SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Cardiovascular risk;
  • cyclosporine;
  • nephrotoxicity;
  • renal transplantation;
  • side-effects;
  • tacrolimus

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

Long-term use of cyclosporine after renal transplantation results in nephrotoxicity and an increased cardiovascular risk profile. Tacrolimus may be more favorable in this respect. In this randomized controlled study in 124 renal transplant patients, the effects of conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus on renal function, cardiovascular risk factors, and perceived side-effects were investigated after a follow-up of 2 years. After conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus renal function remained stable, whereas continuation of cyclosporine was accompanied by a rise in serum creatinine from 142 ± 48 μmol/L to 157 ± 62 μmol/L (p < 0.05 comparing both groups). Conversion to tacrolimus resulted in a sustained reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and a sustained improvement in the serum lipid profile, leading to a reduction in the Framingham risk score from 5.7 ± 4.3 to 4.8 ± 5.3 (p < 0.05). Finally, conversion to tacrolimus resulted in decreased scores for occurrence of and distress due to side-effects. In conclusion, conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus in stable renal transplant patients is beneficial with respect to renal function, cardiovascular risk profile, and side-effects. Therefore, for most renal transplant patients tacrolimus will be the drug of choice when long-term treatment with a calcineurin inhibitor is indicated.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

Cyclosporine and tacrolimus are calcineurin inhibitors that are very effective in reducing the incidence of acute rejection after renal transplantation. However, cyclosporine-induced side-effects, including nephrotoxicity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia (1) may contribute to the high cardiovascular morbidity in renal transplant patients (2), and can also lead to an accelerated loss of graft function (3,4). Tacrolimus has also been associated with nephrotoxicity, but several studies report an increased graft survival in patients using tacrolimus as initial immunosuppressive treatment (5,6). Moreover, tacrolimus is associated with less hypertension and hyperlipidemia, thereby improving the cardiovascular risk profile (1). However, a drawback of tacrolimus is the increased risk of developing diabetes mellitus (5,6), which could antagonize the beneficial effect of reduced blood pressure and improved hyperlipidemia on the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Many of the renal transplant patients that have been transplanted in the past two decades are using cyclosporine as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. The question arises whether conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus in these chronic renal transplant patients will lead to an improved cardiovascular risk profile and whether renal graft function still can be improved.

In this prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial, we compared the effects of conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus in stable chronic renal transplant patients on graft function and on the cardiovascular risk profile, expressed as the Framingham risk score. Also, we assessed the patients' perceived symptom experience associated with side-effects of the immunosuppressive therapy, using the ‘modified transplant symptom occurrence and symptom distress scale’ (7). The changes in several metabolic parameters during the first 6 months after conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus have been described in detail before (8). In this paper, data on renal function, Framingham risk score, and side-effects until the end of follow-up, at 2 years after randomization, are presented.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

Patients

To be eligible for the study, the patients had to be at least 1 year post-transplantation with a stable endogenous creatinine clearance exceeding 20 mL/min. Immunosuppressive treatment at enrollment had to include cyclosporine with trough levels ranging from 50 to 200 ng/mL and prednisone, either with or without azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil.

Study protocol

The study protocol has been described before (8). In short, this prospective randomized controlled open-label multicenter trial was performed in four renal transplant centers. After stratification for center, patients were randomized to either continuation of cyclosporine or conversion to tacrolimus. Total follow-up was 24 months. Evaluation took place at baseline, at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Target drug trough levels were 50–200 ng/mL for cyclosporine and 5–8 ng/mL for tacrolimus. Adjustment of lipid-lowering drug treatment and antihypertensive treatment was only allowed under strict, predefined conditions. Blood pressure was measured in the supine position manually after 5 min of rest and also using an automated device (Dinamap, Critikon Inc., Tampa, FL, USA) during 30 min. The diagnosis of diabetes mellitus was based on fasting glucose levels, with a cut-off value of 7.0 mmol/L, measured on two separate occasions, in accordance with the American Diabetes Association criteria (9).

Framingham risk scores were calculated using baseline age, smoking behaviour, the presence of diabetes mellitus, fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (10). The study was approved by the medical ethics committee of each participating center. All patients gave written informed consent.

Laboratory procedures

All blood was drawn after an overnight fast. Plasma cholesterol and (fasting) triglycerides were measured at a certified routine clinical chemistry laboratory on a Hitachi 747 analyser (Hitachi Chemical Diagnostics Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK) using reagents of Roche (nos: 337574 and 1361155, respectively) (Roche Diagnostics Ltd., Basel, Switzerland). Cyclosporine levels were determined in whole blood with a fluorescence-polarization immune-assay (TDx/TDx FLx cyclosporine monoclonal whole blood assay, Abbott laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) and tacrolimus levels were determined using a microparticle enzyme immune-assay (Imx Tacrolimus II Assay, Abbott Laboratories). The endogenous creatinine clearance was calculated using the creatinine excretion in a 24-h urine sample.

Assessment of symptom experience

Symptom experience associated with side-effects of the immunosuppressive therapy was measured using the ‘Modified Transplant Symptom Occurrence and Distress Scale’ (MTSOSDS) (7). This scale includes 38 symptoms associated with side-effects of immunosuppressive medication (tacrolimus, cyclosporine, prednisone and azathioprine). The instrument measures symptom experience on a five-point rating scale from 0 (never occurring) to 4 (always occurring) for symptom occurrence, and from 0 (not at all distressing) to 4 (extremely distressing) for symptom distress, respectively. The following items were evaluated: acne, fragile skin, easy bruising, warts, skin rash, increased hair growth, hair loss, gingival hyperplasia, moon face, changed facial appearance, changed bodily appearance, swollen ankles, warmth in hands and feet, headache, poor vision, light insensitivity, tremor, paraesthesias, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, impotence/painful menstruation, decreased interest in sex, depression, agitation, anxiousness, mood swings, poor concentration, sleeplessness, hallucinations, nightmares, fatigue, increased appetite, poor appetite, abdominal pain, stomach complaints, diarrhoea, dysuria and back pain. The initial 29-item version of this instrument has been validated for the use in renal transplant patients (7). The content validity of the updated instrument is based on a comprehensive literature review and has been tested by an expert panel (data on file).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Product and Services Solutions (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) package, version 11.0. Values are given as mean ± standard deviation in case of a normal distribution or otherwise as median and interquartile range. For the serum lipids, blood pressure, glucose, HbA1c, and the Framingham risk scores, the mean level during treatment was calculated for each patient by dividing the area under the curve by the treatment duration, as the cardiovascular risk is related to the cumulative exposure time to risk factors. For analysis of renal function the value at the end of follow-up was used. Analysis of the serum creatinine levels was performed after normalization by calculating the reciprocal value. Statistical analysis was performed using ancova. Independent factors were randomization-group, baseline value, and in case of serum lipids the use of a statin at baseline. Categorical values were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate.

According to previous studies in the renal transplant population, symptom occurrence and symptom distress scores were analyzed by means of ridit analysis (11). Ridits represent a probability measure relative to an identified distribution, which can be analyzed parametrically. The ridit of a (sub)sample is always compared with the ridit of a chosen reference group and represents the probability that a randomly selected individual from that (sub)group scores higher on the response variable than a randomly selected individual of the reference group. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.500. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred were converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress (7). In order to determine a rank order of most frequently occurring and most distressing symptoms at baseline, a ridit was calculated for each item, using the frequency distribution of all answers on all items at baseline as a reference group. To calculate the evolution of the overall symptom occurrence and distress score in the cyclosporine and tacrolimus groups, the reference group was constituted by the frequency distribution of the responses of all patients on all items at baseline. Student's t-test was used to compare the ridits obtained.

All patients that were alive and not on renal replacement therapy were followed for renal function and blood pressure and these parameters were analyzed on an intention-to-treat base. In the patients who died or who started on renal replacement therapy, the last serum creatinine value obtained before death or renal replacement therapy was used for the analysis. The metabolic parameters and the symptom experiences were analyzed in the patients who remained on study medication during follow-up. A p-value of less than 0.05 (two-sided) was considered statistically significant.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

A total of 124 patients were included in the study, 64 were converted to tacrolimus and 60 remained on cyclosporine. Mean time after transplantation was 6.6 ± 3.7 years for the tacrolimus group and 5.7 ± 2.7 years for the cyclosporine group. The demographic data have been described previously (9). At baseline, the cyclosporine level was 129 ± 42 ng/mL in the cyclosporine group and 130 ± 42 ng/mL in the tacrolimus group. During follow-up, the cyclosporine level remained unchanged in the cyclosporine group. In the tacrolimus group, the tacrolimus level was 7.2 ± 2.0 ng/mL at 3 months and 6.6 ± 1.8 ng/mL at 2 years after randomization. Baseline prednisone dose was equal in both groups (0.10 ± 0.04 mg/kg). Baseline azathioprine dose was 0.88 ± 0.40 mg/kg (n = 10) in the tacrolimus group and 0.95 ± 0.47 mg/kg (n = 15) in the cyclosporine group. In the cyclosporine group, two patients used mycophenolate mofetil 2000 mg/day. Prednisone was stopped in two patients, and they were both withdrawn from the study. Azathioprine was stopped in one patient in the tacrolimus group and in one patient in the cyclosporine group.

The study protocol was not completed until the end of follow-up in 17 patients in the tacrolimus group and in 15 patients in the cyclosporine group (Table 1). In the tacrolimus group, two patients reached end-stage renal disease (ESRD), due to biopsy-proven chronic allograft nephropathy. In the cyclosporine group one patient, known to have recurrent membranous glomerulonephritis, reached ESRD. In each group, one patient was withdrawn from the study due to deteriorating renal function associated with chronic allograft nephropathy (tacrolimus group) and cyclosporine nephrotoxicity (cyclosporine group), respectively.

Table 1.  Patients that did not complete the study
 CyclosporineTacrolimus
  1. DM: diabetes mellitus.

Death of patient6 (10%)2 (3.1%)
 Cardiovascular32
 Malignancy10
 Infection10
 Pulmonary embolism10
End-stage renal disease1 (1.7%)2 (3.1%)
Withdrawal of study medication  
 Deterioration of renal function1 (1.7%)1 (1.6%)
 Intractable hypertension2 (3.3%)0 (0%)
 New-onset DM0 (0%)2 (3.1%)
 Dysregulation of pre-existent DM0 (0%)2 (3.1%)
 Other side-effects5 (8.3%)8 (12.5%)
Total15 (25.0%)17 (26.6%)

Renal function

Prior to inclusion, all patients had a stable serum creatinine concentration. During the 2-year follow-up period, serum creatinine increased in the cyclosporine group from 142 ± 48 to 157 ± 62 μmol/L (p < 0.001), while it remained stable in the tacrolimus group (139 ± 32 μmol/L at baseline and 145 ± 56 μmol/L at 24 months, p = 0.26, p < 0.05 for comparison between groups, Figure 1). In the cyclosporine group, the endogenous creatinine clearance decreased from 59 ± 26 mL/min to 49 ± 22 mL/min (n = 50; p < 0.001), whereas renal function remained stable in the tacrolimus group (60 ± 22 mL/min and 64 ± 33 mL/min, n = 58, p < 0.01 for comparison between groups).

image

Figure 1. Serum creatinine (mean and SEM) on cyclosporine (——) and on tacrolimus (- - - -).

Download figure to PowerPoint

In the cyclosporine group, 30 patients (50%) had a more than 10% rise in serum creatinine level during the 2 years of follow-up, as opposed to 15 patients (23.4%) in the tacrolimus group, while 6 patients (10%) in the cyclosporine group had a more than 10% improvement in serum creatinine level during follow-up, compared with 20 patients (31%) in the tacrolimus group (p < 0.001).

Proteinuria did not significantly change in either group during follow-up [median baseline value 0.2 (0–4.7) g/24 h in the cyclosporine group and 0.2(0–3.6) g/24 h in the tacrolimus group].

Cardiovascular risk factors

In the tacrolimus group, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (manually measured) were reduced from 144 ± 20 mmHg to 137 ± 21 mmHg (p < 0.001), and from 84 ± 11 mmHg to 80 ± 9 mmHg (p < 0.01), respectively (Figure 2). As a result, blood pressure in the tacrolimus group was significantly reduced when compared with the cyclosporine group (p < 0.01). The dynamap blood pressure readings essentially showed the same results (data not shown).

image

Figure 2. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (mmHg, mean and SEM) on cyclosporine (——) and on tacrolimus (- - - -). p < 0.01 comparing the area under the curve (AUC) on cyclosporine and on tacrolimus for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In the cyclosporine group, the systolic blood pressure was reduced by at least 12 mmHg in 15 patients (25%), as opposed to 28 patients (44%) in the tacrolimus group (p < 0.05). The diastolic blood pressure was reduced by at least 12 mmHg in 5 (8%) cyclosporine-treated patients and 17 (27%) tacrolimus-treated patients (p < 0.01).

The number of antihypertensive drugs per patient in the cyclosporine group was 1.9 ± 1.0 at baseline and 2.3 ± 1.1 at 2 years follow-up. In the tacrolimus group, the number of antihypertensive drugs was 2.0 ± 1.1 at baseline and 2.3 ± 1.1 at 2 years follow-up (no differences between groups).

Serum total and LDL cholesterol, and serum triglycerides were significantly reduced in the tacrolimus group, from 5.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L to 5.2 ± 0.8 mmol/L (p < 0.001), from 3.6 ± 0.8 mmol/L to 3.1 ± 0.8 mmol/L (p < 0.001), and from 2.1 ± 1.0 mmol/L to 1.7 ± 1.1 mmol/L (p < 0.05), respectively (p < 0.001 for comparison between groups for total and LDL cholesterol and p < 0.01 for triglycerides, Figure 3). Serum HDL cholesterol level remained unchanged in both groups. The use of a statin did not influence the changes in the serum lipid levels. Commencement of statin treatment or an increase in the dosage according to predefined guidelines was necessary in three patients in the tacrolimus group and in 10 patients in the cyclosporine group. After conversion to tacrolimus the statin was stopped in one patient, whereas this did not occur in the cyclosporine group.

image

Figure 3. Serum lipid levels and serum triglyceride levels (mmol/L, mean and SEM) on cyclosporine (——) and on tacrolimus (- - - -). p < 0.001 comparing the area under the curve (AUC) on cyclosporine and tacrolimus for total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and p < 0.01 for the serum triglyceride levels.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The fasting glucose level and the HbA1c level were analyzed for diabetic and nondiabetic patients separately, as in diabetic patients both glucose and HbA1c levels are influenced by dietary (non)-compliance and changes in medication. Fasting glucose and HbA1c levels did not change in either group during follow-up (Table 2). In the cyclosporine group, three patients developed new-onset diabetes mellitus vs. four patients in the tacrolimus group. In the diabetic patients of the cyclosporine group (n = 8), the anti-diabetic treatment remained unchanged in five patients. In two patients the dosage of anti-diabetic medication had to be increased and one patient was started on insulin. In the diabetic patients of the tacrolimus group (n = 8), the anti-diabetic medication remained unchanged in three patients. In two patients the dosage of anti-diabetic medication had to be increased and two patients were started on insulin. In one patient the dosage of insulin was reduced.

Table 2.  Glucose regulation on cyclosporine vs. tacrolimus
 CyclosporineTacrolimus 
baseline24 monthsbaseline24 months
  1. NS: no significant differences between groups.

  2. aHbA1c was determined in all patients from one participating center (n = 35), and in the remaining three centers in the diabetic patients only.

Glucose (mmol/L)nondiabetics5.0 (4.1–6.2)5.2 (4.0–7.0)5.0 (3.4–7.6)5.2 (4.0–7.1)NS
 (n = 108)
 diabetics9.5 (6.5–11.8)9.7 (5.5–4.0)7.7 (5.8–11.6)7.9 (6.0–14.1)NS
 (n = 16)
HbA1c (%)anondiabetics5.5 ± 0.45.7 ± 0.35.5 ± 0.45.6 ± 0.4NS
 (n = 31)
 diabetics7.9 ± 0.68.0 ± 0.88.8 ± 1.77.5 ± 1.7NS
 (n = 16)

The Framingham risk score was significantly reduced from 5.7 ± 4.3 at baseline to 4.8 ± 5.3 after 2 years in the tacrolimus group (p < 0.05), and remained unchanged in the cyclosporine group (6.0 ± 3.1 at baseline and 6.2 ± 3.6 at 24 months, p < 0.05 for comparison between groups, Figure 4). The use of a statin at baseline did not influence the change in Framingham risk score upon conversion to tacrolimus.

image

Figure 4. Framingham risk score (mean and SEM) on cyclosporine and on tacrolimus. p < 0.05 comparing the area under the curve (AUC) on cyclosporine and tacrolimus.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Symptom experience associated with side-effects of immunosuppressive therapy

In the tacrolimus group, eight patients were taken off tacrolimus due to the following side-effects: hair loss (n = 2), headache (n = 2), diarrhea (n = 1), palpitations (n = 1), tremor (n = 1) and toxic exanthema (n = 1). In the cyclosporine group, two patients were withdrawn from the study due to gingival hyperplasia (n = 1) and to severe osteoporosis for which prednisone was stopped (n = 1). In addition, two patients wanted to be taken off cyclosporine and one patient was converted from cyclosporine to azathioprine because of her wish to become pregnant.

The 10 most frequently occurring side-effects at baseline were in decreasing order of frequency: increased hair growth, fatigue, bruises, excessive appetite, poor concentration, changed bodily appearance, poor vision, fragile skin, swollen ankles, and insomnia. The 10 most distressing side-effects at baseline were: impotence for men and painful menstruation for women, fragile skin, insomnia, warts, poor concentration, back pain, muscle weakness, stomach complaints, fatigue and nightmares. The item hallucinations was excluded from the analysis of symptom distress as it occurred in only one patient.

The overall ridit for symptom occurrence evolved significantly after randomization, both in the cyclosporine and in the tacrolimus group. A significant increase (p < 0.0001) in symptom occurrence was observed in patients on cyclosporine at 3, 12 and 24 months after baseline measurement (Figure 5). Conversely, patients who were converted to tacrolimus experienced a significant decrease (p < 0.0001) in symptom occurrence compared with baseline level. The ridit of 0.458 for the tacrolimus group at 12 months means that a randomly selected patient from that group has a chance of 45.8% to score higher than a randomly selected patient at baseline (reference group). This chance of 45.8% is significantly lower than the chance of 50% (ridit 0.500) inherent to the reference group.

image

Figure 5. Evolution of overall symptom occurrence and symtom distress at 3, 12 and 24 months. p < 0.001 for all comparisons with baseline values.

Download figure to PowerPoint

For symptom distress, the overall ridit of the tacrolimus group at 3 months after conversion was significantly increased (p < 0.0001), while the ridit of the cyclosporine group was decreased. Nonetheless, at 12 and 24 months, patients of the tacrolimus group reported significantly less, and cyclosporine patients significantly more symptom distress compared with the baseline level.

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

This randomized controlled study demonstrates that after conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus in stable renal transplant patients, graft function remains stable as opposed to a gradual deterioration of graft function when continuing on cyclosporine. Furthermore, replacement of cyclosporine by tacrolimus is followed by an improvement in cardiovascular risk profile, which is sustained during a 2-year follow-up period. In addition, the occurrence of and distress due to side-effects is reduced.

In patients using tacrolimus as part of the initial immunosuppressive treatment, the incidence of acute and steroid-resistant rejections is reduced, compared with patients using cyclosporine (5,6), without affecting 1-year graft and patient survival. Acute rejection is a major risk factor for developing chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) (12), and several studies have suggested that tacrolimus may indeed improve long-term graft survival rates. Data from the UCLA-UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) kidney transplant registry showed a graft half-life of approximately 14 years on tacrolimus and 8–9 years on cyclosporine and other immunosuppressive agents (13). Since this first report several other studies have provided evidence that compared to an initial immunosuppressive protocol including cyclosporine, a protocol including tacrolimus may increase graft half-life (6,14). However, the influence of tacrolimus on graft survival is not unequivocal. In the analysis of Hariharan et al. the use of tacrolimus did not contribute to the recent improvements in graft survival (15).

The putative beneficial effect of tacrolimus on graft function and ultimately also graft survival may be related to several favourable effects of tacrolimus compared with cyclosporine. CAN is the leading cause of late graft failure and may result from chronic rejection as well as from nonimmunologic processes such as calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity and graft vascular disease (16). The occurrence of an acute rejection is the strongest predictor for the development of chronic rejection (16), and tacrolimus reduces the incidence of acute rejections. Second, tacrolimus may be less nephrotoxic than cyclosporine, thus contributing to the prolonged graft survival. The induction of profibrotic cytokines such as osteopontin (17) and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β (18) by cyclosporine is one of the pathophysiologic mechanisms in chronic cyclosporine nephropathy. Although TGF-β is also involved in chronic tacrolimus nephropathy (19), several studies suggested a reduced renal mRNA-expression of TGF-β or other profibrotic genes on tacrolimus vs. cyclosporine (20,21). Finally, hyperlipidemia and hypertension are important nonimmunologic factors contributing to CAN (22–24). In this study, we observed reductions in serum LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels and blood pressure, which were apparent at 3 months after conversion to tacrolimus and persisted until the end of follow-up. This sustained improvement in serum lipid levels as well as in blood pressure is likely to be of benefit in maintaining graft function.

Mayer et al. reported a reduced incidence of CAN after the use of tacrolimus as part of the initial immunosuppression (6). It is of interest to see that even in our study population, consisting of patients that were 6.1 ± 3.2 years post-transplantation, the course of the graft function can still be improved by conversion to tacrolimus. In this respect, the question can be raised whether equipotent dosages of tacrolimus and cyclosporine were used. In our population, consisting mainly of Caucasian patients, the dosage of tacrolimus was sufficient to prevent acute rejections in all patients. The mean tacrolimus trough level (approximately 7 ng/mL) as well as the mean cyclosporine trough level (approximately 130 ng/mL) was within the ranges that have been advised for maintenance immunosuppressive therapy after renal transplantation (25). The tacrolimus levels in our patients were similar to the levels found in the study of Mayer et al. (6). A second question is whether the method of cyclosporine monitoring could have influenced the results. When this study was designed, it was common practice to use the trough level (C0) for monitoring. However, it is now recognized that the area-under-the-curve for the first 4 h post-dose (AUC0-4) is superior to the C0 level of cyclosporine in predicting the risk for acute rejection and cyclosporine-induced nephrotoxicity (26), and the 2-h post-dose (C2) level of cyclosporine is an accurate surrogate marker of the AUC0-4 cyclosporine level (27). Prospective studies on the long-term effects of replacing C0 monitoring by C2 monitoring in maintenance renal transplant patients are limited. Available date suggest that dose reduction in overexposed patients leads to improvements in renal function and blood pressure (28). However, it is currently unclear whether C2 monitoring can result in comparable effects on graft function, blood pressure and serum lipids as we have observed after conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus.

We previously already showed that conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus resulted in a reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and in an improvement in several metabolic cardiovascular risk factors, including total and LDL cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, fibrinogen levels, and the oxidizability of the LDL particles (8). We now demonstrate that this improvement in the cardiovascular risk profile is sustained. Although the reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure are modest, in patients with a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, such as renal transplant patients, the numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular death are relatively small. For example, in case of a reduction of the systolic blood pressure with 12 mmHg, the numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent cardiovascular disease is only 10 (29).

During the 2 years of follow-up, conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus did not affect plasma fasting glucose and HbA1c levels, and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of new-onset diabetes mellitus. The diabetogenic effect of tacrolimus is dose-related, and the risk of developing diabetes mellitus is highest in the initial period after transplantation when high trough levels are reached (30), whereas at standard maintenance trough levels, no difference between cyclosporine and tacrolimus could be determined with regard to their diabetogenic properties (31). The risk of developing diabetes mellitus after conversion to tacrolimus appears to be restricted to patients who already experience a disturbed glucose tolerance prior to therapy (5,32).

The improvements in lipid profile and blood pressure after conversion to tacrolimus resulted in a sustained reduction of the Framingham risk score. This cardiovascular risk score was developed in a predominantly Caucasian population without specific underlying diseases (10) and has been validated in renal transplant patients, where it was shown to predict ischemic cardiovascular events, though underestimating the absolute risk, especially related to diabetes mellitus (33). In the general population the observed reduction in Framingham risk score upon conversion to tacrolimus would imply a relative reduction of approximately 20% in the estimated risk for coronary heart disease over a period of 10 years. Although it is likely that renal transplant patients will also benefit from the reduced cardiovascular risk score, it is difficult to extrapolate the risk rates to this specific population.

After conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus, the occurrence of symptoms associated with side-effects of the immunosuppressive regimen decreased significantly. This was also observed for symptom distress, except for the measurement at 3 months after conversion. These findings demonstrate the beneficial effect of conversion to tacrolimus in terms of patients' symptom experience. Patients' subjective appraisal of symptoms associated with side-effects is very important for their quality-of-life (34), and is also of great importance for the motivation to comply with the medication regimen (35). Several studies have demonstrated a relation between distressing symptoms and subsequent noncompliance with immunosuppressive medication (36,37). Further analysis of symptom occurrence and symptom distress at item level will provide a more detailed picture of the evolution of individual symptoms after conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus.

In summary, conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus in stable chronic renal transplant patients has a beneficial effect on renal graft function, results in a sustained improvement in the cardiovascular risk profile and reduces the frequency and distress of side-effects. In our opinion, for most renal transplant patients tacrolimus will be the drug of choice when long-term treatment with a calcineurin inhibitor is indicated.

Acknowledgments

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

We would like to thank our research assistants Marjo van Helden and Monique Mullens for their precise evaluation of the patients. We thank Fujisawa GmbH for their financial support.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  • 1
    Ligtenberg G, Hene RJ, Blankestijn PJ, Koomans HA. Cardiovascular risk factors in renal transplant patients: cyclosporin A versus tacrolimus. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 368373.
  • 2
    Woo YM, Jardine AG, Clark AF et al. Early graft function and patient survival following cadaveric renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 692699.
  • 3
    Dimeny E, Wahlberg J, Lithell H, Fellstrom B. Hyperlipidaemia in renal transplantation – risk factor for long-term graft outcome. Eur J Clin Invest 1995; 25: 574583.
  • 4
    Peschke B, Scheuermann EH, Geiger H, Bolscher S, Kachel HG, Lenz T. Hypertension is associated with hyperlipidemia, coronary heart disease and chronic graft failure in kidney transplant recipients. Clin Nephrol 1999; 51: 290295.
  • 5
    Pirsch JD, Miller J, Deierhoi MH, Vincenti F, Filo RS. A comparison of tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression after cadaveric renal transplantation. FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1997; 63: 977983.
  • 6
    Mayer A. Chronic rejection and graft half-life: five-year follow-up of the European tacrolimus multicenter renal study. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 1491.
  • 7
    Moons P, De Geest S, Versteven K et al. Psychometric properties of the ‘Modified Transplant Symptom Occurrence and Symptom Distress Scale’. J Nurs Meas 2001; 9: 115134.
  • 8
    Artz MA, Boots JM, Ligtenberg G et al. Improved cardiovascular risk profile and renal function in renal transplant patients after randomized conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14: 18801888.
  • 9
    The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 (Suppl. 1): S5S20.
  • 10
    Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998; 97: 18371847.
  • 11
    Sermeus W, Delesie L. Ridit analysis on ordinal data. West J Nurs Res 1996; 18: 351359.
  • 12
    Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, Taranto SE, McIntosh MJ, Stablein D. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 605612.
  • 13
    Gjertson DW, Cecka JM, Terasaki PI. The relative effects of FK506 and cyclosporine on short- and long-term kidney graft survival. Transplantation 1995; 60: 13841388.
  • 14
    Vincenti F, Jensik SC, Filo RS, Miller J, Pirsch J. A long-term comparison of tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine in kidney transplantation: evidence for improved allograft survival at five years. Transplantation 2002; 73: 775782.
  • 15
    Hariharan S, McBride MA, Cherikh WS, Tolleris CB, Bresnahan BA, Johnson CP. Post-transplant renal function in the first year predicts long-term kidney transplant survival. Kidney Int 2002; 62: 311318.
  • 16
    Hariharan S. Long-term kidney transplant survival. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 38 (Suppl. 6): S44S50.
  • 17
    Pichler RH, Franceschini N, Young BA et al. Pathogenesis of cyclosporine nephropathy: roles of angiotensin II and osteopontin. J Am Soc Nephrol 1995; 6: 11861196.
  • 18
    Shihab FS, Andoh TF, Tanner AM et al. Role of transforming growth factor-beta 1 in experimental chronic cyclosporine nephropathy. Kidney Int 1996; 49: 11411151.
  • 19
    Shihab FS, Bennett WM, Tanner AM, Andoh TF. Mechanism of fibrosis in experimental tacrolimus nephrotoxicity. Transplantation 1997; 64: 18291837.
  • 20
    Mohamed MA, Robertson H, Booth TA, Balupuri S, Kirby JA, Talbot D. TGF-beta expression in renal transplant biopsies: a comparative study between cyclosporin-A and tacrolimus. Transplantation 2000; 69: 10021005.
  • 21
    Bicknell GR, Williams ST, Shaw JA, Pringle JH, Furness PN, Nicholson ML. Differential effects of cyclosporin and tacrolimus on the expression of fibrosis-associated genes in isolated glomeruli from renal transplants. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 15691575.
  • 22
    Carvalho MF, Soares V. Hyperlipidemia as a risk factor of renal allograft function impairment. Clin Transplant 2001; 15: 4852.
  • 23
    Opelz G, Wujciak T, Ritz E. Association of chronic kidney graft failure with recipient blood pressure. Collaborative Transplant Study. Kidney Int 1998; 53: 217222.
  • 24
    Ponticelli C. Progression of renal damage in chronic rejection. Kidney Int 2000; 57 (Suppl. 75): S62S70.
  • 25
    Oellerich M, Armstrong VW, Schutz E, Shaw LM. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine and tacrolimus. Update on Lake Louise Consensus Conference on cyclosporin and tacrolimus. Clin Biochem 1998; 31: 309316.
  • 26
    Mahalati K, Belitsky P, Sketris I, West K, Panek R. Neoral monitoring by simplified sparse sampling area under the concentration-time curve: its relationship to acute rejection and cyclosporine nephrotoxicity early after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68: 5562.
  • 27
    Levy GA. C2 monitoring strategy for optimising cyclosporin immunosuppression from the Neoral formulation. BioDrugs 2001; 15: 279290.
  • 28
    Cole E, Maham N, Cardella C et al. Clinical benefits of neoral C2 monitoring in the long-term management of renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003; 75: 20862090.
  • 29
    Ogden LG, He J, Lydick E, Whelton PK. Long-term absolute benefit of lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients according to the JNC VI risk stratification. Hypertension 2000; 35: 539543.
  • 30
    Weir MR, Fink JC. Risk for posttransplant Diabetes mellitus with current immunosuppressive medications. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34: 113.
  • 31
    Van Duijnhoven EM, Christiaans MHL, Boots JMM, Nieman FHM, Wolffenbuttel BHR, Van Hooff JP. Glucose metabolism in the first 3 years after renal transplantation in patients receiving tacrolimus versus cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13: 213220.
  • 32
    Duijnhoven EM, Boots JM, Christiaans MH, Wolffenbuttel BH, Van Hooff JP. Influence of tacrolimus on glucose metabolism before and after renal transplantation: a prospective study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 583588.
  • 33
    Kasiske BL, Chakkera HA, Roel J. Explained and unexplained ischemic heart disease risk after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11: 17351743.
  • 34
    Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 835840.
  • 35
    Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA. Illness cognition: using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. Cogn Ther Res 1992; 16: 143163.
  • 36
    Didlake RH, Dreyfus K, Kerman RH, Van Buren CT, Kahan BD. Patient noncompliance: a major cause of late graft failure in cyclosporine-treated renal transplants. Transplant Proc 1988; 20 (Suppl. 3): S63S69.
  • 37
    De Geest S, Borgermans L, Gemoets H et al. Incidence, determinants, and consequences of subclinical noncompliance with immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1995; 59: 340347.