A randomized comparison of an immunosuppressive strategy using tacrolimus and cyclosporine in black heart transplant recipients

Cost-Effectiveness of Tacrolimus Compared With Cyclosporine for Immunosuppression Therapy in Patients Who Underwent Heart Transplant in Colombia

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatment in maintenance therapy for adult heart transplant recipients from the Colombian health system perspective.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree model with a 1-year time horizon. A review of the clinical literature was performed to extract probabilities of health events and acute rejections avoided were used as the health outcome. Costs were calculated from the base-case approximation and were obtained from administrative databases in Colombia (Sistema de Información de Precios de Medicamentos 2020 and Suficiencia 2012-2019), and the prices were adjusted to US dollar 2021.

RESULTS

Two evaluation results were presented. The first evaluates the tacrolimus + azathioprine + corticosteroid (TAC) scheme compared with cyclosporine + azathioprine + corticosteroid (CAC), in which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicates that 1 additional rejection avoided has a cost of US dollar $5461.09 which, compared with the cost-effectiveness threshold in the base case, indicates that the TAC scheme is not a cost-effective (CE) strategy with respect to the CAC scheme. The second result shows the comparison of tacrolimus + mycophenolate mofetil + corticosteroid (TMC) with cyclosporine + mycophenolate mofetil + corticosteroid (CMC) in which TMC was found to be a dominant alternative to CMC.

CONCLUSIONS

The tacrolimus-based immunosuppression scheme is not CE in its TAC scheme, versus CAC, and is dominant in its TMC scheme, versus CMC, sensitivity analyses show that tacrolimus could become a CE alternative in any scheme used against higher cost-effectiveness threshold.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine as primary immunosuppression after heart transplantation: systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised trials

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials to compare the benefits and harms of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine as primary immunosuppression after heart transplantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched electronic databases and bibliographies up to April 2010. Our review followed the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analysis included 10 randomized trials with 952 patients. Tacrolimus was significantly superior to cyclosporine (both formula-combined) with regard to hypertension (relative risk [RR] 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.93, p = 0.003), hyperlipidaemia (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44-0.74, p < 0.0001), hirsutism (RR 0.17 95% CI 0.04-0.62, p = 0.008), and gingival hyperplasia (RR 0.07 95% CI 0.01-0.37, p = 0.002). No significant differences between the two calcineurin inhibitors were found with regard to acute rejections causing haemodynamic instability, diabetes, renal dysfunction, infection, malignancy, or neurotoxicity. Tacrolimus was significantly superior to microemulsion cyclosporine with regard to mortality (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42-0.96, p = 0.03), acute severe biopsy-proven rejection (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.56-0.90, p = 0.004), hyperlipidaemia (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.41-0.79, p = 0.0009), hirsutism (RR 0.17 95% CI 0.04-0.62, p = 0.008), and gingival hyperplasia (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.37, p = 0.002). Tacrolimus was significantly superior to oil-based cyclosporine with regard to hypertension (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.54-0.80, p < 0.0001), and hyperlipidaemia (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Tacrolimus seems to be superior to cyclosporine in heart transplant patients with regard to hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, gingival hyperplasia and hirsutism. In addition, tacrolimus seems to be superior to microemulsion cyclosporine in heart transplant patients with regard to a number of outcomes, including death. More trials with a low risk of bias are needed to determine if the results of the present meta-analysis can be confirmed.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine microemulsion for heart transplant recipients: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus and cyclosporine microemulsion are the 2 major immunosuppressants for heart transplantation. Several studies have compared these 2 drugs, but the outcomes were not consistent. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared the beneficial and harmful effects of tacrolimus and microemulsion cyclosporine for heart transplant recipients.

METHODS

Electronic databases and manual bibliography searches were conducted. A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials comparing tacrolimus with cyclosporine microemulsion as primary immunosuppression for heart transplant recipients. Data for mortality, acute rejection, withdrawals, and adverse events were extracted. The combined results of the data of the randomized controlled trials were summarized as relative risk with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The study assessed 7 randomized controlled trials including 885 patients. There was no difference in mortality at 1 year between recipients treated with tacrolimus and cyclosporine microemulsion. Tacrolimus-treated patients had less acute rejection risk at 6 months and 1 year. Fewer patients stopped tacrolimus than cyclosporine microemulsion. The rate of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring insulin treatment was higher with tacrolimus. More post-transplantation hypertension occurred with cyclosporine microemulsion. The groups had comparable incidences of malignancy and renal failure needing dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of tacrolimus as primary immunosuppressant for heart transplant recipients results in comparable survival and a significant reduction in acute rejection compared with cyclosporine microemulsion.

Cardiac retransplantation in children

To discuss the indications for and outcomes of cardiac retransplantation in childhood. The major challenge of pediatric heart transplantation is graft failure. The major causes of graft failure include coronary allograft vasculopathy and chronic rejection. Retransplantation may be considered in children or young adults who develop graft failure following pediatric heart transplantation. Retransplantation now accounts for 7% of all pediatric transplants. Recent studies have demonstrated that cardiac retransplantation has a poorer outcome than primary heart transplantation. However, the interval from primary transplant to retransplantation appears to impact significantly the success of retransplantation. When children undergo retransplantation for early graft failure, the survival is quite poor and the appropriateness of this strategy is questionable. However, children who undergo retransplantation many years after primary transplantation have outcomes that are similar to primary transplantation. The decision to pursue retransplantation depends on the severity of graft failure and recent data suggest that identification of mild graft dysfunction or coronary allograft vasculopathy does not imply impending graft failure. Novel therapies to extend the life of the primary graft and to stratify those at risk of severe graft dysfunction will improve the allocation of scarce organs for pediatric patients who might be candidates for cardiac retransplantation. Retransplantation can extend the lives of children who develop graft failure after primary transplantation. However, not all patients who develop graft dysfunction should necessarily be listed for retransplantation.

Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine microemulsion in primary cardiac transplant recipients: 6-month results in Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the efficacy and safety of a tacrolimus (TAC)-based with a cyclosporine (CsA)microemulsion-based immunosuppressive regimen in primary cardiac transplantation.

METHODS

Heart recipients were randomly assigned to receive either TAC or CsA regimen after sequential induction with rabbit anti-thymoglobulin. Endomyocardial biopsies were performed at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 and months 2, 3, and 6.

RESULTS

Among 21 adult patients (TAC, 11; CsA, 10) in this study, patient survival rates were 100% in both groups at the end of 6 months. One patient (9%) in the TAC group experienced acute rejection (ISHLT > or = 1B) versus 6 patients (60%) in the CsA group (P = .02). The effects on hematology, biochemistry, cytomegalovirus infection, and hemodynamics were similar in both groups except for better lipid profiles in the TAC group. There were no significant differences in severe adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The TAC-based regimen had a lower risk of acute rejection compared with CsA in heart transplant recipients. The safety profiles were similar in both groups. Therefore, TAC is an alternative to CsA as a primary maintenance immunosuppressant in heart transplantation.

An update on clinical outcomes in heart and lung transplantation

Much progress has been made in heart and lung transplantation over recent decades. The immune mechanisms that result in allograft rejection are now better understood, and the development of immunosuppressant therapies has decreased recipient mortality among transplant recipients. During the 1980s, immunosuppressant therapy primarily involved the use of corticosteroids and cyclosporine. However, while survival rates increased among transplant recipients, many patients experienced primary graft failures, acute and chronic rejection, as well as death. Until the introduction of tacrolimus in the early 1990s, all patients received the same immunosuppressant regimen, regardless of its effectiveness. Tacrolimus therapy has contributed much to the success rates of both heart and lung transplantation, and by 2001, it had become the preeminent immunosuppressant agent used in lung transplantation.

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.

Cyclosporin: an updated review of the pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy and tolerability of a microemulsion-based formulation (neoral)1 in organ transplantation

Cyclosporin is a lipophilic cyclic polypeptide immunosuppressant that interferes with the activity of T cells chiefly via calcineurin inhibition. The original oil-based oral formulation of this drug (Sandimmun)l was characterised by high intra- and interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, with poor bioavailability in many patients; a novel microemulsion formulation (Neoral)1 was therefore developed to circumvent these problems. Studies show increases, attributable chiefly to improved absorption in patients who absorb the drug only poorly from the original formulation, in mean systemic exposure to cyclosporin with the microemulsion, with no clinically significant differences in tolerability or drug interaction profiles. Cyclosporin microemulsion is at least as effective as the oil-based formulation in renal, liver and heart transplant recipients, with trends towards decreased incidence of acute rejection with the microemulsion formulation in some (statistically significant in a few) trials. Cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus appear to have similar efficacy in preventing acute rejection episodes in most renal, pancreas-kidney, liver and heart transplant recipients. However, there are indications of superior efficacy for tacrolimus in some trials, particularly in the prevention of severe acute rejection and in Black transplant recipients. Current 12-month data also indicate equivalent efficacy of sirolimus in renal transplantation. Conversion from the oil-based to microemulsion formulation in stable renal, liver and heart transplant recipients is achievable with no change in acute rejection rates. The addition of an anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody and/or mycophenolate mofetil to cyclosporin microemulsion plus corticosteroids decreases rates of acute rejection; corticosteroid withdrawal without increased acute rejection rates was also achieved on the addition of these agents in some trials. Pharmacoeconomic analyses have shown savings in direct healthcare costs in kidney or liver transplantation when cyclosporin microemulsion is used in preference to the oil-based formulation, although studies incorporating indirect costs or expressing costs in terms of therapeutic outcomes are currently unavailable.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of cyclosporin microemulsion has consolidated the place of the drug as a mainstay of therapy in all types of solid organ transplantation; research into optimisation of outcomes through more effective therapeutic monitoring in patients receiving this formulation is ongoing. Several novel immunosuppressants have been introduced in recent years: further clinical and pharmacoeconomic research will be needed to clarify the relative positioning of these agents, particularly with respect to specific patient groups. Other new drugs (basiliximab/daclizumab and mycophenolate mofetil) offer particular advantages when used in combination with cyclosporin.