Systemic Immunosuppression in High-Risk Penetrating Keratoplasty: A Systematic Review

  • Bali S
  • Filek R
  • Si F
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Cornea transplantation has a high success rate and typically only re-quires topical immunomodulation. However, in high-risk cases, sys-temic immunosuppression can be used. We conducted a systematic review on the efficacy and side effects of systemic immunosuppres-sion for high-risk cornea transplantation. The study population was 18 years old or older with a high-risk transplant (two or more clock hours of cornea vascularization or a previous failed graft or a graft needed because of herpes simplex keratitis). A comprehensive search strategy was performed with the help of an information specialist and content experts from ophthalmology. All study designs were accepted for assessment. Level 1 and level 2 screening was performed by two reviewers followed by data abstraction. Forest plots were created whenever possible to synthesize treatment effects. Quality assessment was done with a Downs and Blacks score. From 1,150 articles, 29 were ultimately used for data abstraction. The odds ratios (ORs) for clear graft survival in cyclosporine and controls were 2.43 (95% CI: 1.00 -5.88) and 3.64 (95% CI: 1.48 -8.91) for rejection free episodes. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) significantly improved the rejection free graft survival rates at 1 year (OR: 4.05, 95% CI: 1.83 -8.96). The overall results suggested that both systemic cyclosporine and MMF improved 1-year rejection free graft survival in high-risk keratoplasty. Cyclosporine also significantly improved clear graft survival rates at 1 year; however, there were insufficient data to analyze the same in the MMF group. Higher quality studies are needed to understand this issue better.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bali, S., Filek, R., Si, F., & Hodge, W. (2016). Systemic Immunosuppression in High-Risk Penetrating Keratoplasty: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 8(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2326w

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free