MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2561901426 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.1332

Voriconazole Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Among Lung Transplant Recipients Receiving Targeted Therapy for Invasive Aspergillosis

2016· article· en· W2561901426 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guillaume Butler‐Laporte, Charles Poirier, Pasquale Ferraro, Marie‐Claude Langevin, Claude Lemieux, Yves Théorêt, Me‐Linh Luong

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVoriconazoleAspergillosisTherapeutic drug monitoringDrugIntensive care medicinePharmacotherapyTargeted therapyLungPathogenic organismRescue therapyInternal medicineAntifungalPharmacologyImmunologyDermatologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Voriconazole is the recommended treatment for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in lung transplant recipients (LTR). The use of voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is increasingly recommended but its use remains controversial. We conducted a study to explore the association between voriconazole serum concentration and clinical outcome of LTR receiving targeted therapy for IA. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of all lung transplant recipients receiving IA voriconazole targeted monotherapy who underwent serum TDM between January 2013 and December 2015 at Notre-Dame Hospital, CHUM, Montreal, Canada. Chart review was performed to collect demographic, clinical and laboratory data. Clinical outcome and mortality were assessed at 12 weeks after initiation of therapy. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to find the most predictive voriconazole level thresholds for successful outcome. Results. Among the 111 LTR during the study period, 11 received voriconazole monotherapy for targeted therapy and underwent TDM during therapy. All 11 patients had pulmonary involvement, without dissemination. At 12 weeks of therapy, 6 patients achieved successful outcome while 5 patients did not. The median TDM value among patients who achieved successful outcome versus patients who failed therapy were 0.9 (0.3–7.3) µg/mL and 0.6 (0.05–4.9) µg/mL, respectively. Two separate CART analyses were performed; 1 was based on the median voriconazole TDM concentration, the other was based on minimal voriconazole TDM concentration for each patient. Successful outcome were more likely attained among patients with median TDM concentration > 0.645 µg/mL (P = 0.06) or minimal TDM concentration > 0.415 µg/mL (P = 0.02). None of the patient died during the study period. Conclusion. Our study demonstrates that voriconazole targeted therapy among lung transplant recipients with invasive aspergillosis is associated with a better treatment response when median TDM concentration are greater than 0.645 µg/mL or when minimal TDM concentration are greater than 0.415 µg/mL. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases→Same topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility→French-language works237,207→