A comparison of two cyclosporine protocols at the University of Minnesota.

D. S. Fryd, D. M. Canafax, A. J. Matas, D. Dunn, W. D. Payne, D. E. Sutherland, J. S. Najarian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


1. There have been 1,426 renal transplants performed at the University of Minnesota from January 1, 1980 through August 31, 1988. CsA+P was used by 260 adult recipients, CsA+P+AZA(+ALG) by 536. 2. In general, there are no significant differences in actuarial graft or patient survival rates between the 2 CsA protocols. This is true for all adults, for all adult CAD recipients, and for a matched control group of adult CAD recipients. 3. Cox's proportional hazards regression model also indicates that there is no significant difference between the 2 CsA regimens. Donor type, number of transplants, and age at transplant influence graft survival in all adult recipients. The use of LRD is still indicated in the CsA era. Diabetic status, age at transplant, and number of transplants affect patient survival. The model fits the observed data quite well. 4. Actuarial analysis and Cox regression failed to document a beneficial effect of HLA-A, B, and DR matching in patients receiving either CsA protocol. Our data do not support the HLA matching point system currently used by UNOS or the Terasaki proposal to give points based on mismatching. 5. A matched control analysis of adult CAD recipients indicates that CsA+P+AZA+ALG has alleviated the problems of our CsA+P protocol without lowering the graft and patient survival rates. Thus, the sequential therapy group has equivalent graft and patient survival rates but shorter duration of ATN, lower serum creatinine levels at 1 year, and fewer patients who require modifications of protocol. Sequential therapy is our treatment of choice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-90
Number of pages12
JournalClinical transplants
StatePublished - 1988


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of two cyclosporine protocols at the University of Minnesota.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this