Pregnancy outcomes in female patients exposed to cyclosporin‐based versus tacrolimus‐based immunosuppressive regimens after liver/kidney transplantation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Pregnancy after transplantation is a challenge owing to the high risk of adverse maternal and foetal outcomes, and immunosuppressants may further impact these outcomes. There are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing influences of cyclosporin and tacrolimus on pregnancy outcomes. Thus, we systematically reviewed and meta-analysed observational studies assessing the comparative influences of these two drugs on pregnancy outcomes in liver/kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: Relevant studies comparing pregnancy outcomes with tacrolimus and cyclosporin head-to-head were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science (from 1 January 2000 to 20 March 2020). The weighted mean difference and odds ratio (OR) were calculated to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Publication bias was estimated using funnel plots. The study quality was assessed according to the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Overall, 10 observational studies of low quality, including a total of 1080 post-liver or kidney transplant pregnancies, were identified. Tacrolimus-treated recipients experienced a lower risk of gestational hypertension (28.0%; OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.27-2.39; p < 0.01). Cyclosporin-treated recipients showed a lower incidence of caesarean section (40.3%; OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.46-0.82; p < 0.01). Additionally, cyclosporin performed better in terms of the live birth rate (78.0%; OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.02-1.88; p = 0.04). No significant differences in the incidences of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm delivery and birth weight were observed. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus performed better in patients with gestational hypertension, while cyclosporin was associated with a lower incidence of caesarean section and a higher incidence of live birth. The findings are based on relatively low-quality evidence, but may provide a reference for clinicians in their clinical monitoring and obstetric care for post-transplant pregnancies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".