The calcium channel blocker used with cyclosporin has an effect on gingival overgrowth

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 27; no. 2; pp. 109 - 115
• Main Authors: James, J. A., Marley, J. J., Jamal, S., Campbell, B. A., Short, C. D., Johnson, R. W. G., Hull, P. S., Spratt, H., Irwin, C. R., Boomer, S., Maxwell, A. P., Linden, G. J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copenhagen Munksgaard International Publishers 01-02-2000
• Subjects: Adult; Amlodipine - administration & dosage; Amlodipine - adverse effects; calcium channel blockers; Calcium Channel Blockers - administration & dosage; Calcium Channel Blockers - adverse effects; cyclosporin A; Cyclosporine - administration & dosage; Cyclosporine - adverse effects; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; gingival overgrowth; Gingival Overgrowth - chemically induced; Gingival Overgrowth - epidemiology; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents - administration & dosage; Immunosuppressive Agents - adverse effects; Kidney Transplantation - statistics & numerical data; Male; Multivariate Analysis; Nifedipine - administration & dosage; Nifedipine - adverse effects; Prevalence; Prognosis
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027002109.x

Background/aims:
To investigate whether the choice of calcium channel blocker, used in conjunction with cyclosporin A, affected the prevalence of gingival overgrowth.
Method: A cohort of 135 renal transplant recipients who had been medicated with cyclosporin A in combination with either nifedipine (89) or amlodipine (46) since transplant, took part in the study. The inclusion criteria were that eligible subjects had been in receipt of a kidney transplant for at least 12 months, had at least 10 teeth and had not received specialist periodontal treatment. The age, gender, current drug regimen and dosage were recorded for each participant and alginate impressions taken of both arches. The presence and severity of gingival overgrowth were scored from plaster models.
Results: A higher proportion (72%) of the amlodipine group were categorised as having gingival overgrowth compared with only 53% of the nifedipine group, χ2=4.5, p<0.05. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the relationship between the presence or absence of gingival overgrowth (dependent variable) and age, gender, time since transplant, dose of cyclosporin A, centre in which the patient was treated, and the calcium channel blocker used (independent variables). Independent predictors of gingival overgrowth in this multivariate analysis were whether the individual was treated with amlodipine or nifedipine (p=0.01) and whether the individual was young or old (p=0.01). Within the multivariate analysis, the odds ratio for amlodipine to be associated with gingival overgrowth compared with nifedipine was 3.0 (confidence interval 1.3–6.9).
Conclusions: The prevalence of gingival overgrowth in renal transplant recipients maintained on cyclosporin A and nifedipine is lower than those treated with cyclosporin A and amlodipine.