4.6 Article

Risk of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients long after renal transplantation

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 3391-3398

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr048

关键词

chemoprophylaxis; lymphocytopaenia; Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia; renal transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Chemoprophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole is recommended during the early post-transplantation period, but the optimal duration has not been determined and a main drawback of chemoprophylaxis is the development of resistance of the commensal faecal flora. A cluster outbreak of PCP occurred in our outpatient Renal Transplant Unit. We aimed to investigate risk factors for PCP in RTRs to determine who should receive long-term chemoprophylaxis. Methods. In a case-control study, we investigated common demographic variables and immunological parameters. Nine PCP cases diagnosed between August 2006 and April 2007 were matched with 18 control patients, who did not develop PCP, received their transplant in the same time-period and had a similar follow-up period with a comparable immunosuppressive drug regimen. Results. The median time from transplantation to PCP was 19 months. We observed no significant differences in gender, age, donor type or number of rejections. In PCP cases, the median lymphocyte count just before PCP diagnosis was 0.49 (0.26-0.68), which was significantly reduced compared to the control patients after a similar follow-up period (median 1.36, 0.59-3.04, P = 0.002). This lymphocytopaenia was chronic and existed in most patients already for many months. CD4(+) T-cell counts were also significantly reduced in the PCP cases. We found no difference in the Th1, Th2 and Th17 subsets between PCP cases and control patients. Conclusion. Long-term prophylactic therapy for PCP may be indicated for RTR with persistent severe lymphocytopaenia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据