| Title |
Comparison of the long-term efficacy and safety of generic tacrolimus, Tacrobell, with Prograf in liver transplant recipients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s149906 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ho Joong Choi, Dong Goo Kim, Bong Jun Kwak, Jae Hyun Han, Tae Ho Hong, Young Kyoung You |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of generic tacrolimus (Tacrobell [TCB]) and a reference tacrolimus (Prograf [PGF]) in liver transplant recipients. We retrospectively analyzed 167 patients who used TCB or PGF between January 2009 and March 2016 for >1 year (TCB group, n=86; PGF group, n=81). To assess the efficacy and safety of TCB, we evaluated the relationship between drug dose and trough level, survival, rejection, infection, kidney function, and side effects. There was no difference in the preoperative demographics between the two groups. Moreover, there was no difference in the drug dose and trough level between the groups at 1 week after surgery. Coefficient of variation (CV) values were obtained at the drug trough level for each patient and no differences in CV values were identified within 1 year (p=0.587) and up to 5 years (p=0.824) in both groups. Rehospitalization (p=0.1) and total rejection (p=0.915) did not differ between the two groups, but the rejection severity, recorded as the rejection activity index value, was worse in the PGF group (p=0.039). No difference was found in the infection rate (p=0.818), and with regard to nephrotoxicity, there was no difference in the rate of patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3 and above during the follow-up period. No differences were found between the two groups in terms of drug side effects and adverse events. The generic tacrolimus, TCB, is a comparable alternative to the original tacrolimus, PGF, as a main immunosuppressive drug for liver transplantation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 23% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,436
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,060
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#32
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.