History of C2 monitoring in heart and liver transplant patients treated with cyclosporine microemulsion
- PMID: 15041383
- DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.01.004
History of C2 monitoring in heart and liver transplant patients treated with cyclosporine microemulsion
Abstract
Therapeutic drug monitoring of CsA has evolved since the introduction of CsA microemulsion. The purpose of the present review is to summarize the history of CsA concentration 2 hours postdose (C2) monitoring in heart and liver transplantation. C2 has been shown to be the best single time point that correlates with the area-under-the-curve, with a correlation coefficient (r2) ranging between .83 and.93. C2 monitoring (300 to 600 ng/mL) has resulted in a significant clinical benefit in long-term heart and liver transplant patients compared to trough level (C0) monitoring. Moreover, a C2 range of 300 to 600 ng/mL resulted in a similar calcineurin inhibition compared to a C2 range of 700 to 1000 ng/mL or a C0 range of 100 to 200 ng/mL while being less injurious to renal function. In de novo liver transplant patients not receiving induction therapy, the achievement of a target C2 of 850 to 1400 ng/mL by postoperative day 3 has resulted in a low acute rejection rate. Furthermore, C2 monitoring has been associated with a lower rejection rate in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative patients and with an overall lesser severity of acute rejection compared to C0 monitoring. In de novo heart transplant patients who receive antithymocyte globulin induction, a lower C2 range may be sufficient to prevent rejection and renal dysfunction. Future studies should help to fine-tune the optimal C2 range in heart or liver transplant patients receiving induction therapy and different maintenance immunosuppressive combinations.
Similar articles
-
Advantages of C2 monitoring to avoid acute rejection in pediatric heart transplant recipients.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006 Jun;25(6):619-25. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2006.02.002. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006. PMID: 16730566
-
Cyclosporine C2 monitoring is superior to C0 in predicting acute cellular rejection in heart transplant recipients in Taiwan.Transplant Proc. 2004 Oct;36(8):2393-5. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.08.115. Transplant Proc. 2004. PMID: 15561260
-
12-month follow-up analysis of a multicenter, randomized, prospective trial in de novo liver transplant recipients (LIS2T) comparing cyclosporine microemulsion (C2 monitoring) and tacrolimus.Liver Transpl. 2006 Oct;12(10):1464-72. doi: 10.1002/lt.20802. Liver Transpl. 2006. PMID: 17004259 Clinical Trial.
-
Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine.Transplant Proc. 2004 Mar;36(2 Suppl):430S-433S. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.01.025. Transplant Proc. 2004. PMID: 15041380 Review.
-
Impact of cyclosporine on the development of immunosuppressive therapy.Transplant Proc. 2004 Mar;36(2 Suppl):130S-134S. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2003.12.038. Transplant Proc. 2004. PMID: 15041322 Review.
Cited by
-
Optimal sampling time-point for cyclosporin A concentration monitoring in heart transplant recipients.Exp Ther Med. 2018 Nov;16(5):4265-4270. doi: 10.3892/etm.2018.6711. Epub 2018 Sep 10. Exp Ther Med. 2018. PMID: 30402164 Free PMC article.
-
Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine as primary immunosuppression after heart transplantation: systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised trials.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Dec;66(12):1177-87. doi: 10.1007/s00228-010-0902-6. Epub 2010 Sep 30. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010. PMID: 20882273
-
Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for lung transplant recipients.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;2013(5):CD008817. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008817.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23728681 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous