4.5 Article

Cyclosporin A Treatment for Kawasaki Disease Refractory to Initial and Additional Intravenous Immunoglobulin

期刊

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 871-876

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0b013e318220c3cf

关键词

Kawasaki disease; intravenous immunoglobulin-resistant (IVIG-resistant); cyclosporin A; T-cell activation

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There are still no definite treatments for refractory Kawasaki disease (KD). In this pilot study, we evaluated the use of cyclosporin A (CyA) treatment in patients with refractory KD. Methods: We prospectively collected clinical data of CyA treatment (4-8 mg/kg/d, oral administration) for refractory KD patients using the same protocol among several hospitals. Refractory KD is defined as the persistence or recurrence of fever (37.5 degrees C or more of an axillary temperature) at the end of the second intravenous immunoglobulin (2 g/kg) following the initial one. Results: Subjects were enrolled out of 329 KD patients who were admitted to our 8 hospitals between January 2008 and June 2010. Among a total of 28 patients of refractory KD treated with CyA, 18 (64.3%) responded promptly to be afebrile within 3 days and had decreased C-reactive protein levels, the other 4 became afebrile within 4 to 5 days. However, 6 patients (21.4%) failed to become afebrile within 5 days after the start of CyA and/or high fever returned after becoming afebrile within 5 days. Although hyperkalemia developed in 9 patients at 3 to 7 days after the start of CyA treatment, there were no serious adverse effects such as arrhythmias. Four patients (1.2%), 2 before and the other 2 after the start of CyA treatment, developed coronary arterial lesions. Conclusion: CyA treatment is considered safe and well tolerated, and a promising option for patients with refractory KD. Further investigations will be needed to clarify optimal dose, safety, and timing of CyA treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据