Early Kidney Allograft Dysfunction (Threatened Allograft): Comparative Effectiveness of Continuing Versus Discontinuation of Tacrolimus and Use of Sirolimus to Prevent Graft Failure: A Retrospective Patient-Centered Outcome Study.

BACKGROUND: Due to lack of treatment options for early acute allograft dysfunction in the presence of tubular-interstitial injury without histological features of rejection, kidney transplant recipients are often treated with sirolimus-based therapy to prevent cumulative calcineurin inhibitor exposure and to prevent premature graft failure. METHODS: We analyzed transplant recipients treated with sirolimus-based (n = 220) compared with continued tacrolimus-based (n = 276) immunosuppression in recipients of early-onset graft dysfunction (threatened allograft) with the use of propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighted models to balance for potential confounding by indication between 2 nonrandomized groups. RESULTS: Weighted odds for death-censored graft failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.66-2.19, P = 0.555) was similar in the 2 groups, but a trend for increased risk of greater than 50% loss in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline in sirolimus group (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.96-3.76; P = 0.067) compared with tacrolimus group. Sirloimus group compared with tacrolimus group had increased risk for death with functioning graft (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.29-3.14; P = 0.002) as well as increased risk of late death (death after graft failure while on dialysis) (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.59-3.59; P < 0.001). Analysis of subgroups based on the absence or presence of T cell-mediated rejection or tubulointerstitial inflammation in the index biopsy, or the use of different types of induction agents, and all subgroups had increased risk of death with functioning graft and late death if exposed to sirolimus-based therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Use of sirolimus compared with tacrolimus in recipients with early allograft dysfunction during the first year of transplant may not prevent worsening of allograft function and could potentially lead to poor survival along with increased risk of late death.

Specific management of anemia and hypertension in renal transplant recipients: influence of renin-angiotensin system blockade.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition has proven to be helpful in reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease progression in the general population; whether kidney transplant patients would derive similar benefits is unknown. RAS inhibition also reduces posttransplantation erythrocytosis in kidney transplant recipients, but its effect on hemoglobin (Hb) levels in patients without posttransplantation erythrocytosis is unclear. METHODS: The Specific Management of Anemia and Hypertension in Renal Transplant (SMAhRT) recipients study was designed to examine the cardiovascular benefits of RAS blockade with telmisartan 80 mg versus placebo, and Hb management with darbepoetin α in a randomized, double-blind, single-center controlled trial in 2,000 patients over 3 years. The primary efficacy variable was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke. RESULTS: The SMAhRT study was stopped prematurely due to a lower than expected event rate. At that point, 136 patients were enrolled and were followed for a mean duration of 15 months. The use of RAS blockade was not associated with an increased risk of adverse events such as worsening anemia or hyperkalemia. Likewise, the correction of Hb with darbepoetin was not associated with any increase in thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the safety of RAS inhibition and Hb correction with an erythrocyte-stimulating agent in kidney transplant recipients.

Renal allograft biopsies in the era of C4d staining: the need for change in the Banff classification system.

C4d immunostaining in the peritubular capillaries (PTC) is a marker of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). We evaluated the histopathologic diagnoses of 388 renal transplant biopsies since the implementation of routine C4d immunostaining at our center. Of these, 155 (40%) biopsies had evidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR), out of which 119 (77%) had pure ACR, 31 (20%) had ACR with concomitant features of AMR, and five (3%) had ACR with focal C4d staining. Sixty-four (16%) biopsies exhibited features of AMR [33 (52%) pure AMR, and 31(48%) concomitant AMR and ACR]. One hundred and fifty-five (40%) biopsies had features of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA). Of these, 20 (13%) had concomitant AMR [13 (8.5%) had pure AMR and seven (4.5%) had concomitant ACR and AMR]. Creatinine at the time of biopsy was higher in patients with mixed ACR and AMR and the clinical behavior of mixed lesions is more aggressive over time. Despite having a lower serum creatinine at the time of biopsy, patients with IFTA experienced gradual decline in graft function over time. The pathologic findings in renal allograft biopsies are often mixed and mixed lesions appear to have more aggressive clinical behavior. These findings suggest the need for change in the Banff classification system to better capture the complexity of renal allograft pathologies.