Phase I Trial of Rosiglitazone in FSGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with primary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) who are resistant to standard therapy are at high risk for progressive chronic kidney disease. Prevention of renal fibrosis represents a promising strategy to slow or halt kidney function decline. This paper presents the results of a Phase I clinical trial of rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, that exerts antifibrotic effects in animal models of FSGS. The primary goal was assessment of safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of rosiglitazone. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Eleven patients, including eight boys/men and three girls/women, with mean age 15 +/- 6 yr and estimated GFR 131 +/- 62 ml/min/1.73 m(2), received rosiglitazone, 3 mg/m(2)/d for 16 wk. PK was assessed twice, after the initial dose and after attaining steady state, in a General Clinical Research Center. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events or cardiovascular complications. Rosiglitazone was well tolerated by all patients, as judged by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. The PK studies indicated that the area under the curve was decreased by 40 to 50% and oral clearance of rosiglitazone was increased by 250 to 300% in patients with resistant FSGS compared with healthy controls and patients with nonproteinuric stage 2 chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone therapy was safe and well tolerated. PK assessment of potential novel therapies for resistant FSGS is necessary to define appropriate dosing regimens. There is rationale to evaluate the efficacy of rosiglitazone as an antifibrotic agent for resistant FSGS in Phase II/III clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".