Humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in kidney transplant recipients and dialysis patients: IgA and IgG patterns unraveled after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 in high-risk groups such as kidney transplant and dialysis patients is shown to be associated with a more serious course of the disease. Four years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, crucial knowledge on the immune responses in these patient groups is still lacking. Therefore, this study aimed at investigating the humoral immune response after a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to vaccination as well as the evolution of immunoglobulins over time. METHODS: Kidney transplant recipients, patients on haemodialysis or on peritoneal dialysis and healthy controls were included in this longitudinal multicenter study. SARS-CoV-2 anti-RBD, anti-NP and anti-S1S2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and A (IgA) as well as the neutralizing antibody capacity were measured. RESULTS: Kidney transplant recipients had a significantly better humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 after infection (86.4%) than after a two-dose mRNA vaccination (55.8%) while seroconversion was comparable in patients on haemodialysis after infection (95.8%) versus vaccination (89.4%). In individuals without prior COVID-19, the IgG levels after vaccination were significantly lower in kidney transplant recipients when compared to all other groups. However, the IgA titres remained the highest in this patient group at each time point, both after infection and vaccination. A history COVID-19 was associated with higher antibody levels after double-dose vaccination in all patient categories and, while decreasing, titres remained high six months after double-dose vaccination. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplant recipients had a more robust humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 following infection compared to a two-dose mRNA vaccination, while patients on haemodialysis exhibited comparable seroconversion rates. Notably, individuals with prior COVID-19 exhibited higher IgG levels in response to vaccination. Hybrid immunity is thus the best possible defence against severe COVID-19 disease and seems also to hold up for these populations. Next, it is not clear whether the higher IgA levels in the kidney transplant recipients is beneficial for neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 or if it is a sign of disease severity.

Time trends in preemptive kidney transplantation in Europe: an era registry study.

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplantation has better outcomes when compared to transplantation after dialysis. We aimed to examine trends in preemptive kidney transplantation between 2000 and 2019 in Europe and to provide an overview of associated policies, barriers and initiatives. METHODS: Adult patients from 12 European countries who received a preemptive kidney transplant were included. The representatives of the registries providing these data were questioned on the policies, barriers and initiatives around preemptive kidney transplantation. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2019, 20 251 adults underwent preemptive kidney transplantation (11 169 from living donors, 8937 from deceased donors). The proportion of first kidney transplantations that were preemptive more than doubled from 7% in 2000 to 18% in 2019, reflecting a similar relative increase for living donor kidney recipients (from 21% to 43%) and deceased donor kidney recipients (from 4% to 11%). Large international differences were found. The increase in preemptive kidney transplantation was observed across all age, sex and primary renal disease groups. Countries had similar criteria for preemptive waitlisting. Barriers mentioned included donor shortage, late referral to the transplant center and long donor or recipient work-up. Suggested initiatives included raising awareness on the possibility of preemptive kidney transplantation, earlier start and shorter work-up time for recipient and living donor. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last two decades the proportion of patients receiving a first kidney transplant preemptively has more than doubled, reflecting a similar relative increase for living and deceased donor kidney recipients.

2-Step-Scores with optional nephropathology for the prediction of adverse outcomes for brain-dead donor kidneys in Eurotransplant.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The decision for acceptance or discard of the increasingly rare and marginal brain-dead donor kidneys in Eurotransplant (ET) countries has to be made without solid evidence. Thus, we developed and validated flexible clinicopathological scores called 2-Step Scores for the prognosis of delayed graft function (DGF) and one-year death-censored transplant loss (1y-tl) reflecting the current practice of six ET countries including Croatia and Belgium. METHODS: The training set was n=620 for DGF and n=711 for 1y-tl, with validation sets n=158 and n=162. In step 1, stepwise logistic regression models including only clinical predictors were used to estimate the risks. In step 2, risk estimates were updated for statistically relevant intermediate risk percentiles with nephropathology. RESULTS: Step 1 revealed an increased risk of DGF with increased cold ischaemia time, donor and recipient BMI, dialysis vintage, number of HLA-DR mismatches or recipient CMV IgG positivity. On the training and validation set, c-statistics were 0.672 and 0.704, respectively. At a range between 18% and 36%, accuracy of DGF-prognostication improved with nephropathology including number of glomeruli and Banff cv (updated overall c statistics of 0.696 and 0.701, respectively).Risk of 1y-tl increased in recipients with cold ischaemia time, sum of HLA-A. -B, -DR mismatches and donor age. On training and validation sets, c-statistics were 0.700 and 0.769, respectively. Accuracy of 1y-tl prediction improved (c-statistics = 0.706 and 0.765) with Banff ct. Overall, calibration was good on the training, but moderate on the validation set; discrimination was at least as good as established scores when applied to the validation set. CONCLUSION: Our flexible 2-Step Scores with optional inclusion of time-consuming and often unavailable nephropathology should yield good results for clinical practice in ET, and may be superior to established scores. Our scores are adaptable to donation after cardiac death and perfusion pump use.

Novel transcriptomic signatures associated with premature kidney allograft failure.

BACKGROUND: The power to predict kidney allograft outcomes based on non-invasive assays is limited. Assessment of operational tolerance (OT) patients allows us to identify transcriptomic signatures of true non-responders for construction of predictive models. METHODS: In this observational retrospective study, RNA sequencing of peripheral blood was used in a derivation cohort to identify a protective set of transcripts by comparing 15 OT patients (40% females), from the TOMOGRAM Study (NCT05124444), 14 chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (CABMR) and 23 stable graft function patients ≥15 years (STA). The selected differentially expressed transcripts between OT and CABMR were used in a validation cohort (n = 396) to predict 3-year kidney allograft loss at 3 time-points using RT-qPCR. FINDINGS: Archetypal analysis and classifier performance of RNA sequencing data showed that OT is clearly distinguishable from CABMR, but similar to STA. Based on significant transcripts from the validation cohort in univariable analysis, 2 multivariable Cox models were created. A 3-transcript (ADGRG3, ATG2A, and GNLY) model from POD 7 predicted graft loss with C-statistics (C) 0.727 (95% CI, 0.638-0.820). Another 3-transcript (IGHM, CD5, GNLY) model from M3 predicted graft loss with C 0.786 (95% CI, 0.785-0.865). Combining 3-transcripts models with eGFR at POD 7 and M3 improved C-statistics to 0.860 (95% CI, 0.778-0.944) and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.790-0.944), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Identification of transcripts distinguishing OT from CABMR allowed us to construct models predicting premature graft loss. Identified transcripts reflect mechanisms of injury/repair and alloimmune response when assessed at day 7 or with a loss of protective phenotype when assessed at month 3. FUNDING: Supported by the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic under grant NV19-06-00031.

Pre-transplant HbA1c and risk of diabetes mellitus after kidney transplantation: a single center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-transplant diabetes mellitus occurs in 10-40% of kidney transplant recipients and is associated with increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. Early identification of patients with a higher risk of developing diabetes could allow to take timely measures. However, no validated model exists to predict the risk of post-transplant diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This retrospective study includes 267 adult patients who underwent kidney transplantation at the Antwerp University Hospital between January 2014 and August 2021. Post-transplant diabetes mellitus was diagnosed based on the American Diabetes Association definition at 3 months post-transplant. First, a logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for post-transplant diabetes mellitus. Second, criteria to identify patients with a high risk (> 35%) of developing post-transplant diabetes mellitus at 3 months were established. RESULTS: At 3 months post-transplantation, 54 (20.2%) patients developed post-transplant diabetes mellitus. Univariable analysis showed that age, body mass index and HbA1c on the day of transplantation were associated with post-transplant diabetes mellitus. However, in a multivariable model with the same parameters, only HbA1c remained statistically significant. An absolute increase in HbA1c of 0.1% increases the odds for developing post-transplant diabetes mellitus by 28% (95% confidence interval 1.15-1.42). An HbA1c level ≥ 5.3% at transplantation, regardless of age or body mass index, is sufficient to identify patients with a post-transplant diabetes mellitus risk of ≥ 35% with a positive predictive value of 39% and a negative predictive value of 88%. CONCLUSIONS: The HbA1c value at transplantation was the strongest predictor for post-transplant diabetes mellitus at 3 months post-transplant. Furthermore, at least in our population, a pre-transplant HbA1c of ≥ 5.3% can be used as an easy tool to identify patients at high risk of early post-transplant diabetes mellitus.

Does the Tacrolimus Trough Level Adequately Predict Drug Exposure in Patients Requiring a High Tacrolimus Dose?

Tacrolimus (Tac) has a narrow therapeutic range. Dosing is generally targeted at Tac trough levels (C 0), notwithstanding conflicting reports on the correlation between Tac C 0 and systemic exposure measured by the area-under-the-concentration-over-time curve (AUC). The Tac dose required to meet the target C 0 varies highly among patients. We hypothesized that patients requiring a relatively high Tac dose for a certain C 0 may show a higher AUC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 53 patients in which a 24-h Tac AUC24 estimation was performed at our center. Patients were divided into those taking a low (≤0.15 mg/kg) or high (>0.15 mg/kg) once-daily Tac dose. Multiple linear regression models were used to investigate if the association between C 0 and AUC24 changes according to dose level. Results: Despite the large difference in mean Tac dose between the low- and high-dose group (7 versus 17 mg/d), C 0 levels were similar. However, the mean AUC24 was substantially higher in the high-dose group (320 ± 96 h·µg/L versus 255 ± 81 h·µg/L, P < 0.001). This difference remained significant after adjusting for age and race. For a same C 0, every 0.01 mg/kg increase in Tac dose resulted in an AUC24 increase of 3.59 h·µg/L. Conclusions: This study challenges the general belief that C 0 levels are sufficiently reliable to estimate systemic drug exposure. We demonstrated that patients requiring a relatively high Tac dose to attain therapeutic C 0 levels have higher drug exposure and could therefore potentially be overdosed.

Is Polyomavirus-Associated Nephropathy More Common in Kidney Transplant Recipients Exposed to Valganciclovir? A Retrospective Single Center Analysis.

BACKGROUND: BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (PVAN) is a frequent complication in the early phase after kidney transplantation. The most important risk factor for PVAN is the intensity of immunosuppression. A recent study suggests that exposure to valganciclovir (VGC) could also be a risk factor. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center study to investigate the effect of valganciclovir exposure on the risk for PVAN during the first 100 days post transplant. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seronegative recipients of a CMV seropositive donor kidney received VGC prophylaxis, whereas CMV seropositive recipients were managed by a pre-emptive CMV strategy. Cox regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for PVAN development with VGC treatment and strength of immunosuppressive therapy as time-dependent variables. RESULTS: A total of 211 adults who received a kidney transplant between 2014 and 2019 were included. Eighteen (9%) developed PVAN. Multivariate regression analysis showed that women have a lower risk of developing PVAN (hazard ratio [HR] 0.08 (confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.58), P = .013), whereas age was associated with an increased risk for PVAN (HR 1.04 for every additional year [CI 1.00-1.08], P = .029). There was a trend toward a lower risk of PVAN for patients on reduced immunosuppressive therapy (HR 0.44 [CI 0.15-1.24], P = .12). VGC use was not associated with the risk for PVAN (HR 0.99 [CI 0.35-2.78], P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, VGC exposure was not associated with the risk for PVAN. Our study is the first to reassess in depth the hypothesis that VGC treatment increases the risk of PVAN. The unique strength of this study is the correction for the degree of immunosuppression and the statistical use of time-dependent covariates. This methodological approach can provide a foundation for further studies needed to confirm our findings.

Preparing European Nephrology for the next pandemic: lessons from the ERACODA collaboration.

Owing to the vulnerability of patients with chronic kidney disease to infectious diseases, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been particularly devastating for the nephrology community. Unfortunately, the possibility of future COVID-19 waves or outbreaks of other infectious diseases with pandemic potential cannot be ruled out. The nephrology community made tremendous efforts to contain the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted several shortcomings in our response to the pandemic and has taught us important lessons that can be utilized to improve our preparedness for any future health crises of a similar nature. In this article we draw lessons from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA) project, a pan-European collaboration initiated in March 2020 to understand the prognosis of COVID-19 in patients on kidney function replacement therapy. We discuss the challenges faced in generating timely and robust evidence for informed management of patients with kidney disease and give recommendations for our preparedness for the next pandemic in Europe. Limited collaboration, the absence of common data architecture and the sub-optimal quality of available data posed challenges in our response to COVID-19. Aligning different research initiatives, strengthening electronic health records, and involving experts in study design and data analysis will be important in our response to the next pandemic. The European Renal Association may take a leading role in aligning research initiatives via its engagement with other scientific societies, national registries, administrators and researchers.

Ethical and medical dilemmas in paid living kidney donor transplantation.

Due to the shortage of deceased and genetically- or emotionally-related living donors, living unrelated paid donor (LURpD) kidney transplantation has been considered; however, this practice may result in medical, ethical and social dilemmas, induce organ trading (commodification), and even criminal activities. Commodification also risks undermining public trust in the transplant system and impeding the development of proper altruistic or deceased donor programs by ignoring altruism, volunteerism, and dignity. However, despite many objections by authoritative organizations, black market practices are involved in up to 10% of all transplants worldwide. The authors strongly discourage any payment or rewards for organ donation, and instead urge the governments of all countries to provide adequate and accessible kidney health care. However, it is an undeniable fact that paid-living donor transplantation is increasing despite all objections, disapprovals and regulations. We feel it as our responsibility not to ignore this uncertain and undesirable practice, but rather to underline the necessity for strict rules and prohibitions to minimize unacceptable medical, social and ethical risks as long as it exists. Furthermore, economic profit, be it direct or indirect, must not be the goal of those involved, and the employment of intermediaries must be avoided entirely. Additionally, the donor should be in a position where not donating has no detrimental effect on his/her future in any way (free agency). In our view, every country has the obligation and responsibility to provide adequate kidney health care and to make kidney transplantation accessible to those in need. This provision is key to stop transplant tourism and commercialization of kidney transplantation. The nephrology community has a duty to establish structures that optimize organ availability within strict ethical limits. The legal position of LURpD varies considerably worldwide. Strictly respecting each country's legislation and local values is mandatory to minimize medical and ethical risks and controversies.

Kidney transplantation during mass disasters - from COVID-19 to other catastrophes.

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between health care demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience for guiding transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to save as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of health care resources.

Kidney transplantation during mass disasters - from COVID-19 to other catastrophes A Consensus Statement by the DESCARTES Working Group and Ethics Committee of the ERA.

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between health care demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience for guiding transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to save as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of health care resources.

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination is not associated with the induction of anti-HLA or non-HLA antibodies.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is strongly recommended in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) and dialysis patients. Whether these vaccinations may trigger alloantibodies, is still debated. METHODS: In the current study we evaluated the effect of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines on anti-Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) and 60 anti-non-HLA antibody profiles in clinically stable KTR and dialysis patients. In total, we included 28 KTR, 30 patients on haemodialysis, 25 patients on peritoneal dialysis and 31 controls with a positive seroresponse 16-21 days after the first dose of either the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine. Both anti-HLA and anti-non-HLA antibodies were determined prior to vaccination and 21 to 35 days after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients with detectable anti-HLA antibodies was similar before and after vaccination (class I 14% vs. 16%, p = 0.48; class II 25% before and after vaccination). After vaccination, there was no pattern in 1) additionally detected anti-HLA antibodies, or 2) the levels of pre-existing ones. Additional anti-non-HLA antibodies were detected in 30% of the patients, ranging from 1 to 5 new anti-non-HLA antibodies per patient. However, the clinical significance of anti-non-HLA antibodies is still a matter of debate. To date, only a significant association has been found for anti-non-HLA ARHGDIB antibodies and long-term kidney graft loss. No additionally developed anti-ARHGDIB antibodies or elevated level of existing anti-ARHGDIB antibodies was observed. CONCLUSION: The current data indicate that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination does not induce anti-HLA or anti-non-HLA antibodies, corroborating the importance of vaccinating KTR and dialysis patients.

Timing of the pre-transplant workup for renal transplantation: is there room for improvement?

Background: Since patient survival after kidney transplantation is significantly improved with a shorter time on dialysis, it is recommended to start the transplant workup in a timely fashion. Methods: This retrospective study analyses the chronology of actions taken during the care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 who were waitlisted for a first kidney transplant at the Antwerp University Hospital between 2016 and 2019. We aimed to identify risk factors for a delayed start of the transplant workup (i.e. after dialysis initiation) and factors that prolong its duration. Results: Of the 161 patients included, only 43% started the transplant workup before starting dialysis. We identified the number of hospitalization days {odds ratio [OR] 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.89]; P < 0.001}, language barriers [OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06-0.61); P = 0.005] and a shorter nephrology follow-up before CKD stage 5 [OR 0.99 (95% CI 1.0-0.98); P = 0.034] as factors having a significant negative impact on the probability of starting the transplant screening before dialysis. The workup took a median of 8.6 months (interquartile range 5-14) to complete. The number of hospitalization days significantly prolonged its duration. Conclusion: The transplant workup was often started too late and the time needed to complete it was surprisingly long. By starting the transplant workup in a timely fashion and reducing the time spent on the screening examinations, we should be able to register patients on the waiting list before or at least at the start of dialysis. We believe that such an internal audit could be of value for every transplant centre.

Pregnancy after living kidney donation, a systematic review of the available evidence, and a review of the current guidance.

Understanding and communicating the risk of pregnancy complications post-living kidney donation is imperative as the majority of living kidney donors (LKD) are women of childbearing age. We aimed to identify all original research articles examining complications in post-donation pregnancies and compared the quality and consistency of related guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, society webpages, and guideline registries for English-language publications published up until December 18, 2020. Ninety-three articles were screened from which 16 studies were identified, with a total of 1399 post-donation pregnancies. The outcome of interest, post-donation pregnancy complications, was not calculable, and only a narrative synthesis of the evidence was possible. The absolute risk of pre-eclampsia increased from ~1%-3% pre-donation (lower than the general population) to ~4%-10% post-donation (comparable to the general population). The risks of adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes were no different between post-donation and pre-donation pregnancies. Guidelines and consensus statements were consistent in stating the need to inform LKDs of their post-donation pregnancy risk, however, the depth and scope of this guidance were variable. While the absolute risk of pregnancy complications remains low post-donation, a concerted effort is required to better identify and individualize risk in these women, such that consent to donation is truly informed.

Seroconversion rate after primary vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the general population, the seroconversion rate after primary vaccination with two doses of an anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine reaches nearly 100%, with significantly higher antibody titers after mRNA-1273 vaccination compared to BNT162b2 vaccination. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the antibody response after two-dose mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccination in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library and original research papers were included for a meta-analysis to calculate vaccine-specific seroconversion rates for each of the mRNA vaccines. Next, the pooled relative seroconversion rate was estimated. RESULTS: Eight studies that described the development of antibodies against receptor-binding domain (RBD) and/or spike protein were eligible for meta-analysis. Two of these studies also reported antibody titers. The meta-analysis revealed lower seroconversion rates in SOT recipients vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 {44.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.1-54.7]} as compared with patients vaccinated with two doses of mRNA-1273 [58.4% (95% CI 47.2-69.2)]. The relative seroconversion rate was 0.795 (95% CI 0.732-0.864). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that in SOT recipients, higher seroconversion rates were observed after vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2.

Is the failure of recent trials on withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors due to inadequate mycophenolic acid dosing?

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are the mainstay immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplantation, despite their side effects. Recently, several randomized controlled trials attempting CNI withdrawal or minimization in stable, low-risk kidney transplant recipients led to an unacceptable risk of acute rejection and de novo HLA antibody formation. In the opinions of many, these trials definitively demonstrated that CNI-free regimens in the context of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) maintenance are too risky. It can be argued, however, that the investigators failed to optimize the dose of the remaining immunosuppressive therapy. In particular, the potential benefit of MMF dosing based on the targeted mycophenolic acid (MPA) concentration was not taken into account. In this review, we present an overview of the studies on CNI withdrawal, both recent and older, paying specific attention to the MMF dose and elaborating on the possible benefit of MPA monitoring in this setting.