Is use of nifurtimox for the treatment of Chagas disease compatible with breast feeding? A population pharmacokinetics analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Women with Chagas disease receiving treatment with nifurtimox are discouraged from breast feeding. Many patients who would receive treatment with nifurtimox live in extreme poverty, have limited access to resources such as clean water and baby formula and may not have safe alternatives to breast milk. AIM: We aimed to estimate, using limited available pharmacokinetics data, potential infant exposure to nifurtimox through breast milk. METHODS: Original nifurtimox plasma concentrations were obtained from published studies. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using non-linear mixed-effect modelling with NONMEM V.VI. A total of 1000 nifurtimox plasma-concentration profiles were simulated and used to calculate the amount of drug that an infant would be exposed to, if breast fed 150 ml/kg/day. RESULTS: Breast milk concentrations on the basis of peak plasma levels (1361 ng/ml) and milk-plasma ratio were estimated. We calculated infant nifurtimox exposure of a breastfed infant of a mother treated with this drug to be below 10% of the maternal weight-adjusted dose, even if milk-plasma ratio were overestimated. Simulation led to similar estimates. DISCUSSION: Risk for significant infant exposure to nifurtimox through breast milk seems small and below the level of exposure of infants with Chagas disease receiving nifurtimox treatment. This potential degree of exposure may not justify discontinuation of breast feeding.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".