4.6 Article

Pathology of Resolving Polyomavirus-Associated Nephropathy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 1474-1483

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12218

关键词

Allograft rejection; biopsies; BK virus; immunohistochemistry; immunosuppression; polyoma; polyomavirus-associated nephropathy; surveillance; SV40

资金

  1. Swiss National Foundation [32473B_ 125482/1]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32473B_125482] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Control of polyomavirus BK (BKV) is achieved by reducing immunosuppression allowing an effective BKV-specific T-cell response. The morphology of resolving BKV-associated nephropathy (PyVAN) has not been systematically investigated. Ninety-nine surveillance biopsies of 35 patients with BKV viremia treated exclusively by immunosuppression reduction were scored according to Banff criteria and grouped relative to BKV viremia as pre-, increasing, decreasing and post-BKV viremia. Thirty-four of 35 patients (97%) cleared BKV viremia after a median of 9 months posttransplantation. The tubulitis score, extent of tubules with intraepithelial lymphocytes, and interstitial inflammation significantly increased from the time of increasing to decreasing viremia. Tubulointerstitial inflammation, to a lower extent, persisted after clearance. The number of SV40+ tubules correlated with the BKV load in plasma, but SV40 immunohistochemistry was frequently negative (60%). During decreasing viremia, 31% of PyVAN cases were plasma cell-rich and 40% showed tubular HLA-DR expression. Compared to baseline 1 month posttransplantation, allograft function remained stable or improved in 29/35 patients (83%) after a median follow-up of 48 months. Within 1 year after clearance of BKV viremia, clinical rejection occurred in 2/35 patients (6%). Our data suggest that resolving PyVAN is typically characterized by a self-limiting acute interstitial nephritis, morphologically indistinguishable from interstitial rejection.

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