Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2003
Diltiazem co-treatment in renal transplant patients receiving microemulsion cyclosporin.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review of randomized controlled trial quality in pediatric kidney transplantation.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2010Pooled it
- Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Calcium channel blockers for preventing acute tubular necrosis in kidney transplant recipients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Modulation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cell proliferative response by diltiazem : in vitro comparison in younger versus older subjects.Drugs & aging · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsage of cyclosporin (the Hong Kong Hospital Authority's single largest item of drug expenditure) continues to increase, mainly due to increasing numbers of renal allograft patients taking it as long-term antirejection therapy. Diltiazem, an antihypertensive agent, interferes with the first pass extraction of oral cyclosporin, thus serving to conserve its dosage.
aimsIn renal transplant patients, to assess whether diltiazem co-treatment could achieve worthwhile dosage conservation of Neoral (a relatively new microemulsified cyclosporin formulation), safely.
methodsA randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial was undertaken at three local hospitals. Renal transplant recipients receiving Neoral as prophylactic immunosuppression were randomized to two treatment arms. Active treatment consisted of diltiazem tablets 30 or 60 mg twice daily for patients weighing < 60 or >or= 60 kg, respectively. One hundred and ten eligible patients gave their informed consent, and were followed up for at least six months. The mean difference in the dollar cost in the sixth month was the primary outcome. Secondary/ancillary outcomes included changes in cyclosporin dosage and blood level, and untoward clinical events including rejection. Outcomes were evaluated by intention to treat analyses.
resultsDuring weeks 23-26 (sixth month) post randomization, diltiazem co-treatment yielded an estimated average cost saving per patient on drugs of 15%[the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference being HK dollars 609 +/- 517 or pound 50 +/- 42], with no apparent excess of untoward or adverse events, complications, hospitalization, outpatient visits, or inferior quality of life.
conclusionsThis diltiazem co-treatment regime applied to the nearly 1800 surviving renal allograft patients followed up in Hospital Authority hospitals could have saved approximately HK dollars 14.3 million ( pound 1.17 million) annually, without adverse sequelae.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.