The Role of Therapeutic Monitoring of Everolimus in Solid Organ Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everolimus is a novel proliferation signal inhibitor used in immunosuppressive therapies for the prevention of acute and chronic rejection. A role for everolimus drug monitoring has been suggested because of the potential for improving efficacy and reducing adverse effects. Everolimus has proven efficacy for prevention of rejection in adult de novo renal and cardiac transplant recipients. Similar effects have been shown in pediatric renal transplant patients. Several analytic methods are available to quantify everolimus concentrations. A good relationship exists between everolimus concentration and pharmacological response. Mere clinical monitoring of efficacy is insufficient because clinical presentations of graft rejection vary for each patient and are nonspecific. Thus, the authors have used a previously published 9-step decision-making algorithm to evaluate the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus. The recommended therapeutic range for everolimus is a trough concentration of 3 to 8 ng/mL, as concentrations over 3 ng/mL have been associated with a decreased incidence of rejection, and concentrations >8 ng/mL with increased toxicity. Everolimus exhibits interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. African American patients have higher apparent clearance, whereas patients with hepatic dysfunction or those on concomitant medications with potent cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor or inducer properties have lower or higher apparent clearance, respectively. Solid organ transplant recipients will likely be maintained on immunosuppressant therapy for the life of the graft and/or recipient and thus are likely to benefit from clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring. Based on the available evidence, therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus may provide additional information on efficacy and safety than sound clinical judgment alone. Patients on everolimus who have problems with absorption, who take concurrent cytochrome P450 inhibitors or inducers, or are noncompliant will attain the greatest benefit from drug monitoring.
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 | 0.024 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".