Immunosuppression Regimen Use and Outcomes in Older and Younger Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients: A National Registry Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the population of older transplant recipients has increased dramatically, there are limited data describing the impact of immunosuppression regimen choice on outcomes in this recipient group. METHODS: National data for US Medicare-insured adult kidney recipients (N = 67 362; 2005-2016) were examined to determine early immunosuppression regimen and associations with acute rejection, death-censored graft failure, and mortality using multivariable regression analysis in younger (18-64 y) and older (>65 y) adults. RESULTS: The use of antithymocyte globulin (TMG) or alemtuzumab (ALEM) induction with triple maintenance immunosuppression (reference) was less common in older compared with younger (36.9% versus 47.0%) recipients, as was TMG/ALEM + steroid avoidance (19.2% versus 20.1%) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi)-based (6.7% versus 7.7%) treatments. Conversely, older patients were more likely to receive interleukin (IL)-2-receptor antibody (IL2rAb) + triple maintenance (21.1% versus 14.7%), IL2rAb + steroid avoidance (4.1% versus 1.8%), and cyclosporine-based (8.3% versus 6.6%) immunosuppression. Compared with older recipients treated with TMG/ALEM + triple maintenance (reference regimen), those managed with TMG/ALEM + steroid avoidance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.440.520.61) and IL2rAb + steroid avoidance (aOR, 0.390.550.79) had lower risk of acute rejection. Older patients experienced more death-censored graft failure when managed with Tac + antimetabolite avoidance (adjusted hazard [aHR], 1.411.782.25), mTORi-based (aHR, 1.702.142.71), and cyclosporine-based (aHR, 1.411.782.25) regimens, versus the reference regimen. mTORi-based and cyclosporine-based regimens were associated with increased mortality in both older and younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-intensity immunosuppression regimens (eg, steroid-sparing) appear beneficial for older kidney transplant recipients, while mTORi and cyclosporine-based maintenance immunosuppression are associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".