Late Persistent Positive EBV Viral Load and Risk of Solid Cancer in Kidney Transplant Patients

Screening and Management of PTLD

Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) represents a heterogeneous group of lymphoproliferative diseases occurring in the setting of immunosuppression following hematopoietic stem cells transplant and solid organ transplantation. Despite its overall low incidence, PTLD is a serious complication following transplantation, with a mortality rate as high as 50% in transplant recipients. Therefore, it is important to establish for each transplant recipient a personalized risk evaluation for the development of PTLD based on the determination of Epstein-Barr virus serostatus and viral load following the initiation of immunosuppression. Due to the dynamic progression of PTLD, reflected in the diverse pathological features, different therapeutic approaches have been used to treat this disorder. Moreover, new therapeutic strategies based on the administration of virus-specific cytotoxic T cells have been developed. In this review, we summarize the available data on screening and treatment to suggest a strategy to identify transplant recipients at a higher risk for PTLD development and to review the current therapeutic options for PTLD.

Transplant Onconephrology: An Update

Transplant onconephrology is a growing specialty focused on the health care of kidney transplant recipients with cancer. Given the complexities associated with the care of transplant patients, along with the advent of novel cancer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen-receptor T cells, there is a dire need for the subspecialty of transplant onconephrology. The management of cancer in the setting of kidney transplantation is best accomplished by a multidisciplinary team, including transplant nephrologists, oncologists, and patients. This review addresses the current state and future opportunities for transplant onconephrology, including the roles of the multidisciplinary team, and related scientific and clinical knowledge.

The incidence of post-transplant malignancies in kidney transplant recipients treated with Rituximab

BACKGROUND

Rituximab has been proposed as induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with preformed donor-specific antibodies (DSA) or a positive flow cross-match. We here evaluated whether adding rituximab was associated with a higher incidence of post-transplant malignancies (PTM) due to greater immunosuppression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-eight HLA-sensitized KTRs received induction therapy with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and rituximab because of preformed DSA or a positive flow cross-match (RTX group). They were compared with a control group of 154 patients receiving ATG alone.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine of 202 (19.3%) patients developed PTM; the rate was similar in the RTX and no-RTX groups (14.6% vs. 20.8%, respectively, P = .3). The distributions of the types of cancer were similar between the two groups, with the majority being non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC, n = 24). The risk factors for PTM were male gender, age, history of cancer, and azathioprine.

CONCLUSION

Our data do not indicate a higher rate of post-transplantation de novo malignancies after kidney transplantation in high-immunological risk patients who received induction therapy based on ATG and rituximab.

Predictive tools to determine risk of infection in kidney transplant recipients

Introduction: Infection represents a major complication after kidney transplantation (KT). Therapeutic drug monitoring is essentially the only approach for the adjustment of immunosuppression in current practice, with suboptimal results. The implementation of immune monitoring strategies may contribute to minimizing the risk of adverse events attributable to over-immunosuppression without compromising graft outcomes.Areas covered: The present review (based on PubMed/MEDLINE searches from database inception to November 2019) is focused on immune biomarkers with no antigen specificity (non-pathogen-specific), including serum levels of immunoglobulins and complement factors, peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations, soluble CD30, intracellular ATP production by stimulated CD4⁺ T-cells, and other cell-based immune assays. We also summarized recent advances in the use of replication kinetics of latent viruses to assess the functionality of T-cell immunity, with focus on the nonpathogenic anelloviruses. Finally, the composite risk scores reported in the literature are critically discussed.Expert opinion: Notable efforts have been made to develop an enlarging repertoire of immune biomarkers and prediction models, although most of them still lack technical standardization and external validation. Preventive interventions based on these tools (prolongation of prophylaxis, tapering of immunosuppression, or immunoglobulin replacement therapy in hypogammaglobulinemic patients) remain to be defined, ideally in the context of controlled trials.

Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Evaluation of the Architect, Liaison, and Platelia Epstein-Barr Virus Antibody Assays

BACKGROUND

Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is one of the most prevalent causes of viral infection in humans. EBV infection stage (acute, past, or absent infection) is typically determined using a combination of assays that detect EBV-specific markers, such as IgG and IgM antibodies against the EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA) and IgG antibodies against the EBV nuclear antigen (EBNA). We compared the diagnostic performance and agreement of results between three commercial EBV antibody assays using an EBV performance panel (SeraCare Life Science, Milford, MA, USA) as a reference.

METHODS

EBV antibody tests of EBV VCA IgM, VCA IgG, and EBNA IgG antibodies were performed by the Architect (Abbott Diagnostics, Wiesbaden, Germany), Liaison (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), and Platelia (Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France) assays. Agreement between the three assays was evaluated using 279 clinical samples, and EBV DNA and antibody test results were compared.

RESULTS

The three EBV antibody assays showed good diagnostic performance with good and excellent agreement with the performance panel (kappa coefficient, >0.6). The overall VCA IgM positivity rate was higher in EBV DNA-positive samples than in EBV DNA-negative samples for all three EBV antibody assays (P=0.02). The three EBV antibody assays exhibited good agreement in results for the clinical samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic performance of the three EBV antibody assays was acceptable, and they showed comparable agreement in results for the clinical samples.