4.6 Article

Outcomes of immunosuppression minimization and withdrawal early after liver transplantation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 1397-1409

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15205

关键词

clinical research/practice; clinical trial; immunosuppression/immune modulation; immunosuppressive regimens - minimization/withdrawal; infection and infectious agents viral: hepatitis C; liver transplantation/hepatology; tolerance

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [UM1AI109565, UM2AI117870]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Immune Tolerance Network ITN030ST A-WISH assessed immunosuppression withdrawal in liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C or nonimmune nonviral liver disease. Of 275 recipients enrolled before transplantation, 95 were randomly assigned 4: 1 to withdrawal (n = 77) or maintenance (n = 18) 1-to 2-years posttransplant. Randomization eligibility criteria included stable immunosuppression monotherapy; adequate liver and kidney function; = Stage 2 Ishak fibrosis; and absence of rejection on biopsy. Immunosuppression withdrawal followed an 8-step reduction algorithm with = 8 weeks per level. Fifty-two of 77 subjects (67.5%) reduced to = 50% of baseline dose, and 10 of 77 (13.0%) discontinued all immunosuppression for = 1 year. Acute rejection and/or abnormal liver tests were treated with increased immunosuppression; 5 of 32 rejection episodes required a methylprednisolone bolus. The composite end point (death or graft loss; grade 4 secondary malignancy or opportunistic infection; Ishak stage = 3; or > 25% decrease in glomerular filtration rate within 24 months of randomization) occurred in 12 of 66 (18%) and 4 of 13 (31%) subjects in the withdrawal and maintenance groups. Early immunosuppression minimization is feasible in selected liver recipients, while complete withdrawal is successful in only a small proportion. The composite end point comparison was inconclusive for noninferiority of the withdrawal to the maintenance group.

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