Apparent low absorbers of cyclosporine microemulsion have higher requirements for tacrolimus in renal transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioavailability and exposure of cyclosporine microemulsion and tacrolimus in renal transplantation are governed by many complex factors. Failure to achieve therapeutic two-h post-dose (C(2)) levels despite adequate doses of cyclosporine ("low absorbers") may merit conversion to tacrolimus. We compared tacrolimus dose requirements in "low absorbers" (n = 15) with a random control group of de novo tacrolimus patients (n = 14). Low absorbers failed to reach target C(2) despite increasing dose from 10.1 to 16.2 mg/kg/d. At conversion the mean C(2) was 969 ng/mL (95% CI: 684-1255; target 1700 ng/mL). Low absorbers tended to be younger, heavier, and diabetic. Despite a similar initial tacrolimus dose (0.17-0.18 mg/kg/d), low absorbers required a much higher daily dose to achieve target; 0.25 vs. 0.16 mg/kg/d (p = 0.016). Furthermore, daily maintenance tacrolimus remained much higher in low absorbers at three wk (0.22 vs. 0.13 mg/kg/d, p = 0.012). Although not statistically significant, this group experienced an acute rejection rate of 33%, compared with 21% in the control group. Patients treated with cyclosporine as initial immunosuppression who fail to reach target C(2) levels in a timely fashion are at risk for impaired bioavailability of tacrolimus. Based on our data, a starting dose of 0.25 mg/kg/d in divided doses may be warranted for low absorbers converting to tacrolimus; however, we encourage larger studies with formal pharmacokinetic analysis in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".