Calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation: what is the best option?

Recently, new calcineurin inhibitors, such as tacrolimus (FK-506) and microemulsion cyclosporin, have been approved for maintenance immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients and short-term outcomes have been accumulating. In the majority of patients, these calcineurin inhibitors have been used in combination with new immunosuppressive drugs, such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or sirolimus. Under these circumstances, a comparison of cyclosporin and tacrolimus provides the answer to a very important controversial issue. Which drug should we choose in individual patients? In an attempt to answer this question, this review compared the use of tacrolimus and cyclosporin in modern immunosuppressive regimens, which have already been published in well designed clinical studies, and discusses how immunosuppression should be individualised in renal transplant patients.Overall, short-term patient and graft survival with cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus is almost identical. The incidence of acute rejection is generally lower in tacrolimus/azathioprine- than in cyclosporin/azathioprine-treated patients. However, in conjunction with MMF, the difference in the incidence of acute rejection between tacrolimus- and cyclosporin-treated patients became smaller. Adverse events, such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and cosmetic changes (gum hypertrophy, hirsutism) seem to be less frequent in tacrolimus-treated than in cyclosporin-treated patients. Recent randomised studies showed that the incidence of post-transplant diabetes mellitus was almost identical between low-dose tacrolimus- and cyclosporin-treated patients. According to the data discussed in this review, the recommendation on the choice of calcineurin inhibitors at this moment is that either cyclosporin or tacrolimus can be used safely and effectively for patients without any risk factors. However, at our centre, we prefer tacrolimus to cyclosporin in patients with a high risk for rejection, such as those with ABO-incompatibility, delayed graft function, sensitisation, and African American race and some other risk factors, such as hypertension and hyperlipidaemia. Moreover, tacrolimus may be preferable to cyclosporin for women because of hirsutism and for children because of the steroid-sparing effect. We consider that cyclosporin should be chosen when patients experience tacrolimus-related adverse events, such as severe chest pain, tremor, gastrointestinal symptoms and encephalopathy. In conclusion, well tolerated and effective immunosuppression is feasible with both cyclosporin and tacrolimus. In the current immunosuppressive regimens, a calcineurin inhibitor, either tacrolimus or cyclosporin, is the essential basic standard immunosuppressant. Clinicians need to decide the best means of optimising therapy for individual patients, based on various risk factors, such as risk of rejection, i.e. sensitisation, delayed graft function and ABO-incompatibility, and some adverse events, such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and cosmetic changes.