Weill David, Lock Brion J, Wewers Donavon L, Young K Randall, Zorn George L, Early Lesley, Kirklin James K, McGiffin David C
Department of Medicine and Cardiothoracic Surgery,Veterans Administration Medical Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Am J Transplant. 2003 Apr;3(4):492-6. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-6143.2003.00074.x.
Despite the serious direct and indirect deleterious effects caused by cytomegalovirus (CMV), the optimal prophylactic strategy remains unknown. We sought to determine whether combination prophylaxis using intravenous ganciclovir (GCV) and CMV-IVIG reduced the incidence of CMV compared to GCV alone. Donor CMV positive/recipient negative (D+/R-) patients received GCV (6 weeks i.v. + 6 weeks oral) and CMV-IVIG (every 2 weeks for 7 doses), while R+ patients received GCV (2 weeks i.v. + 4 weeks oral) and CMV-IVIG (every 2 weeks for 3 doses). The group receiving combination prophylaxis (GpA) was compared to a historical, case-controlled group receiving GCV alone (GpB). Groups were matched by CMV donor/recipient serology, pretransplant diagnosis, age, and sex in reverse chronological order. Cyclosporine, azathioprine, and prednisone were used in both groups. Additionally, GpA received daclizumab induction therapy. Groups were compared as to the incidence of CMV disease, CMV infection, and acute rejection (AR). In GpA, 38 patients were evaluable and matched to 48 patients in GpB. Three GpA patients (8%) (2 D+/R-) developed CMV disease vs. 16 patients (33%) in GpB, p = 0.0077, Fisher's exact. There was also a trend toward a delay in CMV onset (148 days in GpA vs. 92 days in GpB, p = 0.07, Mann-Whitney). CMV infection did not occur in GpA, and one case occurred in GpB. There was no difference in the incidence of AR (66% in GpA vs. 79% in GpB, p = 0.22, Fisher's exact) or the need for cytolytic therapy between groups. Despite the use of daclizumab induction therapy, combination prophylaxis with GCV and CMV-IVIG reduced the incidence and probably delayed the onset of CMV infection compared to GCV alone. Longer follow-up will be needed to evaluate the impact of combination therapy on the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS).
尽管巨细胞病毒(CMV)会造成严重的直接和间接有害影响,但最佳的预防策略仍不明确。我们试图确定,与单独使用更昔洛韦(GCV)相比,联合使用静脉注射更昔洛韦(GCV)和CMV免疫球蛋白(CMV-IVIG)进行预防是否能降低CMV的发病率。供体CMV阳性/受体阴性(D+/R-)患者接受GCV(静脉注射6周+口服6周)和CMV-IVIG(每2周一次,共7剂),而R+患者接受GCV(静脉注射2周+口服4周)和CMV-IVIG(每2周一次,共3剂)。将接受联合预防的组(A组)与接受单独GCV治疗的历史病例对照组合(B组)进行比较。两组按CMV供体/受体血清学、移植前诊断、年龄和性别进行逆序匹配。两组均使用环孢素、硫唑嘌呤和泼尼松。此外,A组接受了达利珠单抗诱导治疗。比较两组的CMV疾病发病率、CMV感染率和急性排斥反应(AR)。在A组中,38例患者可进行评估,并与B组的48例患者匹配。A组有3例患者(8%)(2例D+/R-)发生CMV疾病,而B组有16例患者(33%)发生CMV疾病,p = 0.0077,Fisher精确检验。CMV发病也有延迟的趋势(A组为148天,B组为92天,p = 0.07,Mann-Whitney检验)。A组未发生CMV感染,B组发生1例。两组间AR的发生率(A组为66%,B组为79%,p = 0.22,Fisher精确检验)或细胞溶解治疗的需求无差异。尽管使用了达利珠单抗诱导治疗,但与单独使用GCV相比,联合使用GCV和CMV-IVIG进行预防降低了CMV感染的发病率,并可能延迟了其发病。需要更长时间的随访来评估联合治疗对闭塞性细支气管炎综合征(BOS)发病率的影响。