FTY720 Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in De Novo Renal Transplantation: Six-Month Results of a Double-Blind Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: FTY720 is a novel immunomodulator that was developed to produce optimal graft protection with improved safety and tolerability. Phase II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of FTY720 up to the doses of 2.5 mg with full-dose cyclosporine (FDC). METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, Phase IIb, randomized study evaluated the safety and efficacy of 5 mg FTY720 (n=87; Group 1) vs. 2.5 mg FTY720 (n=90; Group 2) vs. mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; n=94; Group 3) in de novo renal transplant patients receiving FDC and prednisone. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or premature study discontinuation (composite endpoint) within 6 months. The primary endpoint was superior in Group 1 (24%) and statistically noninferior in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (24.1% vs. 29.2% vs. 39.4%; P=0.025 and 0.0039, respectively). FTY720 plus FDC was generally well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events across all groups. FTY720 was associated with higher incidence of bradycardia (Group 1: 26.4%, P=0.0002 and Group 2: 15.6%, P=0.046, vs. Group 3: 6.4%), respiratory disorders (Group 1: 40.2%, not significant [P=NS] and Group 2: 34.4%, P=NS vs. Group 3: 28.7%). One macular edema occurred in Group 2. Lower creatinine clearances were observed with FTY720 versus MMF (Group 1: 52.4 ml/min, P=NS and Group 2: 51.7 ml/min, P=0.039 vs. Group 3: 62.5 ml/min). CONCLUSIONS: Although FTY720 with FDC provided adequate protection from acute rejection the safety profile was less favorable for adverse events than current standard immunosuppression in de novo renal transplant patients.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".