Skip Navigation

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2005 20(Supplement 2):ii3-ii10; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh1076
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saudek, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Saudek, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus compared with cyclosporin microemulsion in primary SPK transplantation: 3-year results of the Euro-SPK 001 trial

Frantisek Saudek1, Jacques Malaise2, Petr Boucek1, Milos Adamec1 and the Euro-SPK Study Group

1 Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Diabetes Center, Prague, Czech Republic and 2 Department of Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation and Organ Procurement, Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Dr Jacques Malaise, Department of Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation and Organ Procurement, Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate, 10/2207, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium. Email: jacques.malaise{at}chir.ucl.ac.be

Background. Single-centre and retrospective studies suggest superiority of tacrolimus over cyclosporin as cornerstone immunosuppressive therapy for simultaneous pancreas–kidney (SPK) transplantation. This open-label, multicentre trial compared the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus with cyclosporin microemulsion (ME) in diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing their first cadaveric SPK transplantation. The 3-year results are reported.

Methods. Patients were recruited from 10 centres in Europe and one centre in Israel: 103 were randomized to receive tacrolimus (initial dose: 0.2 mg/kg/day p.o.) and 102 to cyclosporin-ME (7 mg/kg/day p.o.). All patients received concomitant rabbit anti-T-cell globulin induction, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and short-term corticosteroids.

Results. Fewer patients receiving tacrolimus (36.9%) than cyclosporin-ME (57.8%) were discontinued from treatment (P = 0.003). The initial episodes of biopsy-proven rejection were moderate or severe in just one out of 31 (3%) tacrolimus-treated patients compared with 11 out of 39 (28%) patients receiving cyclosporin-ME (P = 0.009). While 3-year patient and kidney survival rates were similar in the two treatment groups, pancreas survival was superior with tacrolimus (89.2 vs 72.4%; P = 0.002). Thrombosis resulted in pancreas graft loss in 10 patients receiving cyclosporin-ME and in only two treated with tacrolimus (P = 0.02). Overall adverse event frequency was similar in both groups, but MMF intolerance was more frequent with tacrolimus and hyperlipidaemia more frequent with cyclosporin-ME.

Conclusions. In this 3-year study, tacrolimus was more effective than cyclosporin-ME in preventing moderate or severe kidney or pancreas rejection after SPK transplantation. It also provided superior pancreas survival and reduced the risk of pancreas graft thrombosis.

Keywords: cyclosporin microemulsion; immunosuppression; rejection; simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation; tacrolimus


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.