Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 Dec 27;78(12):1787-91.
doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000146255.30770.76.

Comparison between C0 and C2 monitoring in de novo renal transplant recipients: retrospective analysis of a single-center experience

Tudor Bîrsan  1 , Christiane Loinig, Martin Bodingbauer, Thomas Wekerle, Susanne Rockenschaub, Gabriela Berlakovich, Thomas Soliman, Ferdinand Mühlbacher, Rudolf Steininger
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison between C0 and C2 monitoring in de novo renal transplant recipients: retrospective analysis of a single-center experience

Tudor Bîrsan et al. Transplantation. .

Abstract

Background: Monitoring immunosuppression with cyclosporine microemulsion formulation (CsA-MEF) by using 2-hour CsA blood levels (C2) has been strongly recommended after kidney transplantation. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of C2 monitoring on the clinical outcome early after transplantation in a single-center setting.

Methods: Nonsensitized, consecutive, de novo cadaveric kidney-transplant recipients were treated with CsA-MEF, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. Patients receiving transplants after January 2002 (n=89) were prospectively monitored by C2 levels (target: 1,500+/-200 ng/mL [fluorescence-polarization immunoassay]). They were retrospectively compared with the patients receiving transplants during 2001 (n=88) who had been monitored by C0 levels (target: 250+/-50 ng/mL).

Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, 40 (45.4%) patients in the C0 group and 25 (28.1%) patients in the C2 group received treatment for rejection (P=0.017). The incidence of histologically verified rejection of Banff grade I or higher was 20.45% in the C0 group and 13.48% in the C2 group (P=0.235). In the per-protocol analysis, incidence of treated rejection was 24.7%, and incidence of histologically verified rejection of Banff grade I or higher was 12.35% in the C2 group (P=0.004 and 0.160, respectively, vs. C0). Mean CsA-MEF doses were 1.7 to 2 times higher in the C2 group than in the C0 group throughout follow-up (P=0.019). In the C2 group, target C2 levels were achieved on average 4 days after transplantation, and there was no significant difference in C2 levels between patients who rejected and patients who did not reject.

Conclusion: Kidney-transplant recipients monitored by C2 levels receive significantly higher doses of CsA-MEF and have a lower incidence of early acute allograft rejection than patients monitored by C0 levels. In C2 monitored patients, C2 levels are not predictive for the incidence of early allograft rejection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in