MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NOF-11: A ONE-YEAR PEDIATRIC RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND COMPARISON OF NEORAL VERSUS SANDIMMUNE IN ORTHOTOPIC LIVER TRANSPLANTATION 1

2000· article· en· W2151707714 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Álvarez, Paul Atkison, David Grant, Nathalie Guilbault, Adrian B. Jones, Peter S. W. Kim, Norman M. Kneteman, Liane Laurin, Steven R. Martin, Gérard F. Murphy, Khazal Paradis, James Shapiro, Lesley J. Smith, Riccardo Superina

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationToronto General HospitalUniversity of AlbertaLondon Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunosuppressionPharmacokineticsTransplantationRenal functionUrologyTrough levelLiver transplantationCiclosporinArea under the curveSurgeryAnesthesiaGastroenterologyInternal medicineTacrolimus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although cyclosporine (CsA) has been a mainstay in liver transplantation immunosuppression the original formulation [Sandimmune (SIM)] has variable absorption, particularly in children. Neoral is a new formulation of CsA that may have improved biovailability that would be advantageous in children. This study was undertaken to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and effects on outcome of Neoral versus Sandimmune (SIM) in primary pediatric liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were randomized to receive Neoral (17 patients) or SIM (15 patients) in the early posttransplant period (days 1-7) in a double-blind fashion. Intravenous CsA was instituted immediately posttransplant followed by Neoral or SIM as soon as the patient was tolerating oral fluids (days 1-7). PK were compared after the first dose (1-7 days), 3 weeks, and 6 and 12 months posttransplant. In addition, side effects, effect of age and food on absorption, and rejection episodes were assessed by intent to treat analysis. Notable characteristics of this study include the use of a central laboratory for all sample analyses and the assessment of renal function using radioisotopic evaluation of glomerular filtration rates. RESULTS: At baseline the two groups were comparable. Neoral resulted in higher peak levels of CsA and total drug exposure with comparable time to peak drug levels at days 1-7 and week 3. This trend was maintained at 6 and 12 months. Time on i.v. CsA was reduced in the Neoral group (8.4 vs. 11.1 days) and the weight adjusted daily dose of SIM required to achieve target trough levels was about 2-fold more than Neoral from day 22 onward. In addition, biopsy proven and treated and steroid-resistant rejection episodes were fewer in the Neoral group (6 vs. 12; P=0.01 and 1 vs. 8: P=0.004, respectively). Side effects were comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Neoral was well tolerated and had greater biovailability than SIM without any increase in the incidence of side effects. In addition fewer episodes of rejection were observed with Neoral versus SIM. We conclude that Neoral is the CsA formulation of choice for use in pediatric liver transplant recipients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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