M B Shah1, J E Martin, T J Schroeder, M R First. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Ohio 45267-0714, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoral, a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine, was approved for use in the United States in 1995. Many studies comparing Neoral and Sandimmune have been conducted, and although most state that Neoral is the superior cyclosporine formulation, results have failed to conclusively demonstrate this claim. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of Neoral and Sandimmune. METHODS: Publications comparing the use of Neoral and Sandimmune were reviewed for demographic variables, adverse events, rejection incidence, graft losses, and serum creatinine. Neoral and Sandimmune were compared in all patients and in the following subgroups: (1) age (adult or pediatric), (2) transplant type (kidney, liver, or heart), (3) indication (de novo or stable), and (4) study design (randomized prospective trials versus nonrandomized, blinded versus open-labeled studies). RESULTS: The rate of graft loss was similar when comparing Neoral and Sandimmune in all analyses. The incidence of rejection was lower in Neoral-treated de novo renal, liver, and cardiac transplants (P<0.05). There were significantly more adverse events in Sandimmune-treated de novo liver transplants than Neoral-treated de novo liver transplants (P<0.00001). When considering only randomized prospective trials, the incidence of rejection was lower in Neoral-treated de novo and stable patients (P<0.05). However, there were more adverse events in Neoral-treated stable patients (P<0.00001). When considering only blinded studies, there were more adverse events in Neoral-treated patients (P<0.05), whereas in open-labeled studies there was no difference in adverse events comparing Neoral and Sandimmune (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Considering all published trials, the data seem to indicate that Neoral therapy is preferred because of a lower rejection incidence, with a trend toward less adverse events. However, when limiting the analysis to only randomized prospective trials, and specifically assessing blinded studies, the data become less clear. Neoral use was associated with more adverse events in blinded studies, and Sandimmune use was associated with more adverse events in open-labeled studies. Careful individual consideration must be given in choosing the best possible cyclosporine formulation.
BACKGROUND:Neoral, a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine, was approved for use in the United States in 1995. Many studies comparing Neoral and Sandimmune have been conducted, and although most state that Neoral is the superior cyclosporine formulation, results have failed to conclusively demonstrate this claim. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of Neoral and Sandimmune. METHODS: Publications comparing the use of Neoral and Sandimmune were reviewed for demographic variables, adverse events, rejection incidence, graft losses, and serum creatinine. Neoral and Sandimmune were compared in all patients and in the following subgroups: (1) age (adult or pediatric), (2) transplant type (kidney, liver, or heart), (3) indication (de novo or stable), and (4) study design (randomized prospective trials versus nonrandomized, blinded versus open-labeled studies). RESULTS: The rate of graft loss was similar when comparing Neoral and Sandimmune in all analyses. The incidence of rejection was lower in Neoral-treated de novo renal, liver, and cardiac transplants (P<0.05). There were significantly more adverse events in Sandimmune-treated de novo liver transplants than Neoral-treated de novo liver transplants (P<0.00001). When considering only randomized prospective trials, the incidence of rejection was lower in Neoral-treated de novo and stable patients (P<0.05). However, there were more adverse events in Neoral-treated stable patients (P<0.00001). When considering only blinded studies, there were more adverse events in Neoral-treated patients (P<0.05), whereas in open-labeled studies there was no difference in adverse events comparing Neoral and Sandimmune (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Considering all published trials, the data seem to indicate that Neoral therapy is preferred because of a lower rejection incidence, with a trend toward less adverse events. However, when limiting the analysis to only randomized prospective trials, and specifically assessing blinded studies, the data become less clear. Neoral use was associated with more adverse events in blinded studies, and Sandimmune use was associated with more adverse events in open-labeled studies. Careful individual consideration must be given in choosing the best possible cyclosporine formulation.
Authors: Atholl Johnston; Philip Belitsky; Ulrich Frei; John Horvath; Peter Hoyer; J Harold Helderman; Michael Oellerich; Stephen Pollard; Hany Riad; Paolo Rigotti; Paul Keown; Björn Nashan Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2004-06-17 Impact factor: 2.953