4.5 Article

Long-term erythropoietin therapy decreases CC-chemokine levels and intima-media thickness in hemodialyzed patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 497-502

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000097269

关键词

CC-chemokines; recombinant human erythropoietin; hemodialysis; intima-media thickness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: CC-chemokines are now widely accepted in the recruitment of leukocytes from the blood compartment into tissues, and their role in the progression of atherosclerosis has been documented. Recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) has become widely used to treat anemic HD patients. However, little is known about the effect of EPO on the plasma CC-chemokine levels and intima-media thickness (IMT) in HD patients. Methods: Assessment of CC-chemokines: monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), macrophage inflammatory proteins (MIP-1 alpha, MIP-1 beta), regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES) and IMT were performed in 26 stable HD patients and 15 healthy controls. The patients were divided into 3 groups: group I (n = 8, without EPO), group II (n = 9, EPO at a mean dose of 76 +/- 48 U/kg/week for more than 4 months), and group III (n = 9, EPO at a mean dose of 110.5 +/- 21 U/kg/ week for more than 12 months), none of them on iron therapy. Results: MCP-1, MIP-1 alpha, MIP-1 beta and IMT values were significantly higher, whereas RANTES were significantly lower in HD patients without EPO therapy than those in healthy controls. CC-chemokine levels were found to be significantly lower in patients administered EPO when compared to subjects without EPO. In the patients treated with EPO for more than 12 months IMT values were significantly decreased compared to patients not receiving this hormone. Conclusion: These results suggest that long-term EPO therapy decreased CC-chemokine and IMT values in patients undergoing regular HD in the absence of concomitant iron supplementation. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.5
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