A Five‐Year Prospective, Randomized, Open‐Label Study of Standard‐Dose Versus Low‐Dose Prolonged‐Release Tacrolimus With or Without Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Post Kidney Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Novel approaches to improve long-term outcomes in kidney transplant recipients are required. Here, we present the 5-year data from a multicenter, prospective, Phase 3b trial evaluating treatment outcomes with standard (STD) or low (LOW) dose prolonged-release tacrolimus (TAC) combined with ACEi/ARB or other antihypertensive therapy (OAHT) in Canadian kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: Adult de novo kidney transplant recipients were randomized 2 × 2 to STD or LOW dose TAC and ACEi/ARB or OAHT. Patients had received a first or second transplant from a living or deceased donor and had ≥ 1 human leukocyte antigen mismatch with their donor. RESULTS: There were 281 patients from 13 sites across Canada. Overall patient survival was 95.7% and was comparable between groups. Graft survival at study end was 89.7% in the LOW+OAHT group and 94.4%-97.1% in the other groups and BPAR, and Class II de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) were higher in the LOW+OAHT group than in the other groups. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Graft function, blood pressure (BP), and proteinuria were similar between the groups; however, between 2 and 5 years there was a 2-fold or greater increase in the use of ACEi/ARB in patients randomized initially to OAHT, mostly because of hypertension and proteinuria. There were no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSION: Patients randomized to LOW TAC with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade had similar outcomes at 5 years as patients treated with STD TAC with or without RAS blockade, whereas those randomized to LOW TAC without RAS blockade showed a non-significant trend towards more rejections and dnDSA TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00933231.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".