MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Basiliximab in pediatric liver transplantation: A pharmacokinetic‐derived dosing algorithm

2002· article· en· W2118938307 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Kovarik, Bruno Gridelli, Steven R. Martin, Burkhard Rodeck, Michael Melter, Stephen P. Dunn, Robert M. Merion, Andreas G. Tzakis, E. Velasco Alonso, John C. Bucuvalas, Harvey L. Sharp, Christophe Gerbeau, Lawrence Chodoff, Alexander Korn, Michael Hall

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasiliximabMedicinePharmacokineticsDosingBolus (digestion)TransplantationBody surface areaAscitesLiver transplantationInternal medicineGastroenterologyTacrolimus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pharmacokinetics and immunodynamics of basiliximab were assessed in 37 pediatric de novo liver allograft recipients to rationally design a dose regimen for this age-group. In part one of the study, patients were given 12 mg/m2 basiliximab by bolus intravenous injection after organ perfusion and on day 4 after transplant. An interim pharmacokinetic evaluation supported a fixed-dose approach for part two of the study in which infants and children received two 10-mg doses of basiliximab and adolescents received two 20-mg doses. Blood samples were collected over a 12-week period for screening for anti-idiotype antibodies and analysis of basiliximab and soluble interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R) concentrations. Basiliximab clearance in infants and children < 9 yr of age (n = 30) was reduced by approximately 50% compared with adults from a previous study and was independent of age to 9 yr, weight to 30 kg, and body surface area to 1.0 m2. Clearance in children and adolescents 9-14 yr of age (n = 7) approached or reached adult values. An average of 15% of the dose was eliminated via drained ascites fluid, and drug clearance via this route averaged 29% of total body clearance. Patients with > 5 L of ascites fluid drainage tended to have lower systemic exposure to basiliximab. CD25-saturating basiliximab concentrations were maintained for 27 +/- 9 days in part one of the study (mg/m2 dosing) with infants exhibiting the lowest durations. CD25 saturation lasted 37 +/- 11 days in part two of the study, based on the fixed-dose regimen (p = 0.004 vs. mg/mg2 dosing), but did not show the age-related bias observed in part one of the study. Anti-idiotype antibodies were detected in four patients, but this did not influence the clearance of basiliximab or duration of CD25 saturation. All 40 enrolled patients were included in the intent-to-treat clinical analysis. Episodes of acute rejection occurred in 22 patients (55%) during the first 12 months post-transplant. Three patients experienced loss of their graft as a result of technical complications, and six patients died during the 12-month study. Basiliximab was well tolerated by intravenous bolus injection, with no cytokine-release syndrome or other infusion-related adverse events. Hence, basiliximab was safe and well tolerated in pediatric patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. To achieve similar basiliximab exposure as is efficacious in adults, pediatric patients < 35 kg in weight should receive two 10-mg doses and those > or = 35 kg should receive two 20-mg doses of basiliximab by intravenous infusion or bolus injection. The first dose should be given within 6 h after organ perfusion and the second on day 4 after transplantation. A supplemental dose may be considered for patients with a large volume of drained ascites fluid relative to body size.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations42
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207