Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 1319

1.

A randomized, prospective, pharmacoeconomic trial of neoral 2-hour postdose concentration monitoring versus tacrolimus trough concentration monitoring in de novo liver transplant recipients.

Shenoy S, Hardinger KL, Crippin J, Korenblat K, Lisker-Melman M, Lowell JA, Chapman W.

Liver Transpl. 2008 Feb;14(2):173-80. doi: 10.1002/lt.21355.

2.

12-month follow-up analysis of a multicenter, randomized, prospective trial in de novo liver transplant recipients (LIS2T) comparing cyclosporine microemulsion (C2 monitoring) and tacrolimus.

Levy G, Grazi GL, Sanjuan F, Wu Y, Mühlbacher F, Samuel D, Friman S, Jones R, Cantisani G, Villamil F, Cillo U, Clavien PA, Klintmalm G, Otto G, Pollard S, McCormick PA.

Liver Transpl. 2006 Oct;12(10):1464-72.

3.

Results of lis2t, a multicenter, randomized study comparing cyclosporine microemulsion with C2 monitoring and tacrolimus with C0 monitoring in de novo liver transplantation.

Levy G, Villamil F, Samuel D, Sanjuan F, Grazi GL, Wu Y, Marotta P, Boillot O, Muehlbacher F, Klintmalm G; LIS2T Study Group..

Transplantation. 2004 Jun 15;77(11):1632-8.

PMID:
15201658
4.

Improved clinical outcomes for liver transplant recipients using cyclosporine monitoring based on 2-hr post-dose levels (C2).

Levy G, Burra P, Cavallari A, Duvoux C, Lake J, Mayer AD, Mies S, Pollard SG, Varo E, Villamil F, Johnston A.

Transplantation. 2002 Mar 27;73(6):953-9.

PMID:
11923699
5.

An economic model of 2-hour post-dose ciclosporin monitoring in renal transplantation.

Keown PA, Kiberd B, Balshaw R, Khorasheh S, Marra C, Belitsky P, Kalo Z.

Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(10):621-32.

PMID:
15244488
6.

Comparison of cyclosporine microemulsion and tacrolimus in 39 recipients of living donor liver transplantation.

Tanaka K, Lake J, Villamil F, Levy G, Marotta P, Mies S, de Hemptinne B, Moench C.

Liver Transpl. 2005 Nov;11(11):1395-402.

7.

Cyclosporine minimization and cost reduction in renal transplant recipients receiving a C2-monitored, cyclosporine-based quadruple immunosuppressive regimen.

Hardinger KL, Schnitzler MA, Koch MJ, Enkvetchakul D, Desai N, Jendrisak M, Lowell JA, Miller B, Shenoy S, Brennan DC.

Transplantation. 2004 Oct 27;78(8):1198-203.

PMID:
15502720
8.

A randomized, prospective, pharmacoeconomic trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in combination with thymoglobulin in renal transplant recipients.

Hardinger KL, Bohl DL, Schnitzler MA, Lockwood M, Storch GA, Brennan DC.

Transplantation. 2005 Jul 15;80(1):41-6.

PMID:
16003231
9.

Randomized, trough blood cyclosporine concentration-controlled trial to compare the pharmacodynamics of Sandimmune and Neoral in de novo lung transplant recipients.

Trull A, Steel L, Sharples L, Stewart S, Parameshwar J, McNeil K, Wallwork J.

Ther Drug Monit. 1999 Feb;21(1):17-26.

PMID:
10051050
10.

Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus and glucose metabolism in patients receiving cyclosporine microemulsion versus tacrolimus after de novo kidney transplantation.

Vincenti F, Tuncer M, Castagneto M, Klinger M, Friman S, Scheuermann EH, Wiecek A, Russ GR, Martinek A, Nonnast-Daniel B; DIRECT Study Group..

Transplant Proc. 2005 Mar;37(2):1001-4.

PMID:
15848604
11.

Clinical outcomes during the first three months posttransplant in renal allograft recipients managed by C2 monitoring of cyclosporine microemulsion.

Thervet E, Pfeffer P, Scolari MP, Toselli L, Pallardó LM, Chadban S, Pilmore H, Connolly J, Buchler M, Schena FP, Carreño CA, Dandavino R, Cole E.

Transplantation. 2003 Sep 27;76(6):903-8.

PMID:
14508352
12.

Peak cyclosporine levels (Cmax) correlate with freedom from liver graft rejection: results of a prospective, randomized comparison of neoral and sandimmune for liver transplantation (NOF-8).

Grant D, Kneteman N, Tchervenkov J, Roy A, Murphy G, Tan A, Hendricks L, Guilbault N, Levy G.

Transplantation. 1999 Apr 27;67(8):1133-7.

PMID:
10232563
13.

A pilot study of immunosuppressive monotherapy in liver transplantation: tacrolimus versus microemulsified cyclosporin.

Rolles K, Davidson BR, Burroughs AK.

Transplantation. 1999 Oct 27;68(8):1195-8.

PMID:
10551650
14.

A prospective randomized trial comparing the efficacy of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in black recipients of primary cadaveric renal transplants.

Raofi V, Holman DM, Coady N, Vazquez E, Dunn TB, Bartholomew AM, Pollak R, Benedetti E.

Am J Surg. 1999 Apr;177(4):299-302.

PMID:
10326847
15.

Evolution of the absorption profile of cyclosporine A in renal transplant recipients: a longitudinal study of the de novo and maintenance phases.

Büchler M, Chadban S, Cole E, Midtvedt K, Thervet E, Prestele H, Keown P.

Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006 Jan;21(1):197-202.

16.
17.

[A comparative randomized prospective multicenter study of Sandimmune vs Neoral in liver transplantation].

Roy A, Grant DR, Kneteman NM, Tchervenkov JI, Levy GA, Tan A, Hendricks L.

Ann Chir. 1998;52(8):716-21. French.

PMID:
9846420
18.

Increased incidence of early de novo cancer in liver graft recipients treated with cyclosporine: an association with C2 monitoring and recipient age.

Tjon AS, Sint Nicolaas J, Kwekkeboom J, de Man RA, Kazemier G, Tilanus HW, Hansen BE, van der Laan LJ, Tha-In T, Metselaar HJ.

Liver Transpl. 2010 Jul;16(7):837-46. doi: 10.1002/lt.22064.

19.
20.

Two-hour cyclosporine concentration determination: an appropriate tool to monitor neoral therapy?

Oellerich M, Armstrong VW.

Ther Drug Monit. 2002 Feb;24(1):40-6. Review.

PMID:
11805721
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Support Center