Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hutchinson, P.
Right arrow Articles by Holdsworth, S. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hutchinson, P.
Right arrow Articles by Holdsworth, S. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2003) 18: 983-989
© 2003 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Laboratory assessment of immune function in renal transplant patients

Paul Hutchinson1,, Steven J. Chadban2, Robert C. Atkins2 and Stephen R. Holdsworth1

1 Department of Clinical Immunology and 2 Department of Nephrology, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Australia

Background. Advances in immunosuppression have made renal transplantation an effective therapy for end stage renal failure; with low rejection rates and long graft survival times. However, the major adverse consequences, infection and malignancy have not diminished. To predict this risk a score of immune competence has been developed from the simultaneous laboratory assessment of multiple parameters of immune function.

Methods. The immune status of 152 transplant recipients (138 renal and 14 pancreas/renal) was assessed by measurement of lymphocyte subsets, mitogen-induced T-cell proliferative responses, neutrophil phagocytic capacity and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. A scoring system was devised based on the average number of these parameters below 10th percentile of normal.

Results. The most common abnormality was B-cell lymphopenia (85%) followed by reduced neutrophil ROS production (63% of patients), NK cell lymphopenia (50%), lymphocyte mitogen response (49%) and CD4 number (23%). The abnormalities were unrelated to the duration of immunosuppression (up to 15 years), and variable combinations of cyclosporine A, azathioprine, prednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (except for a consistent reduction in lymphocyte mitogen response in MMF treated patients). Retrospective comparison of infective episodes showed a significantly greater index of infections in patients with the worst score compared with a normal score.

Conclusions. The data suggests that this quantification of immune function may allow assessment of the level of host immune defence reflecting the level of drug-induced immunosuppression and thus risks of immunosuppressive complications.

Keywords: immunological monitoring; immunosuppression; renal move

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Paul Hutchinson, Department of Clinical Immunology, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton VIC 3168, Australia. Email: paul.hutchinson{at}med.monash.edu.au


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin. Chem.Home page
H. Bicker, C. Hoflich, K. Wolk, K. Vogt, H.-D. Volk, and R. Sabat
A Simple Assay to Measure Phagocytosis of Live Bacteria
Clin. Chem., May 1, 2008; 54(5): 911 - 915.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
M. Blazik, P. Hutchinson, M. D. Jose, K. R. Polkinghorne, S. R. Holdsworth, R. C. Atkins, and S. J. Chadban
Leukocyte phenotype and function predicts infection risk in renal transplant recipients
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., October 1, 2005; 20(10): 2226 - 2230.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.