PDF herunterladen
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2013; 230(5): 505-511
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1328549
Übersicht
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Aktueller Stand der lokalen und systemischen Immunsuppression nach Keratoplastik

Present State of the Art in Topical and Systemic Immunosuppression after Keratoplasty
E. Bertelmann
Augenklinik, Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum, Universitätsmedizin, Berlin
,
N. Torun
Augenklinik, Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum, Universitätsmedizin, Berlin
,
U. Pleyer
Augenklinik, Charité Campus Virchow Klinikum, Universitätsmedizin, Berlin
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

eingereicht 14. Februar 2013

akzeptiert 26. März 2013

Publikationsdatum:
21. Mai 2013 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Zur notwendigen systemischen Immunsuppression bei perforierender Hochrisikokeratoplastik steht MMF neben CsA als Standardtherapeutikum zur Verfügung, nachdem die Wirksamkeit in mehreren auch größeren Studien nachgewiesen wurde. Ob die Therapie mit MPA darüber hinaus Vorteile bietet, ist derzeit noch offen. Sirolimus und Tacrolimus sind wirksam, konnten sich aber aufgrund höherer Nebenwirkungen bisher nicht durchsetzen. Ein Zusatznutzen von Kombinationstherapien ist derzeit durch klinische Studien nicht belegt. Everolimus weist eine präklinisch vielversprechende immunsuppressive aber auch antiproliferative Wirkung auf. Lokale Präparationen der Immunsuppressiva als Monotherapie sind vermutlich als Alternative zur systemischen Therapie unzureichend. Ob sich lokale Kombinationstherapien als Alternative etablieren können, müssen die folgenden Jahre zeigen.

Abstract

Today MMF can be considered as standard treatment besides cyclosporin A for immunosuppression after high-risk perforating keratoplasty. The efficacy of systemic MMF for this indication has been documented in several clinical studies including multicentre designs. Whether or not MPA therapy offers further advantages is currently under discussion. Sirolimus and tacrolimus are effective but could not achieve clinical importance due to higher rates of side effects. An additional benefit of combination therapies is not proven by clinical studies up to date. Everolimus shows pre-clinically a promising immunosuppressive and antiproliferative effect. Topical preparations of immunosuppressants as monotherapy are obviously insufficient as alternatives for systemic immunosuppressive therapy. Whether or not topical combination therapies will become established as alternatives to systemic treatment has to be demonstrated in the following years.

Schlüsselwörter

Kornea - Pharmakologie - intraokulare Entzündungen

Key words

cornea - pharmacology - intraocular inflammation
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Fukuoka S, Honda N, Ono K et al. Extended long-term results of penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Cornea 2010; 29: 528-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Birnbaum F, Mayweg S, Reis A et al. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) following penetrating high-risk keratoplasty: long-term results of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Eye 2009; 23: 2063-2070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Guilbert E, Buzillet J, Sandali O et al. Long-term rejection incidence and reversibility after penetrating and lamellar keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2013; 155: 560-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nguyen NX, Pham HN, Langenbucher A et al. Impact of short-term versus longterm topical steroid treatment on ‘idiopathic endothelial cell loss after normal-risk penetrating keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007; 85: 209-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fu H, Khan A, Coe D et al. Arginine depletion as a mechanism for the immune privilege of corneal allografts. Eur J Immunol 2011; 41: 2997-3005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hos D, Saban DR, Bock F et al. Suppression of inflammatory corneal lymphangiogenesis by application of topical corticosteroids. Arch Ophthalmol 2011; 129: 445-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rocher N, Behar-Cohen F, Pournaras JAC et al. Effects of rat anti-VEGF antibody in a rat model of corneal graft rejection by topical and subconjunctival routes. Mol Vis 2011; 17: 104-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tan Y, Cruz-Guilloty F, Medina-Mendez CA et al. Immunological disruption of antiangiogenic signals by recruited allospecific T cells leads to corneal allograft rejection. J Immunol 2012; 188: 5962-5969
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jin Y, Chauhan SK, Saban DR et al. Role of CCR7 in facilitating direct allosensitization and regulatory T-cell function in high-risk corneal transplantation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 816-821
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gong N, Pleyer U, Vogt K et al. Local overexpression of nerve growth factor in rat corneal transplants improves allograft survival. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: 1043-1052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zhang X, Shen L, Jin Y et al. Depletion of passenger leukocytes from corneal grafts: an effective means of promoting transplant survival?. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50: 3137-3144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yamada J, Hamuro J, Fukushima A et al. MHC-matched corneal allograft rejection in an IFN-gamma/IL-17-independent manner in C57BL/6 mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50: 2139-2146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chen X, Zhao S, Tang X et al. Neutralization of mouse interleukin-17 bioactivity inhibits corneal allograft rejection. Mol Vis 2011; 17: 2148-2156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zaher SS, Germain C, Fu H et al. 3-hydroxykynurenine suppresses CD4+ T-cell proliferation, induces T-regulatory-cell development, and prolongs corneal allograft survival. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 2640-2648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Maier P, Broszinski A, Heizmann U et al. Decreased active TGF-beta2 levels in the aqueous humour during immune reactions following penetrating keratoplasty. Eye 2008; 22: 569-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Maier P, Heizmann U, Böhringer D et al. Distinct cytokine pattern in aqueous humor during immune reactions following penetrating keratoplasty. Mol Vis 2010; 16: 53-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Maier P, Heizmann U, Böhringer D et al. Predicting the risk for corneal graft rejection by aqueous humor analysis. Mol Vis 2011; 17: 1016-1023
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Birnbaum F, Maier P, Reinhard T. Intracameral application of corticosteroids for treating severe endothelial rejection after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe 2007; 104: 813-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bertelmann E, Seeger C, Rieck P et al. Immunreaktionen bei hinterer lamellierender vs. perforierender Keratoplastik. Ophthalmologe 2012; 109: 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Letko E, Price DA, Lindoso EM et al. Secondary graft failure and repeat endothelial keratoplasty after Descemetʼs stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 310-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shimazaki J, Den S, Omoto M et al. Prospective, randomized study of the efficacy of systemic cyclosporine in high-risk corneal transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 152: 33-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Birnbaum F, Böhringer D, Sokolovska Y et al. Immunosuppression with cyclosporine A and mycophenolate mofetil after penetrating high-risk keratoplasty. A retrospective study. Transplantation 2005; 79: 964-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Reinhard T, Reis A, Böhringer D et al. Systemic mycophenolate mofetil in comparison with systemic cyclosporine in high-risk keratoplasty patients: 3 yearʼ results of a randomized prospective clinical trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2001; 239: 367-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stanojlovic S, Schlickeiser S, Appelt C et al. Influence of combined treatment of low dose rapamycin and cyclosporin A on corneal allograft survival. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010; 248: 1447-1456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Birnbaum F, Reis A, Böhringer D et al. An open prospective pilot study on the use of rapamycin after penetrating high-risk keratoplasty. Transplantation 2006; 81: 767-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Joseph A, Shanmuganathan V, Powell RJ et al. Tacrolimus immunosuppression in high-risk corneal grafts. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91: 51-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chatel MA, Larkin DFP. Sirolimus and Mycophenolate as combination prophaxis in corneal transplant recipients at high rejection risk. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 150: 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bertelmann E, Plexyer U. Immunomodulatory therapy in ophthalmology – is there a place for topical application?. Ophthalmologica 2004; 218: 359-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Utine CA, Stern M, Akpek EK. Clinical review: topical ophthalmic use of Cyclosporine A. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2010; 18: 352-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sinha R, Jhanji V, Verma K. Efficacy of topical cyclosporine A 2 % in prevention of graft rejection in high-risk keratoplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010; 248: 1167-1172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Javadi MA, Feizi S, Karbasian A et al. Efficacy of topical ciclosporin A for treatment and prevention of graft rejection in corneal grafts with previous rejection episodes. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94: 1464-1467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shi W, Chen M, Xie L et al. A novel cyclosporine a drug-delivery system for prevention of human corneal rejection after high-risk keratoplasty: a clinical study. Ophthalmology 2013; 120: 695-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Reis A, Mayweg S, Birnbaum F et al. Long-term results of FK 506 eye drops following corneal transplantation. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2008; 225: 57-61
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Knapp S, Bertelmann E, Hartmann C et al. Intraocular availability of topically applied mycophenolate mofetil in rabbits. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2003; 19: 181-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bertelmann E, de Ruijter M, Gong N et al. Survival of corneal allografts following topical treatment with the immunomodulator mycophenolate mofetil. Ophthalmologica 2010; 224: 38-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Baspinar Y, Bertelmann E, Pleyer U et al. Corneal permeation studies of everolimus microemulsion. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2008; 24: 399-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Buech G, Bertelmann E, Pleyer U et al. Formulation of sirolimus eye drops and corneal permeation studies. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2007; 23: 292-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Li XQ, Buch G, Otasevic L et al. Prolongation of corneal allograft survival by topical application of everolimus in experimental keratoplasty. Ophthalmic Res 2008; 40: 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Price MO, Jordon CS, Moore G et al. Graft rejection episodes after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: Part two: the statistical analysis of probability and risk factors. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 391-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Li JY, Terry MA, Goshe J et al. Graft rejection after Descemetʼs stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 90-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Lee WB, Jacobs DS, Musch DC et al. Ophthalmic Technology Assessment Committee Cornea and Anterior Segment Disorders Panel. Descemetʼs stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 1818-1830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Allan BD, Terry MA, Price jr. FW et al. Corneal transplant rejection rate and severity after endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2007; 26: 1039-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Anshu A, Price MO, Price jr. FW. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with descemetʼs membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 536-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Dapena I, Ham L, Netuková A et al. Incidence of early allograft rejection after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2011; 30: 1341-1345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar