Clinical nephrology · 2025
Comparison of Torque teno virus viral load and QuantiFERON Monitor assay and their association with the degree of immunosuppression in kidney transplant patients.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Borštnar Špela, Večerić-Haler Željka, Ponikvar Ležaić Anja, Bezeljak Neva, Arnol Miha, Poljak Mario, Lunar Maja M, Mlinšek Gregor
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Solid organ transplant patients require appropriate immunosuppression to sufficiently control the allorecognition of the graft. Two tests, the QuantiFERON Monitor (QFM) and the Torque teno virus load (TTVL) provide an option to monitor the strength of immunosuppression.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: TTVL and QFM were simultaneously determined in kidney transplant patients. Clinical data, microbiological and histopathological findings were collected from the patients' medical records.
RESULTS: 128 TTVL and QFM values were quantified in 107 patients. 69 patients (54%) had recurrent infections in the previous 6 months, 19 (15%) had malignancies, 47 (37%) had a recent kidney biopsy and among them 17 (36%) had histologically proven graft rejection. Results showed that there was no significant correlation between TTVL and QFM (ρ = -0.169, p = 0.061). In patients with histologically proven rejection, TTVL was significantly lower than in patients without rejection (3.64 ± 2.45 vs. 5.02 ± 1.67 log10 copies/mL, p = 0.026), but there was no difference between the groups in QFM (1.63 ± 0.67 vs. 1.55 ± 0.80 log10 IU/mL, p = 0.735). Patients with known malignancy had lower TTVL compared to patients without it (p = 0.041). No statistically significant difference was observed in TTVL and patients with or without infections (p = 0.278). QFM was not different in patients with or without infection or malignancy.
CONCLUSION: TTVL as an immune marker was associated with transplant rejection. There were no clinically significant associations between QFM and rejection and TTVL or QFM with infections and malignancies. Further prospective studies should be performed to confirm these results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: TTVL and QFM were simultaneously determined in kidney transplant patients. Clinical data, microbiological and histopathological findings were collected from the patients' medical records.
RESULTS: 128 TTVL and QFM values were quantified in 107 patients. 69 patients (54%) had recurrent infections in the previous 6 months, 19 (15%) had malignancies, 47 (37%) had a recent kidney biopsy and among them 17 (36%) had histologically proven graft rejection. Results showed that there was no significant correlation between TTVL and QFM (ρ = -0.169, p = 0.061). In patients with histologically proven rejection, TTVL was significantly lower than in patients without rejection (3.64 ± 2.45 vs. 5.02 ± 1.67 log10 copies/mL, p = 0.026), but there was no difference between the groups in QFM (1.63 ± 0.67 vs. 1.55 ± 0.80 log10 IU/mL, p = 0.735). Patients with known malignancy had lower TTVL compared to patients without it (p = 0.041). No statistically significant difference was observed in TTVL and patients with or without infections (p = 0.278). QFM was not different in patients with or without infection or malignancy.
CONCLUSION: TTVL as an immune marker was associated with transplant rejection. There were no clinically significant associations between QFM and rejection and TTVL or QFM with infections and malignancies. Further prospective studies should be performed to confirm these results.