Diltiazem use in tacrolimus-treated renal transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blockers are widely used in the treatment of post-transplant hypertension but have the potential for drug interaction with calcineurin inhibitors. Renal allograft outcomes when diltiazem is used with cyclosporine have been reported, but similar data with tacrolimus are not available. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all our renal transplant recipients from March 1997 to March 2002 who were given tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether diltiazem was started in the first postoperative week. Outcome measures included renal function up to 2 years post-transplant, blood pressure (BP) control, tacrolimus exposure, and costs related to tacrolimus monitoring. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients constituted the diltiazem group and 32 the control group. Their baseline characteristics were similar. The mean average daily dose of diltiazem used was 213.95 mg/day. There was no difference in renal function, graft survival, or patient survival over 2 years. BP control was similar although the diltiazem group required more medication. Diltiazem was discontinued in four patients due to side-effects. There was no difference in tacrolimus-related side-effects between the two groups. There was also no difference in tacrolimus exposure, cost related to tacrolimus monitoring, or combined costs when the expense of diltiazem was added. CONCLUSION: Diltiazem use is acceptably safe and efficacious in renal transplant recipients treated with tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive therapy. It can be considered as a first-line antihypertensive in these patients and is cost neutral for tacrolimus use.
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 | 0.000 | 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".