (n = 86).

183 nitoring may be advantageous when the CNI or MMF is withdrawn.

184 oncentration-controlled withdrawal of CNI or MMF on renal function.

185 o either the concentration-controlled CNI or MMF withdrawal groups.

186 ansplant IS consisted of prednisone, CNI, or MMF, all in low doses.

187 plant patients who received either EC-MPS or MMF at time of discharge in the United Network for Organ

188 transplant recipients initiated on EC-MPS or MMF through 3-months posttransplant between the years of

189 enes (FDR<10%) changed between pre- and post-MMF treatment biopsies for patients showing MRSS improve

190 received EC-MPS (n=5057) and 89.6% received MMF (n=43,401).

191 All patients received MMF plus a bolus of corticosteroid (no maintenance stero

192 t benefit was noted in patients who received MMF because of renal function decline and in whom calcin

193 Patients who received MMF for prophylaxis (24%) were randomized to a non-MMF a

194 splant recipients with GI symptoms receiving MMF plus a calcineurin inhibitor +/- corticosteroids wer

195 MRSS improved in four of seven MMF-treated patients classified as the inflammatory intr

196 conversion from tacrolimus-MMF to sirolimus-MMF at 1 month posttransplant in kidney recipients on ra

197 owed by randomization to switch to sirolimus-MMF or to stay on tacrolimus-MMF.

198 o stay on tacrolimus-MMF and 62 to sirolimus-MMF.

199 e A (CSA), and mycophenolate mofetil/sodium (MMF).

200 eurin inhibitors (CNI), mycofenolate sodium (MMF), and prednisone (controls).

201 alcineurin inhibitor)/MMF to sirolimus (SRL)/MMF had a significantly greater improvement in measured

202 s (8 years posttransplant, ITT analysis, SRL/MMF, n = 34; CNI/MMF, n = 26) was 63.2 +/- 28.5 mL/min/1

203 ve been lost including 10 (15.2%) in the SRL/MMF arm and 12 (19.4%) in the CNI/MMF arm.

204 ) was 63.2 +/- 28.5 mL/min/1.73 m in the SRL/MMF group and 59.2 +/- 27.2 mL/min/1.73 m in the CNI/MMF

205 patients died, including 5 (7.6%) in the SRL/MMF group and 6 (9.7%) in the CNI/MMF group.

206 improved long-term renal function in the SRL/MMF group compared with the CNI/MMF group.

207 (MMF)/mycophenolate sodium+tacrolimus (TAC), MMF+cyclosporine A (CsA); mammalian target of rapamycin

208 10 years was 96.7%, 80.0%, and 66.7% for TAC-MMF and 90.0%, 83.3%, and 80.0% for CsA-MMF (P=ns).

209 ISHLT>/=CAV1 after 5 and 10 years was in TAC-MMF 64.0% and 45.8%, and in CsA-MMF 36.0% (log-rank 3.0,

210 jection (AR) was significantly higher in TAC-MMF versus CsA-MMF (65.5% vs. 21.7%, log-rank 8.3, P=0.0

211 Superior freedom from AR and CAV in the TAC-MMF group did not result in better long-term survival.

212 000 were analyzed as intention-to-treat (TAC-MMF n=30; CsA-MMF n=30).

213 tion was low and similar (Tac/Bas, 2.1%; Tac/MMF, 2.2%; triple therapy, 2.2%); Most rejection episode

214 tions did not differ between CsA/Aza and Tac/MMF arms.

215 allowed a low acute rejection rate, but Tac/MMF seemed as a better regimen regarding severe secondar

216 ], 139 tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil [Tac/MMF], and 139 tacrolimus/MMF/steroids [triple therapy]).

217 in the CsA/Aza group (14.4%) than in the Tac/MMF group (5.6%; P=0.013).

218 za group and 53+/-1 mL/min/1.73 m in the Tac/MMF group (P=0.007).

219 ng border line, and a higher eGFR in the Tac/MMF group.

220 comparing CsA/azathioprine (Aza) versus Tac/MMF in 289 kidney transplant recipients treated with ant

221 with CsA/Aza (14.4%) vs. 11 (7.7%) with Tac/MMF (P=0.07).

222 induction and were maintained on tacrolimus, MMF, and prednisone.

223 orticosteroids until day 4) with tacrolimus, MMF, and corticosteroid continuation (CC).

224 We conclude that conversion from tacrolimus-MMF to sirolimus-MMF at 1 month posttransplant in kidney

225 tients were randomized to stay on tacrolimus-MMF and 62 to sirolimus-MMF.

226 ch to sirolimus-MMF or to stay on tacrolimus-MMF.

227 nolate mofetil [Tac/MMF], and 139 tacrolimus/MMF/steroids [triple therapy]).

228 ed with basiliximab induction and tacrolimus/MMF maintenance at 1 year.

229 FR was consistently higher in the tacrolimus/MMF arm, especially after controlling for donor age in a

230 6%) than among those treated with tacrolimus/MMF (12%) or cyclosporine/sirolimus (4%).

231 ss often among those treated with tacrolimus/MMF (12%) than among those treated with tacrolimus/sirol

232 est that maintenance therapy with tacrolimus/MMF is more favorable than either tacrolimus/sirolimus o

233 was better tolerated and more effective than MMF.

234 nce results, a European trial concluded that MMF and azathioprine were equivalent in the ability to p

235 agement Study (ALMS) firmly established that MMF is equivalent to intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide

236 nd characteristics, it was hypothesized that MMF and CsA might have different effects on CB and PB T

237 These results indicate that MMF is inferior to CsA in preventing relapses in pediatr

238 n, recent randomized trial data suggest that MMF is at least as good as intravenous cyclophosphamide

239 Early results suggest that MMF is equivalent to azathioprine for remission maintena

240 Our findings suggest that MMF is present in the airways of lung transplant patient

241 f the induction phase of ALMS suggested that MMF also improved nonrenal manifestations of SLE.

242 The MMF/FK506 combination proved the best balance with less

243 t detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse event

244 acute rejection at 2 years was higher in the MMF group (30.2% MMF vs. 21.9% EC-MPS, P=0.0004).

245 sk of drug discontinuation was higher in the MMF group (hazard ratio=1.507, P=0.0002).

246 1/43 in the Everolimus group and 8/54 in the MMF group (p = 0.041).

247 At 6 months, one patient in the MMF-withdrawal group (1.3%) and three in the CNI-withdra

248 Conversely, in the MMF-withdrawal group, the left atrial volume index (an i

249 e modestly more cardiovascular events in the MMF/SRL group.

250 By 5 years, 42% of the MMF group had switched permanently to AZA, whereas cross

251 This study shows that within the MMF, AIV gene flow favors spread along the migratory cor

252 e of EC-MPS+MMF placebo or continue on their MMF-based regimen+EC-MPS placebo.

253 dose reduction or discontinuation, and this MMF dose reduction (MDR) can lead to rejection and possi

254 nently to AZA, whereas crossover from AZA to MMF was rare.

255 s in SP-A2 (Gln223Lys) affect the binding to MMF.

256 Compared to MMF, rates of freedom from first biopsy-proven acute kid

257 dose cyclosporine offers similar efficacy to MMF with standard-dose cyclosporine and reduces intimal

258 ady after 24 hours, TEER of cells exposed to MMF decreases and permeability increases.

259 Everolimus 1.5 mg was inferior to MMF for renal function but comparable in patients achiev

260 Everolimus 1.5 mg was noninferior to MMF for this endpoint at month 12 (35.1% vs. 33.6%; diff

261 Pharmacologic inhibition of EGFR prior to MMF challenge dramatically reduced mucin production in S

262 s, we show that enhanced mucin production to MMF occurs in the absence of SP-A and is not dependent u

263 ere randomized to AZA, 44 were randomized to MMF 2 g/d, and 44 were randomized to MMF 3 g/d.

264 ized to MMF 2 g/d, and 44 were randomized to MMF 3 g/d.

265 se of the study, patients were randomized to MMF-withdrawal (target area under the time-concentration

266 that SP-A(-/-) mice are more susceptible to MMF exposure and have significant increases in mucin pro

267 Time from transplantation to MMF introduction influenced the glomerular filtration ra

268 90 (95% CI: 0.57-1.42) for mTORi+CsA, versus MMF+TAC users.

269 Scale indigestion syndrome dimension versus MMF patients.

270 ere only increased in mTORi+TAC group versus MMF+TAC.

271 h 3 was higher with everolimus 1.5 mg versus MMF in patients receiving rabbit antithymocyte globulin

272 more frequent with everolimus 1.5 mg versus MMF.

273 rsus FK (OR 1.69, P<0.001) and no MMF versus MMF (OR 1.39, P<0.001) were also associated with increas

274 nificant greater proportion of EC-MPS versus MMF patients reached the primary efficacy outcome.

275 5% CI: 0.39-1.80) for mTORi+CsA users versus MMF+TAC.

276 isk of PTLD, death, and graft failure, while MMF+CsA use was associated with a trend to increased ris

277 ations were 19.7% with EC-MPS and 25.3% with MMF (NS).

278 have demonstrated that dose alterations with MMF are associated with poorer graft outcomes.

279 There was no association with MMF dose tolerated at 1 year.

280 production in the lungs when challenged with MMF compared with SP-A(-/-) mice.

281 The use of DZB alone or in combination with MMF was not associated with increased morbidity due to h

282 d the primary efficacy outcome compared with MMF patients (55%); however, the difference was not stat

283 ar risk for graft failure when compared with MMF+TAC.

284 tions and outcomes with EC-MPS compared with MMF, we conducted a retrospective study comparing MMF an

285 cations and dose manipulations compared with MMF.

286 decreased blood pressure in comparison with MMF withdrawal but had no specific impact on carotid int

287 to EC-MPS versus patients who continued with MMF-based treatment.

288 everolimus 1.5 mg versus 0.07 (0.11) mm with MMF (p < 0.001).

289 h TAC level and prednisone dose and not with MMF dose.

290 relapses per patient per year occurred with MMF than with CsA during the first year (P=0.03), but no

291 jects, the whole population of patients with MMF exhibited a spatial pattern of cerebral glucose hypo

292 jects, the whole population of patients with MMF exhibited a spatial pattern of cerebral glucose hypo

293 The combination of rituximab with MMF and corticosteroids did not result in any new or une

294 moglobin levels increased significantly with MMF compared with CsA.

295 n when compared with regimens using Tac with MMF.

296 was significantly longer with CsA than with MMF during the first year (P<0.05), but not during the s

297 s can be safely reduced to dual therapy with MMF or CNIs, applying concentration-controlled dosing.

298 odynamic monitoring of patients treated with MMF.

299 f rejection were associated with withholding MMF (vs. Rapamycin, p = 0.009), generally for gastrointe

300 on a regimen of Tac and SRL with or without MMF.