Review of two immunosuppressants: tacrolimus and cyclosporine

Abstract

Immunosuppressants are vital in organ transplantation including facial transplantation (FT) but are associated with persistent side effects. This review article was prepared to compare the two most used immunosuppressants, cyclosporine and tacrolimus, in terms of mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety and to assess recent trials to mitigate their side effects. PubMed and Google Scholar queries were conducted using combinations of the following search terms: “transplantation immunosuppressant,” “cyclosporine,” “tacrolimus,” “calcineurin inhibitor (CNI),” “efficacy,” “safety,” “induction therapy,” “maintenance therapy,” and “conversion therapy.” Both immunosuppressants inhibit calcineurin and effectively down-regulate cytokines. Tacrolimus may be more advantageous since it lowers the likelihood of acute rejection, has the ability to reverse allograft rejection following cyclosporine treatment, and has the potential to reinnervate nerves. Meanwhile, graft survival rates seem to be comparable for the CNIs. To avoid nephrotoxicity, various immunosuppressants other than CNIs have been studied. Despite averting nephrotoxicity, these medications show increases in acute rejection or other types of adverse effects compared to CNIs. FT has been a topic of interest for oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and the postoperative usage of immunosuppressants is crucial for the long-term prognosis of FT. As contemporary transplantation regimens incorporate novel medications along with CNIs, further research is required.