| Everolimus 1.5 mg (n= 61) | MMF 2 g (n= 61) | Comparison of everolimus vs. MMF |
---|---|---|---|
Efficacy endpoints | Â | Â | Â |
Primary composite endpoint (at 12 months)a | 7 (11.5) | 7 (11.5) | Difference in rates 0.0% (9.5%), (−9.49, 9.49) P = 0.012d |
Treated BPAR | 3 (4.9) | 5 (8.2) | Â |
Graft loss | 0 | 0 | Â |
Death | 0 | 0 | Â |
Loss to follow-upb | 4 (6.6) | 2 (3.3) | Â |
Secondary efficacy endpoints | Â | Â | Â |
Patients with treated BPAR by Banff grade | Â | Â | Â |
 IA | 2 (3.3) | 2 (3.3) |  |
 IB | 0 | 1 (1.6) |  |
 IIA | 1 (1.6) | 2 (3.3) |  |
Graft loss or death (month 12) | 0 | 0 | Â |
Graft loss, death or loss to follow-upc (month 12) | 5 (8.2) | 3 (4.9) | 3.3% (10.6%), P = 0.015d |