4.3 Article

Rhinovirus and other respiratory viruses exert different effects on lung allograft function that are not mediated through acute rejection

Journal

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages E64-E71

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12054

Keywords

adenoviridae infections; graft rejection; influenza; lung transplantation; paramyxoviridae infections; picornaviridae infections

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institutes of Health [T32HL007185, F32HL107003]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [K23HL111115, T32HL007185, F32HL107003] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Community acquired respiratory virus (CARV) infections in lung transplant recipients (LTR) have been associated with adverse outcomes, including acute rejection (AR) and decline in allograft function, in some but not in all studies. Methods Spirometry and transbronchial biopsy results of LTR diagnosed with CARV infection over a two-yr period were extracted from clinical records. Primary outcomes, studied at 12.5 months postinfection, were as follows: (i) incidence of biopsy-proven AR (grade >A0) and (ii) allograft function, defined by forced expiratory volume in one s (FEV1). A reference group of biopsies (n = 526) collected during the study period established the baseline incidence of AR. Rhinovirus (RV) and non-rhinovirus (non-RV) infections were analyzed as subgroups. Results Eighty-seven cases of CARV infection were identified in 59 subjects. Incidences of AR were similar in the post-CARV and reference groups and did not differ significantly after RV vs. non-RV infection. Allograft function declined significantly after non-RV infection, but not after RV infection. Conclusions In LTR, CARV infections other than RV are associated with allograft dysfunction at 12.5 months after infection. However, CARVs do not appear associated with AR at this time point. The impact of specific CARVs on lung allografts, including the development of chronic allograft rejection, merits further study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available