MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of ABCB1 polymorphisms and haplotypes on tacrolimus nephrotoxicity and dosage requirements in children with liver transplant

2009· article· en· W2020138838 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ahmed F. Hawwa, Patrick McKiernan, Michael D. Shields, Jeff S. Millership, Paul S. Collier, James C. McElnay

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsTacrolimusNephrotoxicityLiver transplantationMedicineTransplantationPharmacogeneticsPharmacologyImmunosuppressionPharmacokineticsCalcineurinKidney transplantationGastroenterologyInternal medicineGenotypeToxicityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Currently tacrolimus is the mainstay of immunosuppression for most children undergoing liver transplantation (LT). • The clinical use of this agent, however, is complicated by its various adverse effects (mainly nephrotoxicity), its narrow therapeutic‐index and considerable pharmacokinetic variability. • The low and variable oral bioavailability of tacrolimus is thought to result from the action of the multidrug efflux‐pump P‐glycoprotein, encoded by the ABCB1 gene. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • A significant association between ABCB1 genetic polymorphisms and tacrolimus‐associated nephrotoxicity in paediatric patients following LT is reported for the first time. Genotyping such polymorphisms may have the potential to individualize better initial tacrolimus therapy and enhance drug safety. • The long‐term effect of ABCB1 polymorphisms on tacrolimus trough concentrations were investigated up to 5 years post‐transplantation. A significant effect of intestinal P‐glycoprotein genotypes on tacrolimus pharmacokinetics was found at 3 and 4 years post‐transplantation suggesting that the effect is maintained long term. AIMS The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of genetic polymorphisms in ABCB1 on the incidence of nephrotoxicity and tacrolimus dosage‐requirements in paediatric patients following liver transplantation. METHODS Fifty‐one paediatric liver transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus were genotyped for ABCB1 C1236>T, G2677>T and C3435>T polymorphisms. Dose‐adjusted tacrolimus trough concentrations and estimated glomerular filtration rates (EGFR) indicative of renal toxicity were determined and correlated with the corresponding genotypes. RESULTS The present study revealed a higher incidence of the ABCB1 variant‐alleles examined among patients with renal dysfunction (≥30% reduction in EGFR) at 6 months post‐transplantation (1236T allele: 63.3% vs 37.5% in controls, P = 0.019; 2677T allele: 63.3% vs. 35.9%, p = 0.012; 3435T allele: 60% vs. 39.1%, P = 0.057). Carriers of the G2677‐>T variant allele also had a significant reduction (%) in EGFR at 12 months post‐transplant (mean difference = 22.6%; P = 0.031). Haplotype analysis showed a significant association between T‐T‐T haplotypes and an increased incidence of nephrotoxicity at 6 months post‐transplantation (haplotype‐frequency = 52.9% in nephrotoxic patients vs 29.4% in controls; P = 0.029). Furthermore, G2677‐>T and C3435‐>T polymorphisms and T‐T‐T haplotypes were significantly correlated with higher tacrolimus dose‐adjusted pre‐dose concentrations at various time points examined long after drug initiation. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that ABCB1 polymorphisms in the native intestine significantly influence tacrolimus dosage‐requirement in the stable phase after transplantation. In addition, ABCB1 polymorphisms in paediatric liver transplant recipients may predispose them to nephrotoxicity over the first year post‐transplantation. Genotyping future transplant recipients for ABCB1 polymorphisms, therefore, could have the potential to individualize better tacrolimus immunosuppressive therapy and enhance drug safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207