MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2049840779 · doi:10.1097/00007890-200205151-00003

Patient management by Neoral C2 monitoring: An international consensus statement1

2002· review· en· W2049840779 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransplantation · 2002
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Établissements canadiensToronto General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTransplantationTherapeutic drug monitoringCiclosporinIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePharmacokineticsUrology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Consensus on Neoral C2: Expert Review in Transplantation (CONCERT) attendees achieved consensus on the following points, based on currently available data from independent clinical studies using Neoral (cyclosporine microemulsion): 1. Scientific validation of Neoral C2 monitoring 1.1 An understanding of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics is critical for designing a monitoring strategy that maximizes clinical outcome following organ transplantation 1.2 Neoral absorption during the first 4 hours postdose (AUC0–4) represents the period of greatest variability among patients. Adequate CsA absorption during this period is important for effective rejection prophylaxis in the early posttransplant phase 1.3 C0 does not correlate well with AUC0–4 in patients receiving Neoral 1.4 C2 is the best single time-point predictor of AUC0–4 in all types of Neoral-treated transplant patient populations that have been studied (adult renal, liver, heart and lung patients, and pediatric renal and liver transplant recipients) 1.5 Additional CsA concentration sampling beyond the C2 time point, such as C6, may be required in low absorbers of CsA 2. Clinical data in de novo adult renal transplant patients 2.1 C0 monitoring in patients receiving Neoral distinguishes poorly between those who will experience acute rejection and those who will remain rejection-free 2.2 Existing data indicate that higher C2 levels are highly correlated with a lower risk of acute rejection during the early posttransplant period in patients receiving Neoral. Data on outcomes beyond 1 year are awaited 2.3 The association between C2 and risk of acute rejection is maintained in Neoral-treated patients who receive an antibody induction agent or concomitant mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) therapy 2.4 Achieving an adequate C2 level early after transplantation is associated with reduced risk of acute rejection in adult renal transplant recipients 2.5 Adjustment of Neoral dose based on C2 monitoring does not appear to result in impaired early renal function in the short-term, if slow absorbers are identified and managed appropriately. Long-term data are pending 3. Clinical data in de novo adult liver transplant patients 3.1 Patient management with Neoral C2 monitoring reduces the incidence and severity of acute rejection compared to C0 monitoring 3.2 Renal function is not compromised by C2 monitoring in adult liver transplant patients receiving Neoral 4. Clinical outcomes in maintenance renal and liver transplant patients 4.1 Patient management with Neoral C2 monitoring can improve renal function in maintenance patients by identifying patients who are receiving excessive CsA 4.2 Using C2 monitoring in maintenance patients can also reduce the incidence and severity of hypertension by identifying patients who are receiving excessive CsA 4.3 Current data suggest that there is an association between C2 level and risk of chronic allograft nephropathy, in adult renal transplant patients receiving Neoral 5. C2 targets for adult renal transplant patients 5.1 Guideline C2 targets have been proposed for the first month posttransplant in adult renal transplant patients receiving Neoral, with subsequent step-wise reductions in C2 target over time 5.2 Long-term target C2 levels for prevention of chronic allograft nephropathy remain to be confirmed 6. C2 targets for adult liver transplant patients 6.1 Guideline C2 targets have been proposed for adult liver transplant recipients receiving Neoral 7. C2 targets for other transplant patient types 7.1 C2 target levels have not yet been established for cardiothoracic organ recipients, living-related liver transplant recipients, kidney-pancreas transplant patients, or pediatric transplant patients receiving Neoral 8. Accuracy of C2 sampling 8.1 There is a 15-minute “window of opportunity” before and after the 2-hour time point during which the C2 sample can be taken in order to remain within a 10% margin of error 8.2 In most instances, C2 targets do not require adjustment for different immunoassay types currently available 9. Pharmacoeconomics 9.1 Neoral C2 monitoring is at least cost neutral compared to C0 monitoring and may generate cost savings in adult renal transplant patients 10. Conclusions of the CONCERT conference 10.1 C2 monitoring is the optimal method to monitor Neoral in adult de novo renal and liver transplant patients (2) 10.2 Preliminary data indicate that Neoral C2 monitoring may have clinical benefits in maintenance adult renal and liver transplant recipients who are receiving excessive CsA and in whom the Neoral dose is reduced 10.3 Maintenance patients who are experiencing suspected CsA-related toxicity may benefit from use of Neoral C2 monitoring to detect CsA overexposure 10.4 Further data sre required from prospective, randomized multicenter trials to evaluate the possible long-term clinical benefits of adopting Neoral C2 monitoring in de novo and maintenance transplant patients, both in terms of rejection prophylaxis and overall safety profile

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,975
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,378
Écart entre enseignants0,305 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle