You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Cyclosporine A versus tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil and steroids as primary immunosuppression after lung transplantation: one-year results of a 2-center prospective randomized trial.
Abstract 1:
Cyclosporine (INN: ciclosporin) A or tacrolimus have been used mostly in combination with azathioprine as primary immunosuppression after lung transplantation. Benefit or risk deriving from the combination with mycophenolate mofetil are yet unknown.
                In a prospective, 2-center, open randomized trial, the combination of cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids was compared with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids as primary therapy after primary lung transplantation. All patients underwent induction therapy with rabbit antithymocyte globulin for 3 days. The 2 groups were compared with regard to patient survival, freedom from acute rejection, bronchiolitis obliterans, infectious episodes, and side effects.
                Between September 1997 and April 1999, 74 lung transplant recipients were randomized to receive either cyclosporine A (n = 37) or tacrolimus (n = 37). Groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, transplant procedure, and cytomegalovirus match. Mean follow-up was 507 +/- 258 and 508 +/- 248 days, respectively. Six- and 12-month survival was similar in both groups (89% vs 84% and 82% vs 71%, respectively; P =.748 at 12 months). Two patients from the cyclosporine A group were retransplanted. Freedom from acute rejection at 6 and 12 months was comparable between groups (46% vs 51% and 35% vs 46%, respectively; P =.774 at 12 months). The mean number of treated acute rejection episodes per 100 patient-days was higher in the cyclosporine A than in the tacrolimus group, but the difference was not statistically significant (0.32 +/- 0.42 vs 0.22 +/- 0.30, respectively; P =.097). Four patients from the cyclosporine A group had to be switched to tacrolimus to control ongoing rejection, whereas no patient from the tacrolimus group had to be switched to cyclosporine A. There was a trend toward more infections (0.7 +/- 0.36 vs 0.55 +/- 0.31, P =.059) in the cyclosporine A group. New-onset diabetes mellitus was observed in the tacrolimus group only (11% vs 0%, P =.151), whereas there was a higher incidence of hypertension (60% vs 11%, P =.03) in the cyclosporine A group.
                This 2-center, prospective randomized study showed high immunosuppressive potency of both cyclosporine A and tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil. No significant difference in incidence of acute rejection was observed between the 2 groups. Moreover, survival and incidence of infection were similar. Incidence of drug-related adverse events were similar, yet their spectrum was different.


Title 2:
Tacrolimus and cyclosporine have differential effects on the risk of development of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome: results of a prospective, randomized international trial in lung transplantation.
Abstract 2:
Chronic lung allograft dysfunction, which manifests as bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), is recognized as the primary cause of morbidity and mortality after lung transplantation. In this study we assessed the efficacy and safety of two de novo immunosuppression protocols to prevent BOS.
                Our study approach was a multicenter, prospective, randomized (1:1) open-label superiority investigation of de novo tacrolimus vs cyclosporine, with both study arms given mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone after lung transplantation. Cytolytic induction therapy was not employed. Patients were stratified at entry for cystic fibrosis. Primary outcome was incidence of BOS 3 years after transplant (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary outcomes were survival and incidence of acute rejection, infection and other adverse events.
                Group demographic data were well matched: 110 of 124 tacrolimus vs 74 of 125 cyclosporine patients were treated per protocol (p < 0.01 by chi-square test). Cumulative incidence of BOS Grade ≥1 at 3 years was 11.6% (tacrolimus) vs 21.3% (cyclosporine) (cumulative incidence curves, p = 0.037 by Gray's test, pooled over strata). Univariate proportional sub-distribution hazards regression confirmed cyclosporine as a risk for BOS (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.77, p = 0.039). Three-year cumulative incidence of acute rejection was 67.4% (tacrolimus) vs 74.9% (cyclosporine) (p = 0.118 by Gray's test). One- and 3-year survival rates were 84.6% and 78.7% (tacrolimus) vs 88.6% and 82.8% (cyclosporine) (p = 0.382 by log-rank test). Cumulative infection rates were similar (p = 0.91), but there was a trend toward new-onset renal failure with tacrolimus (p = 0.09).
                Compared with cyclosporine, de novo tacrolimus use was found to be associated with a significantly reduced risk for BOS Grade ≥1 at 3 years despite a similar rate of acute rejection. However, no survival advantage was detected.
                Copyright © 2012 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


Title 3:
A randomized controlled trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine after lung transplantation.
Abstract 3:
The optimal maintenance immunosuppressive regimen after lung transplantation is uncertain.
                We conducted a randomized controlled trial of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine in combination with azathioprine and prednisone after lung transplantation. Ninety adults were randomized to tacrolimus (n = 44) or cyclosporine (n = 46). The primary end point was a composite of a cumulative acute rejection A score of 3 or higher, a cumulative lymphocytic bronchitis B score of 4 or higher, or the onset of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) stage 0-p.
                Recipients randomized to cyclosporine were significantly more likely to develop the primary end point than those randomized to tacrolimus. During the study period, the primary end point developed in 39 of 46 cyclosporine subjects compared with 24 of 44 tacrolimus subjects (p = 0.002); acute rejection or lymphocytic bronchitis end points developed in 29 of 46 cyclosporine subjects compared with 18 of 44 tacrolimus subjects (p = 0.036). Furthermore, BOS stage 0-p was more likely to develop in the cyclosporine group than in the tacrolimus group, but this was not statistically significant (log-rank p = 0.1). In addition, there was a trend to a higher incidence of diabetes among those in the tacrolimus group, but there was no significant difference in graft survival or the total number of infections, or in the incidence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or cancer between the 2 groups.
                Tacrolimus is associated with a lower burden of acute rejection and lymphocytic bronchitis and a trend to a greater freedom from BOS stage 0-p than cyclosporine after lung transplantation.
Tacrolimus may be superior to cyclosporin regarding bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, lymphocytic bronchitis, treatment withdrawal, and arterial hypertension, but may be inferior regarding development of diabetes. No difference in mortality and acute rejection was observed between patients treated with tacrolimus and cyclosporin. There were few studies comparing tacrolimus and cyclosporin after lung transplantation, and the numbers of patients and events in the included studies were limited. Furthermore, the included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the results of the present review. Such studies ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors (bias) and of random errors (play of chance).