Everolimus and Reduced-Exposure Cyclosporine in de novo Renal-Transplant Recipients: A Three-Year Phase II, Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Everolimus and cyclosporine (CsA) exhibit synergistic immunosuppressive activity when used in combination. We explored the use of everolimus with a CsA-sparing strategy in de novo renal-transplant recipients. METHODS: A phase II, randomized, open-label 3-year study was performed in 111 patients to compare the efficacy and tolerability of everolimus (3 mg/day) in combination with basiliximab, steroids, and either full-dose Neoral (FDN) or reduced-dose Neoral (RDN) (CsA trough levels 125-250 ng/mL and 50-100 ng/mL, respectively). Efficacy failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection, death, graft loss, or loss to follow-up), safety, and renal function were evaluated at 6, 12, and 36 months. A protocol amendment allowed further reduction of CsA exposure after 12 months. RESULTS: Efficacy failure was significantly higher in FDN than in the RDN group at 6 (15.1% vs. 3.4%; P=0.046), 12 (28.3% vs. 8.6%; P=0.012), and 36 (35.8% vs. 17.2%; P=0.032) months. Mean creatinine clearance was higher in the RDN group at 6 (59.7 mL/min vs. 51.1 mL/min; P=0.009), 12 (60.9 mL/min vs. 53.5 mL/min; P=0.007), and 36 (56.6 mL/min vs. 51.7 mL/min; P=0.436) months. Discontinuations and serious adverse events were more frequent in the FDN group. Reduction of CsA exposure for 6 months during the amendment improved renal function in the FDN group. CONCLUSIONS: In de novo renal-transplant recipients, the regimen of everolimus plus RDN was well tolerated, with low efficacy failure and better renal function in comparison with everolimus plus FDN.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".