Prospective Observational Study of Sirolimus as Primary Immunosuppression After Renal Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Sirolimus (SRL) is an important component of clinical immunosuppression in renal transplantation, but few international studies have examined how this agent is used in routine practice. METHODS.: Within a large prospective pharmacoepidemiological study, 718 de novo renal graft recipients treated with SRL in 65 centers in 10 countries were monitored for up to 5 years posttransplant to compare the principal outcomes and adverse effects by treatment regimen. RESULTS.: Principal treatment regimens were SRL without a calcineurin inhibitor (33%), SRL+cyclosporine A (CsA) (33%), and SRL+tacrolimus (TAC) (34%); 18% of subjects discontinued SRL, 124/718 (17%) developed biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (BCAR), 64/718 (9%) lost their graft, and 50/718 (7%) died during follow-up. Calculated creatinine clearance was 66+/-26 mL/min at 2 years. The most common adverse events were hypertension, hyperlipidemia, anemia, urinary tract infections, and diabetes. BCAR was significantly lower in subjects receiving SRL+TAC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46, P=0.009) but not significantly lower in those receiving SRL+CsA (HR 0.62, P=0.102) compared with SRL without a calcineurin inhibitor. Graft loss or death did not significantly differ between treatment groups but were associated, respectively, with deceased donor grafts (HR 3.33, P<0.001) and increased age (HR 1.04, P<0.001). No improvement was observed in patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil in any treatment combination (HR 0.80, P=0.438 for BCAR; HR 0.93, P=0.849 for graft loss; and HR 0.75, P=0.531 for death). CONCLUSIONS.: SRL is most commonly used in combination with mycophenolate mofetil, CsA, or TAC. BCAR was least common in subjects receiving SRL+TAC, but other outcomes seemed comparable between the treatment regimens in routine practice.
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) | 0.000 | 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".