1 netic profile than the standard formulation (Sandimmune).

2  SRL, as well as steroids and full-dose CsA (Sandimmune).

3 ompare the safety and efficacy of Neoral and Sandimmune.

4 ceiving SRL (1 or 3 mg/m2/day) and full-dose Sandimmune CsA (P=0.018).

5 ety and tolerability of CsA-NL compared with Sandimmune CsA-(SM) in the study population.

6 Americans, treated with SRL and reduced-dose Sandimmune CsA.

7  maintenance renal allograft recipients from Sandimmune (cyclosporin A [CsA]) to Neoral (CsA-microemu

8  group (n=18) who received conventional CsA (Sandimmune formulation) and AZA-based immunosuppression.

9 ; Neoral) versus the corn oil-based (CsA-GC; Sandimmune) gel capsule formulations of cyclosporin A (C

10            Many studies comparing Neoral and Sandimmune have been conducted, and although most state

11 t loss was similar when comparing Neoral and Sandimmune in all analyses.

12 rence in adverse events comparing Neoral and Sandimmune (P=NS).

13  of the olive oil-based formulations of CsA (Sandimmune(R)) that achieved target concentrations based

14 at beneficial effects of Cyclosporin A (CsA; Sandimmune; Sandoz, Basel, Switzerland) in treating kera

15  of cyclosporine (Neoral) in comparison with Sandimmune (SIM) in the treatment of patients who underw

16 erting stable liver transplant patients from Sandimmune to Neoral, we conducted a prospective trial i

17 re were significantly more adverse events in Sandimmune-treated de novo liver transplants than Neoral

18  more adverse events in blinded studies, and Sandimmune use was associated with more adverse events i

19                                   Neoral and Sandimmune were compared in all patients and in the foll

20 Publications comparing the use of Neoral and Sandimmune were reviewed for demographic variables, adve