Bronchopulmonary Penetration of Isavuconazole in Pulmonary Transplant Recipients (PBISA01): Protocol for a Phase IV Clinical Trial With a Single Treatment Arm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aspergillosis is the most frequently observed invasive fungal disease (IFD) in lung transplant recipients. Isavuconazole (ISA) has shown a better safety profile and noninferiority to voriconazole in the treatment of patients with IFD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the bronchopulmonary pharmacokinetic profile of oral ISA by analyzing the degree of penetration in the epithelial lining fluid and alveolar macrophages in patients receiving lung transplantation with a diagnosis of IFD. METHODS: A total of 12 patients aged ≥18 years receiving a lung transplant with an IFD diagnosis and indication for ISA treatment and follow-up bronchoscopy will be included in the study. After 5 days of treatment with ISA and before the treatment is discontinued, the patients will be randomized (1:1:1:1) to perform the scheduled bronchoscopy at various times after the administration of ISA (2, 4, 8, and 12 hours). In total, 4 blood samples will be obtained per patient: at 72 hours after treatment initiation, on the day of the bronchoscopy, at the time of the bronchoalveolar lavage (simultaneously), and at 7 days after treatment initiation, to analyze tacrolimus and ISA plasma levels. ISA concentrations will be measured in plasma, epithelial lining fluid, and alveolar macrophages by a high-performance liquid chromatography/UV coupled to fluorescence method. RESULTS: Enrollment for the PBISA01 trial began in October 2020 and was completed in October 2021. All samples will be analyzed once recruitment is complete, and the results are expected to be published in October 2022. CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinical studies that analyze the bronchopulmonary penetration of ISA. Bronchoalveolar lavage performed routinely in the follow-up of lung transplant recipients constitutes an opportunity to analyze the bronchopulmonary penetration of ISA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Clinical Trials Register 2019-004240-30; www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2019-004240-30/ES. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37275.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
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".