Induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients: Description of the practices according to the calendar period from the French multicentric DIVAT cohort

The use of lymphocyte-depleting antibodies in specific populations of kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recommendations of the use of antibody induction treatments in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are based on moderate quality and historical studies. This systematic review aims to reevaluate, based on actual studies, the effects of different antibody preparations when used in specific KTR subgroups.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL and selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies looking at different antibody preparations used as induction in KTR. Comparisons were categorized into different KTR subgroups: standard, high risk of rejection, high risk of delayed graft function (DGF), living donor, and elderly KTR. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven RCT and 99 observational studies were finally included. Compared to anti-interleukin-2-receptor antibodies (IL2RA), anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) reduced the risk of acute rejection at two years in standard KTR (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.61-0.89) and high risk of rejection KTR (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.72), but without decreasing the risk of graft loss. We did not find significant differences comparing ATG vs. alemtuzumab or different ATG dosages in any KTR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite many studies carried out on induction treatment in KTR, their heterogeneity and short follow-up preclude definitive conclusions to determine the optimal induction therapy. Compared with IL2RA, ATG reduced rejection in standard-risk, highly sensitized, and living donor graft recipients, but not in high DGF risk or elderly recipients. More studies are needed to demonstrate beneficial effects in other KTR subgroups and overall patient and graft survival.

Standardized, risk-adapted induction therapy in kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The choice of induction therapy in kidney transplantation is often non-standardized and centre-specific. Clinicians can choose between depleting and non-depleting antibodies, which differ in their immunosuppressive capacity and the concomitant risk of infection. We herein present a standardized risk-stratified algorithm for induction therapy that might help to balance the risk of rejection and/or serious infection.

METHODS

Prior to kidney transplantation, patients were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk or high-risk according to our protocol based on immunologic risk factors. Depending on their individual immunologic risk, patients received basiliximab (low risk), antithymocyte globulin (intermediate risk) or low-dose alemtuzumab (high risk) for induction therapy. We analysed the results after 3 years of implementation of our risk-stratified induction therapy protocol at our kidney transplant centre.

RESULTS

Between 01/2017 and 05/2020, 126 patients were stratified in accordance with our protocol (low risk/intermediate risk/high risk: 69 vs. 42 vs. 15 patients). The median follow-up time was 1.9 [1.0-2.5] years. No significant difference was observed in rejection rate and allograft survival (low risk/intermediate risk/high risk: 90.07% vs. 80.81% vs. 100% after 3 years (p > 0.05)) among the groups. The median eGFR at follow-up was (low risk/intermediate risk/high risk) 47 [33-58] vs 58 [46-76] vs 44 [22-55] ml/min/1.73 m2. Although the rate of viral and bacterial infections did not differ significantly, we observed a higher rate of opportunistic fungal infections with alemtuzumab induction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our strategy offers facilitated and individualized choice of induction therapy in kidney transplantation. We propose further evaluation of our algorithm in prospective trials.

Pharmacogenomics of Old and New Immunosuppressive Drugs for Precision Medicine in Kidney Transplantation

Kidney transplantation is the preferred therapeutic option for end-stage kidney disease, but, despite major therapeutic advancements, allograft rejection continues to endanger graft survival. Every patient is unique due to his or her clinical history, drug metabolism, genetic background, and epigenetics. For this reason, examples of "personalized medicine" and "precision medicine" have steadily increased in recent decades. The final target of precision medicine is to maximize drug efficacy and minimize toxicity for each individual patient. Immunosuppressive drugs, in the setting of kidney transplantation, require a precise dosage to avoid either adverse events (overdosage) or a lack of efficacy (underdosage). In this review, we will explore the knowledge regarding the pharmacogenomics of the main immunosuppressive medications currently utilized in kidney transplantation. We will focus on clinically relevant pharmacogenomic data, that is, the polymorphisms of the genes that metabolize immunosuppressive drugs.

Specificities of Meningitis and Meningo-Encephalitis After Kidney Transplantation: A French Retrospective Cohort Study

Kidney transplant recipients develop atypical infections in their epidemiology, presentation and outcome. Among these, meningitis and meningoencephalitis require urgent and adapted anti-infectious therapy, but published data is scarce in KTRs. The aim of this study was to describe their epidemiology, presentation and outcome, in order to improve their diagnostic and management. We performed a retrospective, multicentric cohort study in 15 French hospitals that included all 199 cases of M/ME in KTRs between 2007 and 2018 (0.9 case per 1,000 KTRs annually). Epidemiology was different from that in the general population: 20% were due to Cryptococcus neoformans, 13.5% to varicella-zoster virus, 5.5% to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and 4.5% to Enterobacteria (half of which produced extended spectrum beta-lactamases), and 5% were Post Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorders. Microorganisms causing M/ME in the general population were infrequent (2%, for Streptococcus pneumoniae) or absent (Neisseria meningitidis). M/ME caused by Enterobacteria, Staphylococci or filamentous fungi were associated with high and early mortality (50%-70% at 1 year). Graft survival was not associated with the etiology of M/ME, nor was impacted by immunosuppression reduction. Based on these results, we suggest international studies to adapt guidelines in order to improve the diagnosis and the probabilistic treatment of M/ME in SOTRs.

Very Low Dose Anti-Thymocyte Globulins Versus Basiliximab in Non-Immunized Kidney Transplant Recipients

The choice between Basiliximab (BSX) or Anti-Thymocyte Globulin (ATG) as induction therapy in non-immunized kidney transplant recipients remains uncertain. Whilst ATG may allow steroid withdrawal and a decrease in tacrolimus, it also increases infectious complications. We investigated outcomes in non-immunized patients receiving a very low dosage of ATG versus BSX as induction. Study outcomes were patient/graft survival, cumulative probabilities of biopsy proven acute rejection (BPAR), infectious episode including CMV and post-transplant diabetes (PTD). Cox, logistic or linear statistical models were used depending on the studied outcome and models were weighted on propensity scores. 100 patients received ATG (mean total dose of 2.0 mg/kg) and 83 received BSX. Maintenance therapy was comparable. Patient and graft survival did not differ between groups, nor did infectious complications. There was a trend for a higher occurrence of a first BPAR in the BSX group (HR at 1.92; 95%CI: [0.77; 4.78]; p = 0.15) with a significantly higher BPAR episodes (17% vs 7.3%, p = 0.01). PTD occurrence was significantly higher in the BSX group (HR at 2.44; 95%CI: [1.09; 5.46]; p = 0.03). Induction with a very low dose of ATG in non-immunized recipients was safe and associated with a lower rate of BPAR and PTD without increasing infectious complications.

The comparative efficacy and safety of basiliximab and antithymocyte globulin in deceased donor kidney transplantation: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Generally, an induction agent is chosen based on the conditions of the deceased donor and the recipient. Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) is preferred in relatively high-risk conditions. No clear evidence indicates which induction agent is safer or more efficient for deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). This study compares the efficacy and safety of basiliximab (BSX) and ATG according to donor characteristics in DDKT.

METHODS

A total of 724 kidney transplant recipients from three transplant centers were enrolled, and propensity score matching was performed. Based on a donor age of 60 years, donor kidney with acute kidney injury (AKI), and Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score of 65%, we investigated how the choice of induction therapy agent affected the posttransplant clinical outcomes of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), infectious complications, and allograft and patient survival.

RESULTS

AR and DGF did not differ significantly according to induction agent in elderly/young donor, AKI/non-AKI, and high-KDPI/ low-KDPI subgroups. The infection rate did not show meaningful differences. The differences in death-censored allograft survival and patient survival rates between induction agents were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that BSX can produce clinical outcomes similarly favorable to those of ATG even in DDKT cases with relatively poor donor conditions. Nonetheless, the donor and recipient conditions, immunological risk, and infection risk must be all taken into consideration when choosing an induction agent. Therefore, clinicians should carefully select the induction therapy agent for DDKT based on the risks and benefits in each DDKT case.

Baseline Characteristics and Representativeness of Participants in the BEST-Fluids Trial: A Randomized Trial of Balanced Crystalloid Solution Versus Saline in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a major complication of deceased donor kidney transplantation. Saline (0.9% sodium chloride) is a commonly used intravenous fluid in transplantation but may increase the risk of DGF because of its high chloride content. Better Evidence for Selecting Transplant Fluids (BEST-Fluids), a pragmatic, registry-based, double-blind, randomized trial, sought to determine whether using a balanced low-chloride crystalloid solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) instead of saline would reduce DGF. We sought to evaluate the generalizability of the trial cohort by reporting the baseline characteristics and representativeness of the trial participants in detail.

METHODS

We compared the characteristics of BEST-Fluids participants with those of a contemporary cohort of deceased donor kidney transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. To explore potential international differences, we compared trial participants with a cohort of transplant recipients in the United States using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.

RESULTS

During the trial recruitment period, 2373 deceased donor kidney transplants were performed in Australia and New Zealand; 2178 were eligible' and 808 were enrolled in BEST-Fluids. Overall, trial participants and nonparticipants were similar at baseline. Trial participants had more coronary artery disease (standardized difference [d] = 0.09; P = 0.03), longer dialysis duration (d = 0.18, P < 0.001), and fewer hypertensive (d = -0.11, P = 0.03) and circulatory death (d = -0.14, P < 0.01) donors than nonparticipants. Most key characteristics were similar between trial participants and US recipients, with moderate differences (|d| ≥ 0.2; all P < 0.001) in kidney failure cause, diabetes, dialysis duration, ischemic time, and several donor risk predictors, likely reflecting underlying population differences.

CONCLUSIONS

BEST-Fluids participants had more comorbidities and received slightly fewer high-risk deceased donor kidneys but were otherwise representative of Australian and New Zealand transplant recipients and were generally similar to US recipients. The trial results should be broadly applicable to deceased donor kidney transplantation practice worldwide.