Background: Increases in blood eosinophil counts (EOS) beyond 0.06 x 10(9)/liter precede treated heart allograft rejection. An oral prednisolone dose of 0.35 mg/kg/day usually suppresses EOS below this threshold.
Methods: We designed a randomized trial to compare our empirical protocol for steroid dose adjustment with a novel protocol guided by EOS monitoring during the first 3 months after heart transplantation. Eighty patients were randomized to either have their EOS reported and used for steroid dose adjustment (RG; n=40), or not reported (NG; n=40). RG patients had their steroid dosage increased if EOS exceeded 0.06 x 10(9)/liter.
Results: RG patients had an 83% lower risk of treated rejection (P=0.035) and lower median intravenous dose of methyl-prednisolone (P=0.017) than NG during the first 6 postoperative weeks. The proportion of diagnostic increases in EOS that were followed within 2 weeks by treated rejection was 42% greater in NG than RG (P=0.0001), compatible with a direct impact of EOS-guided prednisolone dose adjustment on the risk of subsequent rejection. Overall, RG had less than half the risk of rejection of any grade (P<0.001) and significantly more rejection-free biopsies than NG (P=0.001). The mean oral prednisolone dosage was significantly greater in RG than NG during the first (P=0.014) and second (P=0.001) 6 weeks of follow-up. This did not increase the incidence of serious steroid-related side effects.
Conclusions: EOS monitoring is a simple, cheap, and effective means of optimizing steroid immunosuppression. Restriction of the EOS-guided steroid dosing protocol to periods of prolonged hospitalisation during the first 3 postoperative months should limit the requirement for higher prednisolone dosage without affecting immunosuppressive efficacy.