4.2 Article

The Effect of Induction Therapy on Established CMV Specific T Cell Immunity in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 67, 期 2, 页码 251-260

出版社

ACAD SCIENCES CZECH REPUBLIC, INST PHYSIOLOGY
DOI: 10.33549/physiolres.933736

关键词

Kidney transplantation; rATG; Thymoglobuline; Basiliximab; Cytomegalovirus; ELISPOT

资金

  1. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [15-26865A, MZO 00023001]
  2. Bio-DrIM (EU)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection influences both short and long term outcomes in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different induction immunosuppression regimens on CMV specific T cell response in patients with already established CMV immunity. In 24 seropositive living donor kidney recipients, the frequency of CMV specific T cells was determined by ELISPOT (Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSpot) assay prior and 6 months after transplantation. Recipients' peripheral blood mononuclear cells were stimulated with immediate-early (IE1) and phosphoprotein 65 (pp65) CMV-derived peptide pools and the number of cells producing interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) was assessed. Patients received quadruple immunosuppression based either on depletive rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) or non-depletive basiliximab induction and tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil/steroids. Patients with rATG induction received valgancyclovir prophylaxis. No effects of different induction agents on CMV specific T cell immunity were found at sixth month after kidney transplantation. There were no associations among dialysis vintage, pretransplant CMV specific T cell immunity, and later CMV DNAemia. Similarly, no effect of CMV prophylaxis on CMV specific T cell immunity was revealed. This study shows no effect of posttransplant immunosuppression on CMV specific T cell immunity in living donor kidney transplant recipients with CMV immunity already established, regardless of lymphocyte depletion and CMV prophylaxis.

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

4.2
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