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
Multicenter Study
. 2009 Sep;28(9):919-26.
doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2009.05.022.

Cyclosporine C2 levels have impact on incidence of rejection in de novo lung but not heart transplant recipients: the NOCTURNE study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Cyclosporine C2 levels have impact on incidence of rejection in de novo lung but not heart transplant recipients: the NOCTURNE study

Martin Iversen et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Cyclosporine (CsA) absorption varies early after transplantation and can be accurately assessed by the area under the absorption curve (AUC). The 2-hour post-dose (C2) level of CsA in whole blood is reported to be a useful surrogate marker of CsA AUC in kidney and liver transplant monitoring, but should be further explored in thoracic organ recipients.

Methods: In a 12-month study we included de novo lung (n = 95) and heart (n = 96) recipients. All participants received cyclosporine (Sandimmun Neoral) monitored by C0 and blood was collected for analysis of C2 retrospectively. Abbreviated AUC (AUC(0-4)) was measured at 7 days and 3 months. Primary outcome was C2 relation to the frequency of acute cellular rejection (ACR) needing treatment and possible decline in measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR). Recipients were divided into lower, middle and upper third C2 groups based on 2-week post-operative values (tertiles T1 to T3).

Results: C2 was the most robust substitute for AUC(0-4) in the group of patients studied. For lung, but not heart, recipients there were differences in mean number of ACRs (p = 0.05), incidence of any rejections (p = 0.04), mean number of any rejections (p = 0.001) and time to first rejection (p = 0.03) between T1 and T3. C2 did not predict reduction in mGFR.

Conclusions: C2 is a sensitive predictor for ACR in lung, but not heart, recipients, C2 was not predictive of a decline in mGFR. This study suggests that management of lung recipients by C2 may diminish the number of ACRs.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00154193.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data