Improved Rejection Prophylaxis With an Initially Intensified Dosing Regimen of Enteric-Coated Mycophenolate Sodium in De Novo Renal Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately half of cyclosporine A-treated renal transplant recipients do not reach sufficient mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposure in the first weeks posttransplantation with standard MPA dosing regimens. METHODS: Here, we present a prospectively planned meta-analysis of data from two 6-month parallel-run studies that evaluated the effect of an initially intensified versus standard dosing regimen of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS). Four hundred forty-one de novo renal transplant recipients were randomized (1:1) to intensified (2 weeks 2880 mg/d; subsequently 4 weeks 2160 mg/d; followed by 1440 mg/d) or standard (1440 mg/d) EC-MPS, with concomitant cyclosporine A treatment and steroids with or without anti-IL-2R induction. Primary endpoint was treatment failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection [BPAR], graft loss, or death) at month 6 posttransplantation. RESULTS: Treatment failure rates were 17.4% in intensified and 22.4% in standard groups (P=0.110). The incidence of BPAR was 13.8% (intensified) vs. 19.3% (standard; P=0.034). A total of 80.5% (intensified) versus 39.0% (standard) of patients achieved 12 hr MPA-area under the curve more than 30 μg·hr/mL as early as day 3 posttransplant. Renal function, gastrointestinal symptom rating scores, and safety profiles were comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The initially intensified EC-MPS dosing regimen was associated with higher MPA exposure, significantly lower rate of BPAR, and comparable safety. However, the intensified regimen did not affect graft function or survival.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".