ABSTRACT
Delayed graft function (DGF) of kidney transplants increases risk of rejection. We aimed to assess the utility of weekly biopsies during DGF in the setting of currently used immunosuppression and identify variables associated with rejection during DGF. We reviewed all kidney transplants at our institution between January 2008 and December 2011. All patients received rabbit antithymocyte globulin/Thymoglobulin (ATG) or Basiliximab/Simulect induction with maintenance tacrolimus + mycophenolate + corticosteroid therapy. Patients undergoing at least one weekly biopsy during DGF comprised the study group. Eighty-three/420 (19.8%) recipients during this period experienced DGF lasting ≥1 week and underwent weekly biopsies until DGF resolved. Biopsy revealed significant rejection only in 4/83 patients (4.8%) (one Banff 1-A and two Banff 2-A cellular rejections, and one acute humoral rejection). Six other/83 patients (7.2%) had Banff-borderline rejection of uncertain clinical significance. Four variables (ATG versus Basiliximab induction, patient age, panel reactive anti-HLA antibody level at transplantation, and living versus deceased donor transplants) were statistically significantly different between patients with and without rejection, though the clinical significance of these differences is questionable given the low incidence of rejection. Conclusions. Under current immunosuppression regimens, rejection during DGF is uncommon and the utility of serial biopsies during DGF is limited.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of hydroxymethylglutaryl CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have been extensively demonstrated, but in clinical practice, there remains significant underutilization of these medications. The authors hypothesized that this underutilization could stem in part from fear of liver damage caused by statins. The purpose was to determine whether concern about hepatotoxicity acts as a barrier among primary care physicians to prescribing statins for patients with elevated liver transaminase values and/or underlying liver disease. METHOD: The survey included 937 primary care physicians from 138 academic centers in the United States, and the following were measured: (1) comparison of statin prescribing for patients with clinical indications and (a) no mention of liver transaminase values, (b) elevated liver transaminase values and (c) underlying liver disease; (2) correlation between perception of statin hepatotoxicity and statin prescribing. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of respondents would prescribe statins in scenario 1, (45-year-old woman with low-density lipoprotein 240 mg/dL), whereas only 50% would prescribe statins if the baseline liver transaminase values were elevated to 1.5 times upper limit of normal (P < 0.001). This prescribing rate dropped even further to 40% in scenario 3 (55-year-old man with known coronary disease, low-density lipoprotein 250 mg/dL and hepatitis C). Thirty-seven percent of respondents had falsely elevated perceptions of statin hepatotoxicity risk, and these perceptions correlated inversely with statin prescribing. The method of survey administration prevented calculation of response rate, possibility of response bias exists. CONCLUSION: Despite extensive data documenting safety of statins, primary care physicians harbor significant hepatotoxicity concerns, and these concerns act as a barrier to statin utilization.
