Cyclosporin versus tacrolimus for liver transplanted patients.

BACKGROUND Most liver transplant recipients receive either cyclosporin or tacrolimus to prevent rejection. Both drugs inhibit calcineurin phosphatase which is thought to be the mechanism of their anti-rejection effect and principle toxicities. The drugs have different pharmacokinetic profiles and potencies. Several randomised clinical trials have compared cyclosporin and tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients, but it remains unclear which is superior. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of immunosuppression with cyclosporin versus tacrolimus for liver transplanted patients. SEARCH STRATEGY The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded, and conference proceedings were searched (August 2005) to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. Our search included scanning of reference lists in relevant articles and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised clinical trials where tacrolimus was compared with cyclosporin for the initial treatment of first-time liver transplant recipients. We included randomised trials irrespective of blinding, language, and publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Data were synthesised (fixed-effect model) and results expressed as relative risk (RR), values less than 1.0 favouring tacrolimus, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Two authors assessed trials for eligibility, quality, and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS We included 16 randomised trials. The number of deaths was 254 in the tacrolimus group (1899 patients) and 302 in the cyclosporin group (1914 patients). At one year, mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99) and graft loss (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86) were significantly reduced in tacrolimus-treated recipients. Tacrolimus reduced the number of recipients with acute rejection (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88), and steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74) in the first year. Differences were not seen with respect to lymphoproliferative disorder or de-novo dialysis rates, but more de-novo insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.86) occurred in the tacrolimus group. More patients were withdrawn from cyclosporin therapy than from tacrolimus (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Tacrolimus is superior to cyclosporin in improving survival (patient and graft) and preventing acute rejection after liver transplantation, but it increases the risk of post-transplant diabetes. Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin would avoid acute rejection and steroid-resistant rejection in nine and seven patients, respectively, and graft loss and death in five and two patients, respectively, but four additional patients would develop diabetes after liver transplantation.

[1]  A. Webster,et al.  Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. , 2005, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  G. Klintmalm,et al.  Impact of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in hepatitis C virus‐infected liver transplant recipients on recurrent hepatitis: A prospective, randomized trial , 2004, Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society.

[3]  B. Gridelli,et al.  Tacrolimus and steroids versus ciclosporin microemulsion, steroids, and azathioprine in children undergoing liver transplantation: randomised European multicentre trial , 2004, The Lancet.

[4]  R. Fisher,et al.  Four‐year follow‐up of a prospective randomized trial of mycophenolate mofetil with cyclosporine microemulsion or tacrolimus following liver transplantation , 2004, Clinical transplantation.

[5]  G. Klintmalm,et al.  RESULTS OF LIS2T, A MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED STUDY COMPARING CYCLOSPORINE MICROEMULSION WITH C2 MONITORING AND TACROLIMUS WITH C0 MONITORING IN DE NOVO LIVER TRANSPLANTATION , 2004, Transplantation.

[6]  Pamela Royle,et al.  LITERATURE SEARCHING FOR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS USED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS: RAPID VERSUS EXHAUSTIVE SEARCHES , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  J. Barkun,et al.  Early steroid withdrawal after liver transplantation: The canadian tacrolimus versus microemulsion cyclosporin a trial: 1‐year follow‐up , 2003, Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society.

[8]  D. Elbourne,et al.  Tacrolimus versus microemulsified ciclosporin in liver transplantation: the TMC randomised controlled trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[9]  P. Hayes,et al.  Cardiac function after orthotopic liver transplantation and the effects of immunosuppression: A prospective randomized trial comparing cyclosporin (Neoral) and tacrolimus , 2002, Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society.

[10]  B. Kremer,et al.  A randomised trial comparing the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus with microemulsified cyclosporine after liver transplantation. , 2002, Transplantation proceedings.

[11]  L. Sharples,et al.  Influence of albumin supplementation on tacrolimus and cyclosporine therapy early after liver transplantation , 2002, Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society.

[12]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  L. Marín,et al.  A single-centre experience with cyclosporine microemulsion versus tacrolimus in 100 randomized liver transplant recipients: midterm efficacy and safety. , 2001, Transplantation proceedings.

[14]  F. Mühlbacher Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin microemulsion in liver transplantation: results of a 3-month study. , 2001, Transplantation proceedings.

[15]  B. Davidson,et al.  A pilot study of immunosuppressive monotherapy in liver transplantation: tacrolimus versus microemulsified cyclosporin. , 1999, Transplantation.

[16]  G A Knoll,et al.  Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin for immunosuppression in renal transplantation: meta-analysis of randomised trials , 1999, BMJ.

[17]  U. Settmacher,et al.  Mycophenolate mofetil in combination with tacrolimus versus Neoral after liver transplantation. , 1999, Transplantation proceedings.

[18]  R. Fisher,et al.  A prospective randomized trial of mycophenolate mofetil with neoral or tacrolimus after orthotopic liver transplantation. , 1998, Transplantation.

[19]  K. Reddy,et al.  Comparison of tacrolimus with microemulsion cyclosporine as primary immunosuppression in hepatitis C patients after liver transplantation. , 1998, Transplantation.

[20]  M. Stegall,et al.  Prednisone withdrawal 14 days after liver transplantation with mycophenolate: a prospective trial of cyclosporine and tacrolimus. , 1997, Transplantation.

[21]  K. Einarsson,et al.  Secretion and composition of bile after human liver transplantation: studies on the effects of cyclosporine and tacrolimus. , 1997, Transplantation.

[22]  T. Starzl,et al.  The Pittsburgh randomized trial of tacrolimus compared to cyclosporine for hepatic transplantation. , 1996, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[23]  T. Starzl,et al.  Randomised trialomania? The multicentre liver transplant trials of tacrolimus , 1995, The Lancet.

[24]  L. Theilmann,et al.  [Comparison between tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporin in immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation]. , 1995, Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie.

[25]  European Cooperative Study Group Randomised trial comparing tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporin in prevention of liver allograft rejection , 1994, The Lancet.

[26]  N. Sigal,et al.  FK-506 and cyclosporin A: Immunosuppressive mechanism of action and beyond , 1992, Current Biology.

[27]  T. Starzl,et al.  A randomized trial of primary liver transplantation under immunosuppression with FK 506 vs cyclosporine. , 1991, Transplantation proceedings.

[28]  T. Starzl,et al.  Immunosuppression and Other Nonsurgical Factors in the Improved Results of Liver Transplantation , 1985, Seminars in liver disease.

[29]  Linda Sher,et al.  A comparison of tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression in liver transplantation. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  N. Sigal,et al.  FK-506 AND CYCLOSPORIN A : IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE MECHANISM OF ACTION AND BEYOND , 1992 .