【摘要】目的探讨肝肠联合移植的术式、免疫抑制治疗方案与效果。方法对一中年男性短肠综合征患者施行辅助性肝肠联合移植，术后患者免疫抑制治疗采用甲波尼龙（MP）、环孢素A（CsA）、环磷酰胺（CTX）与抗淋巴细胞球蛋白（ALG）处理。结果术后观察期内移植物存活良好。结论本例采用的免疫抑制治疗方案是成功的，且手术方法操作较为简便、易行。
Objective To explore the effects of several immunosuppressants on the cell numbers of cultured rat macrophages and Schwann’s cells. Methods The macrophages and Schwann’s cells were cultured from the newborn Wistar rats. Different concentrations of methylprednisolone(10-3, 10－4,10－6 and 10－8 mol/L), CsA(10－5, 10－6, 10－7 and 10－8 mol/L) and FK506(10-6, 10－7, 10－8 and 10－9 mol/L) were administrated to the cells, while control group was given no drugs. Twentyfour, 48 and 72 hours after administration, the cells from different concentrations were measured with MTT methods respectively. Theresults were compared and analyzed statistically. Results Only high concentration methylprednisolone (10-4 mol/L) and a certain range of concentrations of CsA (10-6，10-7 and 10-8 mol/L) and FK506 (10-7,10-8 and 10-9 mol/L) can provide protection to culturedrat macrophages. Under most concentrations, CsA and FK506 had no effects onthe cell number of cultured rat Schwann’s cell. Only with high concentration CsA (10-5 mol/L) and methylprednisolone (10-3 mol/L) could significantly decreased the cell number of Schwann’s cell. Long time (72 hours) and low dosage (10-8 mol/L) administration of methylprednisolone could significantlyprotect Schwann’s cell. Conclusion High concentration methylprednisolone and some certain concentration CsA and FK506 can protect cultured rat macrophages. But high concentration CsA and methylprednisolone prohibit the proliferation of Schwann’s cells. Only long time and low dosage methylprednisolonecan protect cultured rat Schwann’s cells.
ObjectiveTo investigate the diagnosis, clinical features, treatment and outcome of pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) caused by human parvovirus B19 (HPV-B19) infection in kidney recipients. Method The clinical courses of six patients with PRCA caused by HPV-B19 infection after renal transplantation in West China Hospital between May 2018 and April 2019 were retrospectively investigated. Results The six patients showed obvious anemia symptoms, lacking rash, joint pain and other clinical symptoms of viral infection. The hemoglobin level of five patients got totally remission from a course of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment, and anemia symptoms like fatigue, weakness got notable improvement. One patient had no improvement after two courses of IVIG treatment, and his anemia was significantly improved after the third IVIG course combined with immunosuppressant conversion(from tacrolimus to cyclosporine), and one patient with recurrence accepted a repeated course of IVIG treatment and obtained remission of severe anemia again. The median time of reticulocyte firstly rose to above 0.084×1012/L from the day of IVIG treatment ended was 3.50 (1.25, 5.00) days, and the median time required for a 30 g/L increase in hemoglobin to the end of IVIG treatment was 16.00 (9.25, 31.25) days. No serious adverse reactions occurred and all patients had stable graft function. Conclusions The main clinical manifestations of PRCA caused by HPV-B19 infection after kidney transplantation are anemia symptoms, lacking other clinical symptoms of viral infection. HPV-B19 DNA detection combined with blood routine examination, reticulocyte count and bone marrow cytology (or none) can diagnose HPV-B19 infection. High dose of IVIG is effective and safe, and a repeated course is still effective when the infection recurs. For refractory PRCA that IVIG monotherapy fail, a combination with conversion from tacrolimus to cyclosporine can effectively improve the anemia without graft dysfunction.
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of steroid withdrawal in modern triple immunosuppressant (Cycloproine/Tacrolimus, Mycophenolate Mofetil and Steroid) on renal transplantation recipients. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966-Sep. 2005), OVID (1966-2004), EMBASE (1984-2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005), CBMdisc (1994-2005), and handsearched 7 Chinese Journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) adopting modern triple immunosuppressant, and comparing steroid withdrawal (SW), group and steroid continuing group (SC) were selected. The quality of included studies was evaluated and graded according to Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.2.5, and meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 4.2.7 software. Results Nine RCTs including 1 681 patients (845 in SW and 836 in SC) were identified. The average follow-up time was 6-12 months. No significant difference was found in using CsA or Tac in modern triple immunosuppressant. The results of our meta-analysis showed: ① the risk of acute rejection was two times higher in SW than SC (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.72, P lt;0.000 01), mainly Banff grade I (mild) (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.17, P =0.01); but no significant differences were found on Banff grade II and III between the two groups. ② the rate of graft and patient survival and chronic rejection were the same between two groups. ③ Steroid withdrawal decreased the incidence of opportunistic infection (mainly caused by simplex herpes virus and Candida) and urinary tract infection. While the incidence of CMV and sepsis infection has no significant difference between two groups. Conclusion Steroid withdrawal within 3 months in modern immunosuppressive regimen ① increases the risk of Banff Grade I rejection reaction, but the moderate and severe rejection are similar between the two groups; ② doesn’t affect the rate of graft, patient survival, and chronic rejection; ③ decreases the incidence of opportunistic and urinary tract infection, but doesn’t improve the CMV infection and sepsis. To prophylaxis serious infection, steroid withdrawal is worth considering under sufficient immunosuppressive regimen. The key point is to balance the benefit and harm for individual recipients.
The corticosteroids are the firstline therapeutical agents for noninfectious uveitis patients, but systemic corticosteroids are ineffective for some chronic or recurrent patients, and have many long term usagerelated side effects; these patients may need treatment of immunosuppressive agents and/or biologic agents. However, the mechanism, indication, efficacy and sideeffects of each type of the immunosuppressive agents or biologic agents are not identical. In clinical practice, we should use different and sensitive immunosuppressive agents or biologic agents for different types of uveitis, and watch their efficacy and toxic effects closely. In order to improve the effectiveness of the treatment, the classification, efficacy and existing concerns of commonly used uveitis drugs need to be further clarified.