Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus With Reduced Tacrolimus in Liver Transplant Recipients: 24-month Results From the Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Data from 2 randomized liver transplant trials (N = 772; H2304 [deceased donor, n = 488], H2307 [living donor, n = 284]) were pooled to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of everolimus with reduced tacrolimus (EVR + rTAC) versus standard tacrolimus (sTAC) regimen at month 24. RESULTS: EVR + rTAC was comparable to sTAC for composite efficacy failure of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, or death (9.8% versus 10.8%; difference, -1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -5.4 to 3.4; P = 0.641) at month 24. EVR + rTAC was superior to sTAC for the mean change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from randomization to month 24 (-8.37 versus -13.40 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = 0.001). A subanalysis of renal function by chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage at randomization showed significantly lower decline in eGFR from randomization to month 24 for patients with CKD stage 1/2 (eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) in EVR + rTAC group versus sTAC (-12.82 versus -17.67 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.009). In patients transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond Milan criteria, HCC recurrence was numerically lower although not statistically significant with EVR + rTAC versus sTAC group (5.9% [1 of 17] versus 23.1% [6 of 26], P = 0.215), while comparable in patients within Milan criteria (2.9% [3 of 102] versus 2.1% [2 of 96], P = 1.000), irrespective of pretransplant alpha-fetoprotein levels. CONCLUSIONS: EVR + rTAC versus sTAC showed comparable efficacy and safety with significantly better renal function, particularly in patients with normal/mildly decreased renal function (CKD stage 1/2) at randomization and a trend toward lower HCC recurrence in patients transplanted with HCC beyond Milan at month 24. Further long-term data would be required to confirm these results.
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 | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".