MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER RANDOMIZED TRIAL TO COMPARE INCIDENCE OF NEW ONSET DIABETES MELLITUS AND GLUCOSE METABOLISM IN PATIENTS RECEIVING CYCLOSPORINE MICROEMULSION VERSUS TACROLIMUS AFTER DE NOVO KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION

2004· article· en· W2066591891 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Flavio Vincenti, Murat Tuncer, M Castagneto, Marian Klinger, S. Friman, Scheuermann Eh, Andrzej Więcek, G. R. Russ, Arnošt Martínek, B. Nonnast-Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBasiliximabTacrolimusDiabetes mellitusTransplantationInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialKidney transplantationClinical trialIncidence (geometry)RegimenSurgeryGastroenterologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O362 Aims: New Onset Diabetes Mellitus (NODM) after transplantation leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular complications and mortality. Based on clinical trials studying either tacrolimus (tac) or cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA–ME), it seems that tacrolimus is more diabetogenic but the difference between both drugs is difficult to assess as the definition of diabetes differed from one trial to the other. Furthermore, the potential impact of both drugs on glucose control in patients with pre-existing diabetes is unknown. This study compares the impact of CsA–ME and tac on glucose metabolism in de novo kidney transplant recipients. The efficacy of both drugs in the prevention of graft rejection is also assessed. Methods: This is a 6 months prospective randomized trial conducted in 700 patients from Australia, Canada, Japan, the US and 13 European countries. At transplant, patients are stratified according to diabetes status and ethnicity (diabetic, non-diabetic and Caucasian, non-diabetic and non-Caucasian) and then randomized 1:1 to receive either CsA–ME or tac within 24hours post transplant (table 1) as part of a quadruple immunosuppressive regimen comprising basiliximab, MMF or EC-MPA and steroids (table 2). At 3 and 6 months an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is performed, HbA1c, consumption of anti-diabetic drugs and incidence of biopsy proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss and death are assessed.FigureTable 2 SteroidsFigureTable 1 Starting dose (mg/kg/day) and target blood levels (ng/mL) Results: We report the results from a planned interim analysis performed on the data provided by 117 patients enrolled between November 03 and March 04 and who will have reached 3 months post-transplant by July 04. 61 were randomized to CsA ME and 56 to tac. The number of diabetic, non-diabetic and Caucasian, non-diabetic and non-Caucasian was respectively 16, 93 and 8. The following data will be available for presentation at the ISOT 2004 meeting: Demographics and transplant characteristics; doses of immunosuppressants received; blood levels achieved; number of patients with NODM, impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance at 3 months post transplant diagnosed according to the criteria recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Mean HbA1c and serum creatinine at baseline and 3 months; number of BPAR, graft loss or death at 3 months. Conclusions: This interim analysis will provide the first multicenter estimation of the incidence of NODM as assessed by an OGTT and will also assess compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen recommended by the protocol (dose given and when appropriate blood levels achieved) and whether any safety or efficacy issues have been observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207