切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华移植杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (04): 210 -215. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3903.2022.04.003

论著

肾移植受者T细胞亚群绝对计数动态监测对感染的预警作用
Mounia Lalouly1, 王祥慧1,(), 周佩军1, 邵琨1, 安会敏1, 周全1   
  1. 1. 200025 上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院肾移植中心
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-20 出版日期:2022-08-25
  • 通信作者: 王祥慧
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81973387)

Role of dynamic monitoring of T cell subsets absolute counts in predicting infection in renal allograft recipients

Mounia Lalouly1, Xianghui Wang1,(), Peijun Zhou1, Kun Shao1, Huimin An1, Quan Zhou1   

  1. 1. Renal Transplantation Center, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
  • Received:2021-11-20 Published:2022-08-25
  • Corresponding author: Xianghui Wang
目的

探讨长期监测T细胞亚群绝对计数水平对肾移植受者术后感染的预警作用。

方法

回顾性分析2017年1月至2021年5月在上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院26例行肾移植术后新发感染受者临床资料(感染组,感染发生在移植后1~240个月)。选择129例同期肾移植术后无感染、健康受者作为对照组。感染组连续或定期测量外周血T细胞亚群CD3、CD4和CD8绝对计数,并与对照组检测数据进行比较。根据移植后采样时间将感染组和对照组各分为6个亚组,分析感染亚组与其相应对照亚组之间T细胞亚群绝对计数的差异。正态分布计量资料采用两独立样本t检验和单因素方差分析比较,非正态分布计量资料采用Mann-Whitney U检验比较,计数资料采用χ2检验比较。使用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析T细胞亚群绝对计数在肾移植术后预警感染性疾病的最优值。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

感染组和对照组受者CD4/CD8比值分别为(1.2±0.5)、(1.3±0.6),差异无统计学意义(t=0.610,P>0.05)。感染组受者CD3、CD4和CD8 T细胞绝对计数[(367±212)、(189±117)和(161±92)个/μL]均低于对照组[(1 374±663)、(695±334)和(626±377)个/μL],差异均有统计学意义(t=14.036、13.541和12.311,P均<0.05)。CD3、CD4和CD8 T细胞绝对计数在6个感染亚组受者中差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。对照亚组1受者CD3、CD4和CD8 T细胞绝对计数均低于对照亚组5,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。CD4、CD8和CD3绝对计数预测肾移植术后感染性疾病最优截断值分别为712、362和255个/μL,敏感度分别为94.6%、92.2%和96.1%,特异度分别为92.3%、96.2%和88.5%。

结论

肾移植受者低T细胞亚群绝对计数水平具有预示及预警感染风险的作用。

Objective

To investigate the kinetics of T cell subsets absolute counts as a long-term monitoring tool during infections.

Methods

The clinical data of 26 kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), transplanted at Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, with newly diagnosed infection from January 2017 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed (infection group, infections occurred between 1 month and 240 months post-transplant). A total of 129 healthy KTRs without infection from matching post-transplant periods were selected as a control group. T cell subsets CD3+ , CD4+ , and CD8+ absolute counts in peripheral blood were continuously or periodically measured in the infected group, and then compared with the data of the control group. Afterward, the infected and control groups were each further split into 6 subgroups according to the sampling time post-transplant. Then we analyzed the kinetics of T cell subsets absolute counts between each control subgroups, and the difference between each infected subgroup and their corresponding control subgroup. Normally distributed data were compared using two independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA. Non-normally distributed data were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Nominal data were compared using χ2 test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to analyze the optimal cut-off value of absolute T cell subset counts in determining patients at risk of infectious diseases following renal transplantation. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

No difference was found between the CD4+ /CD8+ ratio of the infected group (1.2±0.5) and that of the control group (1.3±0.6) (t=0.610, P>0.05). The CD3+ , CD4+ , and CD8+ T cells absolute counts of the infected group were significantly lower than those of the control group [(367±212), (189±117), and (161±92) cells/μL vs (1, 374±663), (695±334), and (626±377) cells/μL, respectively] (t=14.036, 13.541 and 12.311, all P values<0.05). No significant difference was found in the CD3+ , CD4+ , and CD8+ T cells absolute counts across the 6 subgroups of the infected group (all P values >0.05). However, the CD3+ , CD4+ , and CD8+ T cells absolute counts of the control subgroup 1 were lower than those of the control subgroup 5 (all P values <0.05). The best cut-off values of CD4+ , CD8+ , and CD3+ determined from the ROC curves analysis in this patient population were 712, 362, and 255 cells/μL, with a sensitivity of 94.6%, 92.2%, and 96.1%, and specificity of 92.3%, 96.2%, and 88.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

Low T cell subsets absolute counts may be regarded as a potential risk factor for developing opportunistic infections and a biomarker with meaningful predictive value.

表1 感染组和对照组肾移植受者一般资料比较
表2 感染各亚组和对照各亚组肾移植受者T细胞亚群绝对计数比较(个/μL,±s)
表3 T细胞亚群绝对计数预测肾移植术后感染性疾病最优值分析结果
图1 T细胞亚群绝对计数预测肾移植术后感染性疾病受试者工作特征曲线
1
Coemans M, Süsal C, Döhler B, et al. Analyses of the short- and long-term graft survival after kidney transplantation in Europe between 1986 and 2015[J]. Kidney Int, 2018, 94(5):964-973.
2
Thongprayoon C, Hansrivijit P, Leeaphorn N, et al. Recent advances and clinical outcomes of kidney transplantation[J]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(4):1193.
3
Fishman JA. Infection in solid-organ transplant recipients[J]. N Engl J Med, 2007, 357(25):2601-2614.
4
Kinnunen S, Karhapää P, Juutilainen A, et al. Secular trends in infection-related mortality after kidney transplantation[J]. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2018, 13(5):755-762.
5
Vanichanan J, Udomkarnjananun S, Avihingsanon Y, et al. Common viral infections in kidney transplant recipients[J]. Kidney Res Clin Pract, 2018, 37(4):323-337.
6
Farmer JR, DeLelys M. Flow cytometry as a diagnostic tool in primary and secondary immune deficiencies[J]. Clin Lab Med, 2019, 39(4):591-607.
7
Fernández-Ruiz M, López-Medrano F, Aguado JM. Predictive tools to determine risk of infection in kidney transplant recipients[J]. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther, 2020, 18(5):423-441.
8
Liu W, Wang K, Zhao Y, et al. Clinical relevance of a CD4 T cell immune function assay in the diagnosis of infection in pediatric living-donor liver transplantation[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2019, 18(5):3823-3828.
9
Gardiner BJ, Nierenberg NE, Chow JK, et al. Absolute lymphocyte count: a predictor of recurrent cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2018, 67(9):1395-1402.
10
Fernández-Ruiz M, López-Medrano F, Allende LM, et al. Kinetics of peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations predicts the occurrence of opportunistic infection after kidney transplantation[J]. Transpl Int, 2014, 27(7):674-685.
11
Struijk GH, Gijsen AF, Yong SL, et al. Risk of pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients long after renal transplantation[J]. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2011, 26(10):3391-3398.
12
Prakash K, Chandorkar A, Saharia KK. Utility of CMV-specific immune monitoring for the management of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients: a clinical update[J]. Diagnostics, 2021, 11(5):875.
13
Navarro D, Fernández-Ruiz M, Aguado JM, et al. Going beyond serology for stratifying the risk of CMV infection in transplant recipients[J]. Rev Med Virol, 2019, 29(1):e2017.
14
López-Oliva MO, Martínez V, Rodríguez-Sanz A, et al. Pre-transplant assessment of pp65-specific CD4 T cell responses identifies CMV-seropositive patients treated with rATG at risk of late onset infection[J]. Clin Immunol, 2020, 211:108329.
15
Schachtner T, Stein M, Reinke P. CMV-specific T cell monitoring offers superior risk stratification of CMV-seronegative kidney transplant recipients of a CMV-seropositive donor[J]. Transplantation, 2017, 101(10):e315-e325.
16
Calarota SA, Zelini P, De Silvestri A, et al. Kinetics of T-lymphocyte subsets and posttransplant opportunistic infections in heart and kidney transplant recipients[J]. Transplantation, 2012, 93(1):112-119.
17
Thibaudin D, Alamartine E, Mariat C, et al. Long-term kinetic of T-lymphocyte subsets in kidney-transplant recipients: influence of anti-T-cell antibodies and association with posttransplant malignancies[J]. Transplantation, 2005, 80(10):1514-1517.
18
Calarota SA, Chiesa A, Silvestri AD, et al. T-lymphocyte subsets in lung transplant recipients: association between nadir CD4 T-cell count and viral infections after transplantation[J]. J Clin Virol, 2015, 69:110-116.
19
王勤拯,王峰,朱晓丹. 外周血淋巴细胞亚群变化在肝移植术后患者早期感染中的意义[J]. 精准医学杂志2020, 35(4):372-375.
[1] 范晴敏, 董凤林, 严俊辰, 杨雅静, 王洁, 万晓静. 超声在肾移植术后肾功能延迟恢复患者随访中的应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(12): 1197-1202.
[2] 董博清, 豆猛, 张静, 冯新顺, 郑瑾, 李潇, 丁小明, 薛武军, 李杨. 肾移植术后BK病毒相关性肾病核心基因及免疫微环境的生物信息学分析[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(04): 201-209.
[3] 刘一霆, 邱涛, 陈忠宝, 马枭雄, 王天宇, 张龙, 邹寄林, 金泽亚, 徐雨, 周江桥. 急性肾损伤供肾对肾移植受者预后影响分析[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 140-146.
[4] 杨素霞, 朱晓隆, 朱有华, 陈宇童, 李雨虹, 隋明星, 李烟花. 不同补液方案对活体肾移植受者术后多尿期临床疗效和护理工作量的影响分析[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 160-164.
[5] 王彦峰. 肾脏机械灌注联合抗生素预防供体来源感染[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 0-.
[6] 孔晨阳, 邱涛, 刘一霆, 陈忠宝, 马枭雄, 王天宇, 张亚龙, 喻博, 周江桥. 供肾Remuzzi评分对肾移植受者预后的指导作用[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 78-82.
[7] 马枭雄, 邱涛, 陈忠宝, 邹寄林, 张龙, 周江桥. 致敏受者肾移植四例并文献复习[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 88-92.
[8] 张江伟, 宫惠琳, 郑瑾, 燕航, 冯新顺, 李杨, 李潇, 丁小明. 肾移植术后肺部毛霉及耶氏肺孢子菌混合性真菌感染一例并文献复习[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(02): 93-96.
[9] 谢文卿, 王苏娅, 彭文翰, 吕军好, 何哲池, 陈江华. 肾移植术后中远期急性排斥反应临床研究[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 32-37.
[10] 蒋丽琼, 袁珂, 许照洁, 马江林, 陈春, 王春林. 肾移植术后妊娠受者34周前分娩危险因素分析[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 38-42.
[11] 艾亮, 成柯, 张盛. 再次肾移植术后并发移植后淋巴增殖性疾病伴结核病一例[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 46-48.
[12] 董才韬, 周大为, 梁峻滔, 叶啟发. 免疫抑制剂治疗肾移植术后复发性IgA肾病研究进展[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 365-369.
[13] 徐艳, 何重香, 周鑫, 潘丽, 叶啟发. 肾移植术后液体管理改善移植肾功能延迟恢复的研究进展[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 370-374.
[14] 伍晓玲, 邓才霞, 郭海琴, 冯吟. 肾移植术后隐球菌性胸膜炎一例报告[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(06): 845-846.
[15] 杨帆, 倪兆慧. 肾移植术后BK病毒相关肾病的诊治进展[J]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2022, 11(02): 90-93.
阅读次数
全文


摘要