Bataille S, Moal V, Gaudart J, Indreies M, Purgus R, Dussol B, Zandotti C, Berland Y, Vacher-Coponat H
Centre de Néphrologie et Transplantation Rénale, Hôpital de la Conception, AP-HM, Marseille, France.
Transpl Infect Dis. 2010 Dec;12(6):480-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2010.00533.x.
Immunosuppressive regimens have lowered the rate of kidney rejection, but with increasing immunodeficiency-related complications. New cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis also has become available. The impact of these 2 developments on CMV diseases has not been well evaluated. We conducted a randomized trial comparing a drug regimen common in the 1980s, cyclosporin A (CsA) with azathioprine (Aza), with a drug combination used most today, tacrolimus (Tac) with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and we analyzed CMV risk factors in kidney transplant patients.
The 300 patients included in the trial underwent the same universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. CMV events and risk factors were prospectively recorded.
With preventive and preemptive strategies combined for 3 months, CMV replication was detected in 32.6% and CMV disease in 18.1% of patients. Multivariate analysis on risk factors for CMV disease were CMV donor (D)/recipient (R) matching and first month renal function (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [1.01; 1.04]; P=0.011), but not the immunosuppressive regimen (P=0.35). The D+/R- combination increased the risk of CMV disease by a factor of 9 (P<0.0001) when compared with D-/R- status, and a factor of 3.5 (P<0.0001) when compared with all CMV-positive recipients. Despite the 50% rate of CMV disease in the D+/R- group, no asymptomatic CMV replication was detected with the preemptive strategy.
With modern immunosuppression, a sequential quadritherapy with Tac/MMF, and a 3-month CMV prevention strategy, the risk for CMV disease remains close to that with CsA/Aza. A CMV-negative recipient transplanted from a CMV-positive donor (D+/R-) remains a major risk factor, calling for better CMV prophylaxis or matching in negative recipients. Preemptive strategy thus appeared inefficient for this high-risk group. Transplant recipients with altered renal function should also be considered at risk.
免疫抑制方案降低了肾移植排斥率,但免疫缺陷相关并发症却日益增多。新型巨细胞病毒(CMV)预防措施也已问世。这两项进展对CMV疾病的影响尚未得到充分评估。我们进行了一项随机试验,比较了20世纪80年代常用的一种药物方案,即环孢素A(CsA)与硫唑嘌呤(Aza),与当今最常用的一种药物组合,即他克莫司(Tac)与霉酚酸酯(MMF),并分析了肾移植患者的CMV危险因素。
纳入该试验的300例患者均接受相同的普遍预防和抢先治疗。前瞻性记录CMV事件和危险因素。
采用预防和抢先策略联合治疗3个月后,32.6%的患者检测到CMV复制,18.1%的患者发生CMV疾病。CMV疾病危险因素的多因素分析显示为CMV供体(D)/受体(R)匹配和第1个月的肾功能(风险比[95%置信区间]:1.02[1.01;1.04];P=0.011),而非免疫抑制方案(P=0.35)。与D-/R-状态相比,D+/R-组合使CMV疾病风险增加9倍(P<0.0001);与所有CMV阳性受体相比,增加3.5倍(P<0.0001)。尽管D+/R-组的CMV疾病发生率为50%,但采用抢先策略未检测到无症状CMV复制。
采用现代免疫抑制方法,即Tac/MMF序贯四联疗法和3个月的CMV预防策略,CMV疾病风险仍与CsA/Aza方案相近。CMV阴性受体接受CMV阳性供体的移植(D+/R-)仍然是一个主要危险因素,需要对阴性受体采取更好的CMV预防措施或进行匹配。因此,抢先策略对该高危组似乎无效。肾功能改变的移植受者也应被视为高危人群。