Intravenous mycophenolate mofetil: safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An intravenous (i.v.) formulation of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; CellCept, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) that will enable its administration to patients unable to tolerate oral medication is available. Two separate studies, an open-labeled pharmacokinetic (PK) study and a double-blind safety study, were performed. Within 24 h after transplant, 153 (safety study) and 45 (PK study) first or second renal transplant recipients were started on i.v. MMF 1 g Q12h or placebo (used in the safety study only, 2:1 MMF:placebo), given over 2 h via a dedicated peripheral venous catheter. In the safety study, per os (p.o.) MMF (1g Q12h) or placebo was administered, starting within 72 h after transplant, whereas in the PK study, p.o. MMF was started on the evening of day 5. Sequential blood samples obtained on study days 5 (i.v. MMF) and 6 (p.o. MMF) before and up to 12 h after the AM dose were analyzed for mycophenolic acid (MPA) and MPA glucuronide (MPAG) concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography. The area under the concentration curve (AUC) was calculated using the linear trapezoidal rule. The MPA AUC(0-12) was higher for i.v. MMF than p.o. MMF (40.8 +/- 11.4 microg x h/ mL vs. 32.9 +/- 15, p < 0.001). There were no other significant PK differences for plasma MPA or MPAG. In the safety study (n = 98 i.v. MMF vs. n = 55 placebo), 11 patients (11%, i.v. MMF) and 4 patients (7%, placebo) discontinued their use of the drug because of an adverse event (AE). Overall, AEs were similar between i.v. MMF and placebo. Injection site phlebitis (4%) and thrombosis (4%) were observed only with i.v. MMF. MMF i.v. 1 g twice daily (b.i.d.) should provide efficacy at least equivalent to p.o. MMF without increased toxicity, and it provides an acceptable alternative dose form in the immediate period after transplant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".