Improvement of cardiovascular risk factors in heart transplant recipients after conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus: a role of the TGF-beta system

The first year post-heart transplantation: use of immunosuppressive drugs and early complications

A large number of heart transplants are performed annually in different transplant centers in the United States. This is partly because of the improved survival of patients who undergo cardiac transplantation, thus making it a more viable option in the management of end-stage heart failure. The survival benefit after heart transplantation is a result of newer immunosuppressive drug regimens and a better understanding of their effects and interactions. Several studies, mostly involving a small number of patients, describe use and comparison of the many distinct immunosuppressive drugs available to date. Interestingly, many transplant centers perform in-house typical induction treatment regimens because of their own experience and intra-institutional preference. This review summarizes current practices of immunosuppressive drug therapy in the first year post-heart transplant based on the available clinical evidence and discusses future options of heart transplant immunosuppressive drug therapies.

Tacrolimus: in heart transplant recipients

Tacrolimus is a calcineurin inhibitor recently approved in the US and throughout the EU for the prevention of allograft rejection in heart transplant recipients. It is commonly administered orally for long-term immunosuppression. The incidence of mild to severe acute rejection in the first 6 months following heart transplantation was significantly lower in tacrolimus recipients than in ciclosporin recipients (54% vs 66%) in a large, phase III trial conducted in Europe. A large, phase III trial conducted in the US did not show a significant difference between tacrolimus and ciclosporin in the incidence of severe rejection or haemodynamic compromise rejection requiring treatment within the first 6 months post-transplant (22% vs 32%), but did show a significant difference in the incidence at 1 year (23% vs 37%). In phase III trials, 1-year patient survival was similar between tacrolimus and ciclosporin recipients in the EU (93% vs 92%) and the US (95% vs 90%). Tacrolimus was shown to be effective in the prevention of rejection in paediatric and African American heart transplant recipients. The tolerability profile of tacrolimus in heart transplant recipients was broadly similar to that of ciclosporin, although tacrolimus was usually associated with lower incidences of post-transplant hypertension and dyslipidaemia.

Conversion From Cyclosporine Microemulsion to Tacrolimus-Based Immunoprophylaxis Improves Cholesterol Profile in Heart Transplant Recipients With Treated but Persistent Dyslipidemia: The Canadian Multicentre Randomized Trial of Tacrolimus vs Cyclosporine Microemulsion

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus improves lipid profile in renal and liver transplant recipients. The impact of conversion from cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) to tacrolimus (Prograf) in a large randomized study of stable heart transplant recipients with treated but persistent mild dyslipidemia is reported.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-nine long-term (>or=12 months) cyclosporine microemulsion-treated heart transplant recipients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >2.5 mmol/liter and/or a total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio >4 were recruited for the study. Complete lipid profile was assessed before (baseline) and after 6 months of treatment with either cyclosporine microemulsion maintenance (n=64) or tacrolimus conversion (n=65).

RESULTS

At 6 months, tacrolimus-converted patients exhibited a greater decrease in total cholesterol (from 5.51 +/- 0.16 to 4.88 +/- 1.22 mmol/liter [tacrolimus], vs 5.61 +/- 1.36 to 5.38 +/- 0.87 mmol/liter [cyclosporine]; p = 0.0078). This decrease in cholesterol was caused largely by a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.41 +/- 0.54 [tacrolimus] vs -0.13 +/- 0.55 [cyclosporine]; p=0.0018). There were no changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but apolipoprotein B therapy was reduced in tacrolimus-converted vs cyclosporine-maintained patients (p=0.0003). By 6 months, 23.7% of tacrolimus- vs 6.7% of cyclosporine-treated patients met the target lipid levels for high-risk patients (p=0.0094). Conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus resulted in decreases in blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and uric acid without any changes in glucose, HbA(1C), and insulin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from cyclosporine microemulsion- to tacrolimus-based immunoprophylaxis resulted in decreased cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, urea, creatinine, and uric acid without any clinically evident perturbation of glucose metabolism in stable heart transplant recipients with treated but persistent mild dyslipidemia.

Cyclosporine versus tacrolimus in kidney transplantation: are there differences in nephrotoxicity?

Cyclosporine and tacrolimus, two calcineurin inhibitors, show different side effects and toxicities. The data concerning their nephrotoxicity are few and conflicting. A retrospective study was performed in 2 groups of renal transplant recipients treated with cyclosporine or tacrolimus to evaluate graft function and side effects. All patients had completed at least 6 months of follow-up before inclusion in the study. Group I included 10 patients who were converted from cyclosporine to tacrolimus, due to cosmetic problems or due to chronic graft dysfunction with creatinine values <3 mg/dL. After conversion, there was a significant reduction in creatinine values (from 2.43 +/- 1.21 to 1.86 +/- 0.72 mg/dL; P =.023) and an improvement in creatinine clearance (from 47.5 +/- 19.2 to 56.1 +/- 18.9 mL/min; P =.047). The lipid profile did not change, but there was a trend to better blood pressure control with less antihypertensive drugs. Group II compared 2 subgroups of patients receiving kidneys from the same donor, one treated with cyclosporine and the other with tacrolimus. Tacrolimus patients showed better renal function; namely, creatinine was 1.15 +/- 0.27 versus 1.44 +/- 0.33 mg/dL (P =.029) and creatinine clearance was 87.7 +/- 27.1 versus 60.3 +/- 25.9 mL/min (P =.043). Lipid and blood pressure values were not different between the 2 subgroups, but tacrolimus patients tended to need a lower number of antihypertensive medications. The incidence of de novo diabetes mellitus was approximately 20% among patients using tacrolimus. We concluded that tacrolimus may be less nephrotoxic than cyclosporine. Tacrolimus patients showed better graft function and easier blood pressure control, but a high incidence of posttransplantation diabetes mellitus.

The interaction between FK778 and tacrolimus in the prevention of rat cardiac allograft rejection is dose dependent

OBJECTIVE

The synthetic malononitrilamide FK778 inhibits T- and B-cell responsiveness, phagocyte effector function, exerts inhibitory activity against cytomegalovirus, and is thus one of the most promising new immunosuppressive drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the combination of FK778 and tacrolimus in a high-responder rat cardiac transplantation model.

METHODS

The Brown Norway-Lewis rat strain combination was used to investigate graft survival after 10 days of posttransplant oral therapy with FK778 (5 or 20 mg/kg), tacrolimus (2 or 8 mg/kg), or combination regimens at varying doses (5+2 mg/kg, 10+1 mg/kg, or 20+8 mg/kg). Grafts were harvested after cessation of cardiac contractions. Combination indices (CI) were calculated for drug combinations.

RESULTS

In untreated recipients, allograft survival was 6.2+/-0.4 days. FK778 at 20 mg/kg and tacrolimus at 2 or 8 mg/kg significantly prolonged graft survival to a mean survival time (MST) of 17.0+/-2.8, 18.5+/-2.7, and 25.0+/-2.5 days, respectively. The two low-dose drug combinations achieved a graft survival of 23.2+/-2.9 and 25.2+/-3.1 days, which was significantly longer compared with FK778 at 5 mg/kg, FK778 at 20 mg/kg, and tacrolimus at 2 mg/kg (P </=0.003) and was similar to that of high-dose tacrolimus therapy (8 mg/kg). The drugs showed synergistic interactions (CI values of 0.62 and 0.52, respectively). With the high-dose drug combination, MST was 30.0+/-4.1 days, which was significantly longer compared with all other groups (P </=0.012). However, drugs showed only additive interaction (CI=0.95), and recipients suffered enhanced toxic side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that FK778 and tacrolimus show supportive interaction in their immunosuppressive potency that is synergistic in low-dose combinations and additive in higher doses.