Ponticelli C, Tarantino A, Montagnino G, Aroldi A, Banfi G, De Vecchi A, Zubani R, Berardinelli L, Vegeto A
Divisione di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Ospedale Maggiore, Milan, Italy.
Transplantation. 1988 May;45(5):913-8. doi: 10.1097/00007890-198805000-00014.
A controlled trial was carried out in 86 cadaveric and 14 living haploidentical renal transplant recipients to compare the effects of low doses of cyclosporine (CsA), azathioprine (Aza) and steroids with those of higher doses of CsA plus steroids. Patients were followed for 12-26 months after transplantation. The actuarial 2-year patient and graft survival rate was 100% for living-donor transplants. In cadaver renal transplants the 2-year patient survival rate was 100% for patients assigned to the triple regimen and 93% for those allocated to the double regimen. The actuarial 2-year cadaver graft survival rates were 86% and 90.6%, respectively. There were significantly more patients who had severe infections (P less than 0.05), particularly interstitial pneumonia (P less than 0.005), in the double-therapy group. On the other hand, there were more patients who rejected and more patients with severe rejections; more pulses of steroids were also required for patients on the triple regimen, although these differences were not significant. The mean trough blood levels of cyclosporine at the various times were about half as high in patients on triple therapy. There were no differences between the two groups in creatinine clearance at any time. A control renal biopsy, taken from patients with stable renal function after 6-12 months, showed only mild abnormalities. The lesions were semiquantitatively assessed. There was a higher score for interstitial infiltrate in patients on triple therapy (P less than 0.05). On the other hand, the incidence and the mean score of interstitial fibrosis were greater in patients on double therapy, although these differences were not significant. Thus, although similar results were obtained with both regimens, at the doses we used double therapy seems to have more powerful immunosuppressive effects and may prevent rejection, either acute or chronic, better. However, it might expose the patient to a greater risk of infection and of cyclosporine-related nephrotoxicity than triple therapy.
对86例尸体供肾和14例活体单倍体肾移植受者进行了一项对照试验,以比较低剂量环孢素(CsA)、硫唑嘌呤(Aza)和类固醇与高剂量CsA加类固醇的效果。移植后对患者随访12 - 26个月。活体供肾移植的2年实际患者和移植物存活率为100%。在尸体肾移植中,接受三联疗法的患者2年患者存活率为100%,接受双联疗法的患者为93%。尸体肾移植的2年实际移植物存活率分别为86%和90.6%。双联疗法组中发生严重感染的患者明显更多(P<0.05),尤其是间质性肺炎(P<0.005)。另一方面,接受三联疗法的患者中排斥反应的患者更多,严重排斥反应的患者也更多;三联疗法的患者也需要更多次的类固醇冲击治疗,尽管这些差异不显著。三联疗法患者在不同时间的环孢素平均谷值血药浓度约为另一组的一半。两组在任何时候的肌酐清除率均无差异。对6 - 12个月后肾功能稳定的患者进行的对照肾活检仅显示轻度异常。对病变进行了半定量评估。三联疗法患者的间质浸润评分更高(P<0.05)。另一方面,双联疗法患者的间质纤维化发生率和平均评分更高,尽管这些差异不显著。因此,尽管两种治疗方案都取得了相似的结果,但就我们使用的剂量而言,双联疗法似乎具有更强的免疫抑制作用,可能能更好地预防急性或慢性排斥反应。然而,与三联疗法相比,它可能使患者面临更大的感染风险和环孢素相关肾毒性风险。