Trial reportPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2005
Cyclosporine A monitoring--how to account for twice and three times daily dosing.
Trial report in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic drug monitoring in childhood idiopathic nephrotic syndrome: a state of the art review.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Review
- Renal transplantation in infants.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2016Review
- Developmental pharmacokinetics of ciclosporin--a population pharmacokinetic study in paediatric renal transplant candidates.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cyclosporine A (CsA) dose-interval pharmacokinetic profiles, performed 1-4 years post-transplantation, were collected from 74 renal transplanted children. Forty patients were on three times daily dosing (t.i.d.) and 34 on twice daily dosing (b.i.d.). Regression models for prediction of area under the curve (AUC) using 1-3 concentration time points as independent variables were developed. With similar weight-adjusted single doses (mg kg(-1)) of CsA, t.i.d. dosing resulted in a trough-concentration (C0) similar to that from b.i.d. dosing, but a 30% lower 2 h post-dose concentration (C2). For b.i.d. dosing the relationship between C0 and AUC was poor (r2=0.23) and the prediction error was large (5.8+/-33.5%). For t.i.d. dosing the relationship was better (r2=0.79), but prediction error was still large (4.5+/-24.9%). For C2 relationships were similar to those for the b.i.d. (r2=0.59) and t.i.d. (r2=0.63) groups, but explained modestly the variations of AUC (prediction error=2.6+/-16.8% b.i.d., 4.8+/-23.2% t.i.d.). Both C0 and C2 are useful monitoring methods when CsA is administered t.i.d. If the aim is similar specified daily drug exposure, the target C2 should be roughly 30% smaller in t.i.d. dosing than in b.i.d. dosing and the target C0 could be similar. The prediction error of AUC can be large in individual patients when using single time-point determinations, however. The use of multiple time points reduces the variation, but is less feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15772834What 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.