Conversion from twice- to once-daily tacrolimus in pediatric kidney recipients: a pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to investigate pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic parameters during the conversion on a 1:1 (mg:mg) basis from a twice-daily (Prograf) to once-daily (Advagraf) tacrolimus formulation in pediatric kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour pharmacokinetic profiles were analyzed before and after conversion in 19 stable renal transplant recipients (age 7-19 years). Tacrolimus pharmacokinetic parameters [area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-24), minimum whole-blood concentration (Cmin), maximum whole-blood concentration (Cmax), and time to achieve maximum whole-blood concentration (tmax)] were compared between Tac formulations and between CYP3A5 and MDR1 genotypes after dose normalization. RESULTS: Both AUC0-24 and Cmin decreased after conversion (223.3 to 197.5 ng.h/ml and 6.5 to 5.6 ng/ml; p = 0.03 and 0.01, respectively). However, the ratio of the least square means (LSM) for AUC0-24 was 90.8 %, with 90 % CI limits of 85.3 to 96.7 %, falling within bioequivalence limits. The CYP3A5 genotype influences the dose-normalized Cmin with the twice-daily formulation only. CONCLUSIONS: Both tacrolimus formulations are bioequivalent in pediatric renal recipients. However, we observed a decrease in AUC0-24 and Cmin after the conversion, requiring close pharmacokinetic monitoring during the conversion period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".