Maisch B, Herzum M, Hufnagel G, Schonian U
Department of Internal Medicine-Cardiology, Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany.
Curr Opin Cardiol. 1996 May;11(3):310-24. doi: 10.1097/00001573-199605000-00012.
This review examines the immunologic rationale for immunosuppressive and immunomodulating therapy. The controversy as to whether immunosuppressive treatment is beneficial in myocarditis will continue even after the Myocarditis Treatment Trial, which demonstrated that in active myocarditis identified by the Dallas criteria but without taking into account presence or persistence of viral RNA or DNA or signs of autoreactivity, immunosuppression did not influence either central or hemodynamics or prognosis significantly. These findings concur in part with data from experimental mice and also with sporadic human data. In the acute stage of inflammatory viral heart disease, immunosuppressive drugs should be avoided. This recommendation can be upheld even in the light of the Myocarditis Treatment Trial. It is still unresolved, however, whether this also applies in chronic myocarditis with (enteroviral) persistence, in which the residual viral genome may have been rendered noninfective, making it the equivalent of a "scar" or "tombstone" of former infection. Here, demonstration of the viral genome in does not necessarily imply actively replicating virus. Furthermore, evidence is accumulating that the formerly reported incidence of enteroviral persistence in endomyocardial biopsies may have been overestimated. In autoreactive forms of myocarditis with documented humoral and cellular effector mechanisms, studies indicate that immunosuppressive treatment may be useful. However, data from the double-blind, randomized European Study of the Epidemiology and Treatment of Cardiac Inflammatory Disease must be awaited before conclusions can be made. We therefore recommend enrolling virus-negative patients in randomized, controlled treatment trials to validate the benefit of these treatment regimens. In addition, hyperimmunoglobulin therapy appears to be of particular interest because it has shown few side effects but has positive results in cytomegalovirus-associated myopericarditis in humans.
本综述探讨了免疫抑制和免疫调节治疗的免疫学原理。即使在心肌炎治疗试验之后,关于免疫抑制治疗对心肌炎是否有益的争议仍将继续。该试验表明,对于根据达拉斯标准确定的活动性心肌炎,但未考虑病毒RNA或DNA的存在或持续情况或自身反应迹象,免疫抑制对中心血流动力学或预后均无显著影响。这些发现部分与实验小鼠的数据以及零星的人类数据一致。在炎症性病毒性心脏病的急性期,应避免使用免疫抑制药物。即使根据心肌炎治疗试验,这一建议仍然成立。然而,对于伴有(肠道病毒)持续感染的慢性心肌炎,这一建议是否适用仍未解决。在慢性心肌炎中,残留的病毒基因组可能已失去感染性,相当于既往感染的“疤痕”或“墓碑”。在这里,病毒基因组的存在并不一定意味着病毒在积极复制。此外,越来越多的证据表明,先前报道的心肌内膜活检中肠道病毒持续感染的发生率可能被高估了。在有体液和细胞效应机制记录的自身反应性心肌炎形式中,研究表明免疫抑制治疗可能有用。然而,在得出结论之前,必须等待来自欧洲心脏病炎症性疾病流行病学和治疗双盲随机研究的数据。因此,我们建议将病毒阴性患者纳入随机对照治疗试验,以验证这些治疗方案的益处。此外,高免疫球蛋白疗法似乎特别值得关注,因为它显示出很少的副作用,但在人类巨细胞病毒相关性心肌心包炎中取得了积极的结果。