COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Immunosuppression with cyclosporine A and mycophenolate mofetil after penetrating high-risk keratoplasty: a retrospective study.

Transplantation 2005 April 28
BACKGROUND: Graft-prognosis after penetrating high-risk keratoplasty has improved considerably with the use of systemic immunosuppressive medications. In this retrospective investigation we analyzed the long-term results of 417 high-risk keratoplasties with systemic immunosuppression (cyclosporine A [CsA] or mycophenolate mofetil [MMF]).

METHODS: A total of 417 high-risk keratoplasties with postoperative systemic immunosuppression were evaluated retrospectively: CsA has been given in 252 keratoplasties since 1987, aiming at blood trough levels of 120 to 150 ng/mL. Systemic MMF at a daily dose of 2 x 1 g was administered in 149 surgical procedures. After 16 high-risk keratoplasties, combined systemic immunosuppression with CsA and MMF was administered. Systemic immunosuppression was scheduled for 6 to 12 months. All patients received fluocortolone 1 mg/kg body weight per day, tapered over 3 weeks, and topical prednisolone acetate 1%, tapered over 5 months.

RESULTS: Rejection-free graft survival after 1 year was 75% in the CsA group and 89% in the MMF group; 60% of the grafts in the CsA group and 72% of the grafts in the MMF group were rejection-free 3 years postoperatively (Kaplan-Meier log-rank test P=0.03). Clear graft survival after 1 and 3 years was 92% and 77% (CsA) and 96% and 87% (MMF), respectively. The MMF-treated patients showed fewer side effects than the CsA-treated patients. The side effects attributable to both drugs were reversible.

CONCLUSIONS: We found a statistically significant, stronger effect of MMF compared with CsA in preventing immune reactions after high-risk keratoplasty, despite a shorter MMF administration compared with CsA. Both systemic immunosuppressants were shown to have comparable potency regarding clear graft survival and were well tolerated.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app