A single-centre experience with cyclosporine microemulsion versus tacrolimus in 100 randomized liver transplant recipients: midterm efficacy and safety

Maintenance immunosuppression for adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As part of liver transplantation, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections resulting from the immune response of the body against transplanted organ or tissues from a different person whose tissue antigens are not compatible with those of the recipient. The optimal maintenance immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until October 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on immunosuppression for liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adult participants undergoing liver transplantation (or liver retransplantation) for any reason. We excluded trials in which participants had undergone multivisceral transplantation or participants with established graft rejections. We considered any of the various maintenance immunosuppressive regimens compared with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 26 trials (3842 participants) in the review, and 23 trials (3693 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The vast majority of the participants underwent primary liver transplantation. All of the trials were at high risk of bias, and all of the evidence was of low or very low quality. In addition, because of sparse data involving trials at high risk of bias, it is not possible to entirely rely on the results of the network meta-analysis. The trials included mainly participants undergoing primary liver transplantation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 3 to 144 months. The most common maintenance immunosuppression used as a control was tacrolimus. There was no evidence of difference in mortality (21 trials; 3492 participants) or graft loss (15 trials; 2961 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens based on the network meta-analysis. In the direct comparison, based on a single trial including 222 participants, tacrolimus plus sirolimus had increased mortality (HR 2.76, 95% CrI 1.30 to 6.69) and graft loss (HR 2.34, 95% CrI 1.28 to 4.61) at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (1 trial; 719 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (2 trials; 940 participants), renal impairment (8 trials; 2233 participants), chronic kidney disease (1 trial; 100 participants), graft rejections (any) (16 trials; 2726 participants), and graft rejections requiring treatment (5 trials; 1025 participants) between the different immunosuppressive regimens. The network meta-analysis showed that the number of adverse events was lower with cyclosporine A than with many other immunosuppressive regimens (12 trials; 1748 participants), and the risk of retransplantation (13 trials; 1994 participants) was higher with cyclosporine A than with tacrolimus (HR 3.08, 95% CrI 1.13 to 9.90). None of the trials reported number of serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or costs.

FUNDING

14 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the results of the trial; two trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 10 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-quality evidence from a single small trial from direct comparison, tacrolimus plus sirolimus increases mortality and graft loss at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. Based on very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis, we found no evidence of difference between different immunosuppressive regimens. We found very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis and low-quality evidence from direct comparison that cyclosporine A causes more retransplantation compared with tacrolimus. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid postrandomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft loss, renal impairment, chronic kidney disease, and retransplantation. Such trials should use tacrolimus as one of the control groups. Moreover, such trials ought to be designed in such a way as to ensure low risk of bias and low risks of random errors.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tacrolimus versus Ciclosporin as Primary Immunosuppression After Liver Transplant

Background and Aims

Several meta-analyses comparing ciclosporin with tacrolimus have been conducted since the 1994 publication of the tacrolimus registration trials, but most captured data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) predating recent improvements in waiting list prioritization, induction protocols and concomitant medications. The present study comprised a systematic review and meta-analysis of ciclosporin and tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients using studies published since January 2000.

Methods

Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE identified RCTs of tacrolimus and ciclosporin as the immunosuppressant in adult primary liver transplant recipients, published between January 2000 and August 6, 2014. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relative risk of death, graft loss, acute rejection (AR), new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) and hypertension with tacrolimus relative to ciclosporin at 12 months.

Results

The literature search identified 11 RCTs comparing ciclosporin with tacrolimus. Relative to ciclosporin, tacrolimus was associated with significantly improved outcomes in terms of patient mortality (risk ratio [RR] with ciclosporin of 1.26; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.01–1.58). Tacrolimus was superior to ciclosporin in terms of hypertension (RR with ciclosporin 1.26; 95%CI 1.07–1.47), but inferior in terms of NODAT (RR with ciclosporin 0.60; 95%CI 0.47–0.77). There were no significant differences between ciclosporin and tacrolimus in terms of graft loss or AR.

Conclusions

Meta-analysis of RCTs published since 2000 showed tacrolimus to be superior to ciclosporin in terms of patient mortality and hypertension, while ciclosporin was superior in terms of NODAT. No significant differences were identified in terms of graft loss or AR. These findings provide further evidence supporting the use of tacrolimus as the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy in liver transplant recipients.

A cost-utility analysis of prolonged-release tacrolimus relative to immediate-release tacrolimus and ciclosporin in liver transplant recipients in the UK

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) represent the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the relative efficacy of CNIs ciclosporin, prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus, and immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus in adult liver transplant recipients based on randomized and large observational trials published since 2000. Based on the NMA findings, the present study evaluated the cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to ciclosporin or IR tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of immunosuppressive regimens in liver transplant recipients, capturing costs associated with immunosuppression, retransplantation, acute rejection (AR), and cytomegalovirus infection. Mortality, graft loss, and AR odds ratios were derived from the NMA. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and the NHS National Tariff and expressed in 2016 pounds sterling. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Over 25 years, PR tacrolimus resulted in increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Relative to ciclosporin, QALE increased by 1.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with PR tacrolimus while costs increased by GBP £4645, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3962 per QALY gained. Relative to IR tacrolimus, QALE increased by 0.78 QALYs and costs by £1474, resulting in an ICER of £1889 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed the analysis to be most sensitive to dosing assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a UK-specific analysis of the projected cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, PR tacrolimus was cost-effective, improving life expectancy and QALE relative to both IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, yielding ICERs below £20 000 per QALY gained. The main limitations of the study were data source heterogeneity and omitting the economic and clinical effects of treating aspects of recurrent liver disease.

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.

Cyclosporin versus tacrolimus as primary immunosuppressant after liver transplantation: a meta-analysis

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) was undertaken to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of immunosuppression with cyclosporin versus tacrolimus for liver transplanted patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central and Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Registers were searched. Using fixed and random effects model, relative risk (RR), values <1 favoring tacrolimus, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Of 717 potentially relevant references, 16 RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Mortality and graft loss at 1 year were significantly reduced in tacrolimus-treated recipients (Death: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99; graft loss: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.86). Tacrolimus reduced the number of recipients with acute rejection (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88) and steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47-0.74) in the first year. Lymphoproliferative disorder or dialysis rates were not different but more de novo diabetes (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.86) occurred with tacrolimus. More patients stopped cyclosporin than tacrolimus (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.66). Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin would avoid rejection and steroid-resistant rejection in nine and seven patients respectively, graft loss and death in five and two patients respectively, but four additional patients would develop diabetes after liver transplantation.

Five-year follow-up of a trial comparing Tacrolimus and cyclosporine microemulsion in liver transplantation

We evaluate 5-year results of a prospective randomized trial that compared cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA-me) and Tacrolimus (Tac) for primary immunosuppression. One hundred one adult patients undergoing liver transplantation were randomized to receive Tac (n = 50) or CsA-me (n = 51). The most frequent indication for the procedure was cirrhosis due to virus C followed by alcoholism. Survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 86%, 75%, and 72%, respectively; there was no significant difference between CsA-me versus Tac arms. Acute rejection occurred in 30 cases (30%), independent of the type of primary immunosuppression. Serious adverse events were reported significantly more among patients under CsA-me (48 episodes) than under Tac (32 episodes). Nineteen patients were switched to the other calcineurin inhibitor. The switch was much more frequent from CsA-me to Tac (n = 15; 29.4%), mainly because of lack of efficacy (n = 10; 19.6%). There were no cases of chronic rejections in the Tac arm. Four patients were switched from Tac to CsA-me for side effects; only 1 remains alive, after treatment was changed from CsA-me to an antimetabolite. There were no statistical differences in renal dysfunction, diabetes, hypertension, neurologic disorders, new-onset malignancies, or infections. There were no differences in survival or rejection among the intention-to-treat groups. Serious adverse events, total patients with switch of calcineurin inhibitor, as well as switches due to lack of efficacy, were statistically more frequent under CsA-me. Tacrolimus seems to be a more appropriate drug to be used for primary immunosuppression in liver transplantation.

Evolution of immunosuppression in liver transplantation: contribution of cyclosporine

Liver transplantation has become the standard therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease or acute liver failure, with excellent outcomes in terms of quality of life and length of survival. The use of immunosuppressive agents, without any doubt, has played a crucial role in the establishment of this technique and improved short- and long-term survival rates. Eventually, mortality from acute or chronic rejection may be entirely eliminated. Minimizing the adverse effects of immunosuppressive agents is essential to improve long-term survival and quality of life. In this chapter, we review the history of immunosuppressive agents for liver transplantation with consideration of the pre- and the postcyclosporine eras. We also review the development and contributions of cyclosporine, the excellent outcomes from C2 monitoring, comparisons between the cyclosporine microemulsion and the oil-based formula, as well as between cyclosporine microemulsion versus tacrolimus. In addition, details are provided on the newer immunosuppressive agents: mycophenolate mofetil, sirolimus, and the IL-2 receptor antagonists, as well as agents in development: CAMPATH 1-H, thymoglobulin, everolimus, FT720, and FK778.

Tacrolimus: a further update of its use in the management of organ transplantation

Extensive clinical use has confirmed that tacrolimus (Prograf) is a key option for immunosuppression after transplantation. In large, prospective, randomised, multicentre trials in adults and children receiving solid organ transplants, tacrolimus was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure rates and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. Notably, the lower incidence of rejection episodes after renal transplantation in tacrolimus recipients was reflected in improved cost effectiveness. In bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients, the incidence of tacrolimus grade II-IV graft-versus-host disease was significantly lower with tacrolimus than cyclosporin treatment. Efficacy was maintained in renal and liver transplant recipients after total withdrawal of corticosteroid therapy from tacrolimus-based immunosuppression, with the incidence of acute rejection episodes at up to 2 years' follow-up being similar with or without corticosteroids. Tacrolimus provided effective rescue therapy in transplant recipients with persistent acute or chronic allograft rejection or drug-related toxicity associated with cyclosporin treatment. Typically, conversion to tacrolimus reversed rejection episodes and/or improved the tolerability profile, particularly in terms of reduced hyperlipidaemia. In lung transplant recipients with obliterative bronchiolitis, conversion to tacrolimus reduced the decline in and/or improved lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Tolerability issues may be a factor when choosing a calcineurin inhibitor. Cyclosporin tends to be associated with a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, hirsutism, gingivitis and gum hyperplasia, whereas the incidence of some types of neurotoxicity, disturbances in glucose metabolism, diarrhoea, pruritus and alopecia may be higher with tacrolimus treatment. Renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rates, was better in tacrolimus than cyclosporin recipients at up to 5 years' follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Recent well designed trials have consolidated the place of tacrolimus as an important choice for primary immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation and in BMT. Notably, in adults and children receiving transplants, tacrolimus-based primary immunosuppression was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion treatment in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure and the incidence of acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. The reduced incidence of rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus translated into a better cost effectiveness relative to cyclosporin microemulsion treatment. The optimal immunosuppression regimen is ultimately dependent on balancing such factors as the efficacy of the individual drugs, their tolerability, potential for drug interactions and pharmacoeconomic issues.