Refine
Year of publication
- 2014 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- aeroallergen (1)
- aerosol exposure (1)
- antiviral therapy (1)
- asthma (1)
- cytomegalovirus (1)
- drug-monitoring (1)
- immunomonitoring (1)
- immunosuppression (1)
- kidney transplantation (1)
- over-immunosuppression (1)
Institute
Background: Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest that exposure to ultrafine particles (UFP) might aggravate the allergic inflammation of the lung in asthmatics.
Methods: We exposed 12 allergic asthmatics in two subgroups in a double-blinded randomized cross-over design, first to freshly generated ultrafine carbon particles (64 μg/m3; 6.1 ± 0.4 × 105 particles/cm3 for 2 h) and then to filtered air or vice versa with a 28-day recovery period in-between. Eighteen hours after each exposure, grass pollen was instilled into a lung lobe via bronchoscopy. Another 24 hours later, inflammatory cells were collected by means of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). (Trial registration: NCT00527462)
Results: For the entire study group, inhalation of UFP by itself had no significant effect on the allergen induced
inflammatory response measured with total cell count as compared to exposure with filtered air (p = 0.188). However, the subgroup of subjects, which inhaled UFP during the first exposure, exhibited a significant increase in total BAL cells (p = 0.021), eosinophils (p = 0.031) and monocytes (p = 0.013) after filtered air exposure and subsequent allergen challenge 28 days later. Additionally, the potential of BAL cells to generate oxidant radicals was
significantly elevated at that time point. The subgroup that was exposed first to filtered air and 28 days later to UFP did not reveal differences between sessions.
Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that pre-allergen exposure to UFP had no acute effect on the allergic inflammation. However, the subgroup analysis lead to the speculation that inhaled UFP particles might have a long-term effect on the inflammatory course in asthmatic patients. This should be reconfirmed in further studies with an appropriate study design and sufficient number of subjects.
Background: After kidney transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy causes impaired cellular immune defense leading to an increased risk of viral complications. Trough level monitoring of immunosuppressants is insufficient to estimate the individual intensity of immunosuppression. We have already shown that virus-specific T cells (Tvis) correlate with control of virus replication as well as with the intensity of immunosuppression. The multicentre IVIST01-trial should prove that additional steering of immunosuppressive and antiviral therapy by Tvis levels leads to better graft function by avoidance of over-immunosuppression (for example, viral infections) and drug toxicity (for example, nephrotoxicity).
Methods/design: The IVIST-trial starts 4 weeks after transplantation. Sixty-four pediatric kidney recipients are randomized either to a non-intervention group that is only treated conservatively or to an intervention group with additional monitoring by Tvis. The randomization is stratified by centre and cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis. In both groups the immunosuppressive medication (cyclosporine A and everolimus) is adopted in the same target range of trough levels. In the non-intervention group the immunosuppressive therapy (cyclosporine A and everolimus) is only steered by classical trough level monitoring and the antiviral therapy of a CMV infection is performed according to a standard protocol. In contrast, in the intervention group the dose of immunosuppressants is individually adopted according to Tvis levels as a direct measure of the intensity of immunosuppression in addition to classical trough level monitoring. In case of CMV infection or reactivation the antiviral management is based on the individual CMV-specific immune defense assessed by the CMV-Tvis level. Primary endpoint of the study is the glomerular filtration rate 2 years after transplantation; secondary endpoints are the number and severity of viral infections and the incidence of side effects of immunosuppressive and antiviral drugs.
Discussion: This IVIST01-trial will answer the question whether the new concept of steering immunosuppressive and antiviral therapy by Tvis levels leads to better future graft function. In terms of an effect-related drug monitoring, the study design aims to realize a personalization of immunosuppressive and antiviral management after transplantation. Based on the IVIST01-trial, immunomonitoring by Tvis might be incorporated into routine care after kidney transplantation.
