OBJECTIVE: To compare the positive and negative effects of tacrolimus and ciclosporin as initial treatment for renal transplant recipients. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Reports of comparative randomised trials of tacrolimus and ciclosporin identified by searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Renal Group Specialist Register, and conference proceedings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. Data were synthesised (random effects model) and results expressed as relative risk (RR), with values < 1 favouring tacrolimus. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to examine potential effect modification by differences in trial design and immunosuppressive co-interventions. RESULTS: 123 reports from 30 trials (4102 patients) were included. At six months, graft loss was significantly reduced in tacrolimus treated recipients (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.86), and this effect persisted up to three years. The relative reduction in graft loss with tacrolimus diminished with higher concentrations of tacrolimus (P = 0.04) but did not vary with ciclosporin formulation (P = 0.97) or ciclosporin concentration (P = 0.38). At one year, tacrolimus treated patients had less acute rejection (RR = 0.69, 0.60 to 0.79) and less steroid resistant rejection (RR = 0.49, 0.37 to 0.64) but more diabetes mellitus requiring insulin (RR = 1.86, 1.11 to 3.09), tremor, headache, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, and vomiting. The relative excess of diabetes increased with higher concentrations of tacrolimus (P = 0.003). Ciclosporin treated recipients had significantly more constipation and cosmetic side effects. No differences were seen in infection or malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of ciclosporin for the first year after transplantation avoids 12 patients having acute rejection and two losing their graft but causes an extra five patients to develop insulin dependent diabetes. Optimal drug choice may vary between patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the positive and negative effects of tacrolimus and ciclosporin as initial treatment for renal transplant recipients. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Reports of comparative randomised trials of tacrolimus and ciclosporin identified by searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Renal Group Specialist Register, and conference proceedings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. Data were synthesised (random effects model) and results expressed as relative risk (RR), with values < 1 favouring tacrolimus. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to examine potential effect modification by differences in trial design and immunosuppressive co-interventions. RESULTS: 123 reports from 30 trials (4102 patients) were included. At six months, graft loss was significantly reduced in tacrolimus treated recipients (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.86), and this effect persisted up to three years. The relative reduction in graft loss with tacrolimus diminished with higher concentrations of tacrolimus (P = 0.04) but did not vary with ciclosporin formulation (P = 0.97) or ciclosporin concentration (P = 0.38). At one year, tacrolimus treated patients had less acute rejection (RR = 0.69, 0.60 to 0.79) and less steroid resistant rejection (RR = 0.49, 0.37 to 0.64) but more diabetes mellitus requiring insulin (RR = 1.86, 1.11 to 3.09), tremor, headache, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, and vomiting. The relative excess of diabetes increased with higher concentrations of tacrolimus (P = 0.003). Ciclosporin treated recipients had significantly more constipation and cosmetic side effects. No differences were seen in infection or malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of ciclosporin for the first year after transplantation avoids 12 patients having acute rejection and two losing their graft but causes an extra five patients to develop insulin dependent diabetes. Optimal drug choice may vary between patients.
Authors: Manuel Pascual; Tom Theruvath; Tatsuo Kawai; Nina Tolkoff-Rubin; A Benedict Cosimi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Weimer; S Streller; A Staak; M Heilke; D Li; H Dietrich; V Daniel; A Feustel; L Rainer; S Zinn; S Friemann; W Ernst; H Grimm; W Padberg; T Zimmermann; G Opelz Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Richard Trompeter; Guido Filler; Nicholas J A Webb; Alan R Watson; David V Milford; Gunnar Tyden; Ryszard Grenda; Jan Janda; David Hughes; Jochen H H Ehrich; Bernd Klare; Graziella Zacchello; Inge Bjorn Brekke; Mary McGraw; Ferenc Perner; Lucian Ghio; Egon Balzar; Styrbjörn Friman; Rosanna Gusmano; Jochen Stolpe Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Shahram Shahangian; Todd D Alspach; J Rex Astles; Ajay Yesupriya; William K Dettwyler Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Julia M Barbarino; Christine E Staatz; Raman Venkataramanan; Teri E Klein; Russ B Altman Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.089