Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 141 No. 0506 (2011)

Cyclosporine C0- versus C2-monitoring over three years in maintenance heart transplantation

  • AE Fisler
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2011.13149
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2011;141:w13149
Published
31.01.2011

Summary

INTRODUCTION: There is an ongoing discussion as to whether monitoring of cyclosporine (CsA)-based immunosuppression with plasma levels two hours after medication intake (C2) offers clinical benefit over the measurement of CsA trough levels (C0) in patients after heart transplantation (HTx). In particular, data from long-term maintenance patients are not available.

METHODS: C0 monitoring was performed during 19 months in 65 stable maintenance patients after HTx. During the following 19 months all patients were switched to C2 monitoring. During both periods biopsy proven acute rejections (BPAR), daily CsA dose, plasma creatinine, estimated creatinine clearance and blood pressure values for both periods were analysed.

RESULTS: Data from 65 patients (9.2 ± 3.9 years post HTx) were included. No differences were observed for BPAR ≥2 between C0 (13 pts; 20%) and C2 (12 pts; 18.4%). C2 was associated with lower daily CsA doses (C0 208.7 mg/d vs. C2 182.3 mg/d, p <0.0001) while dose reduction over time was not different during both periods (C0 –13.3 mg/d vs. C2 –22.5 mg/d, p = 0.259). No difference was observed for blood pressure and creatinine clearance.

CONCLUSION: In long term maintenance patients C2 monitoring was not associated with immediate beneficial effects on number of rejections, blood pressure levels, and renal parameters. However, patients received lower daily CsA doses.

References

  1. Cheung A, Menkis AH. Cyclosporine heart transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1998;30(5):1881–4.
  2. Levy G, et al. Patient management by Neoral C(2) monitoring: an international consensus statement. Transplantation. 2002;73(9 Suppl):S12–8.
  3. Cantarovich M, et al. Two-hour cyclosporine level determination is the appropriate tool to monitor Neoral therapy. Clin Transplant. 1998;12(3):243–9.
  4. Cantarovich M, et al. History of C2 monitoring in heart and liver transplant patients treated with cyclosporine microemulsion. Transplant Proc. 2004;36(2 Suppl):442S–447S.
  5. Delgado DH, et al. Monitoring of cyclosporine 2-hour post-dose levels in heart transplantation: improvement in clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24(9):1343–6.
  6. Solari SG, et al. Cyclosporine monitoring with 2-hour postdose levels in heart transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit. 2005;27(4):417–21.
  7. Wang P, et al. A monoclonal antibody fluorescent polarization immunoassay for cyclosporine. Transplant Proc. 1990;22(3):1186–8.
  8. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16(1):31–41.
  9. Cunningham KS, Veinot JP, Butany J. An approach to endomyocardial biopsy interpretation. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(2):121–9.
  10. Stewart S, et al. Revision of the 1990 working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24(11):1710–20.
  11. Campbell SB, Johnson DW. Patient management by cyclosporine C2 monitoring: not enough science yet to justify the practice. Transplantation. 2003;75(11):1917–8.
  12. Birsan T, et al. Comparison between C0 and C2 monitoring in de novo renal transplant recipients: retrospective analysis of a single-center experience. Transplantation. 2004;78(12):1787–91.
  13. Iversen M, et al. Cyclosporine C2 levels have impact on incidence of rejection in de novo lung but not heart transplant recipients: the NOCTURNE study. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28(9):919–26.
  14. Mathias HC, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of C0- Vs C2-guided therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine in stable heart transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24(12):2137–43.
  15. Cantarovich M, et al. Clinical benefit of neoral dose monitoring with cyclosporine 2-hr post-dose levels compared with trough levels in stable heart transplant patients. Transplantation. 1999;68(12):1839–42.
  16. Klingenberg R, et al. Allograft rejection of ISHLT grade >/=3A occurring late after heart transplantation – a distinct entity? J Heart Lung Transplant. 2003;2(9):1005–13.