MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386046570 · doi:10.1007/s40268-023-00428-4

Tremor Induced by Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, Sirolimus, or Everolimus: A Review of the Literature

2023· review· en· W4386046570 on OpenAlexaff
Aparna Wagle Shukla, Caroline Lunny, Omar Mahboob, Uzair Khalid, Malea Joyce, Nivedita Jha, Nandakumar Nagaraja, Ashutosh M. Shukla

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs in R&D · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOral and gingival health research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTacrolimusEverolimusSirolimusMedicineCalcineurinDosingTherapeutic drug monitoringAdverse effectPharmacologyInternal medicineCiclosporinTransplantationDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calcineurin inhibitors such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus are immunosuppressant drugs that are known to induce tremors. Non-calcineurin inhibitors such as sirolimus and everolimus have also reportedly been accompanied by tremors, albeit less likely. However, the prevalence rates reported in the literature are notably wide, and the risk profiles for these drug-induced tremors are less understood. We searched PubMed to extract data on the risk of tremors with these drugs when prescribed for various transplant and non-transplant indications. We ascertained whether the risk of drug-induced tremor is influenced by the underlying diagnosis, dosing formulations, drug concentrations, and blood monitoring. We extracted data on treatment strategies and outcomes for tremors. Articles were primarily screened based on English language publications, abstracts, and studies with n ≥ 5, which included case series, retrospective studies, case-controlled studies, and prospective studies. We found 81 eligible studies comprising 33 cyclosporine, 43 tacrolimus, 6 sirolimus, and 1 everolimus that discussed tremor as an adverse event. In the pooled analysis of studies with n > 100, the incidence of tremor was 17% with cyclosporine, 21.5% with tacrolimus, and 7.8% with sirolimus and everolimus together. Regarding the underlying diagnosis, tremor was more frequently reported in kidney transplant (cyclosporine 28%, tacrolimus 30.1%) and bone marrow transplant (cyclosporine 40%, tacrolimus 41.9%) patients compared with liver transplant (cyclosporine 9%, tacrolimus 11.5%) and nontransplant indications (cyclosporine 21.5%, tacrolimus 11.3%). Most studies did not report whether the risk of tremors correlated with drug concentrations in the blood. The prevalence of tremors when using the twice-daily formulation of tacrolimus was nearly the same as the once-daily formulation (17% vs 18%). Data on individual-level risk factors for tremors were lacking. Except for three studies that found some benefit to maintaining magnesium levels, there were minimal data on treatments and outcomes. A large body of data supports a substantive and wide prevalence of tremor resulting from tacrolimus use followed by cyclosporine, especially in patients receiving a kidney transplant. However, there is little reporting on the patient-related risk factors for tremor, risk relationship with drug concentrations, treatment strategies, and 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs in R&DSame topicOral and gingival health researchFrench-language works237,207