IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0160421.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gorden Muduma
  • Rhodri Saunders
  • Isaac Odeyemi
  • Richard F Pollock

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gorden Muduma & Rhodri Saunders & Isaac Odeyemi & Richard F Pollock, 2016. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tacrolimus versus Ciclosporin as Primary Immunosuppression After Liver Transplant," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160421
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160421
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160421&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0160421?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:ack:journl:y::id:161 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Zhenmin Liu & Yi Chen & Renchuan Tao & Jing Xv & Jianyuan Meng & Xiangzhi Yong, 2014. "Tacrolimus-Based versus Cyclosporine-Based Immunosuppression in Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Patients after Liver Transplantation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160421. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.