Primary Epstein-Barr virus infection, seroconversion, and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in seronegative renal allograft recipients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-seronegative renal transplant recipients are at risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). We compared primary EBV infection, seroconversion, and PTLD in EBV-seronegative patients who received renal allograft from seropositive or seronegative donors (D+/R- and D-/R-, respectively). METHODS: We prospectively followed 25 D+/R- and 8 D-/R- recipients. We followed patients from January 1999 to June 2009 with clinical visits, monthly EBV polymerase chain reaction tests, and serologic tests for a period of 1 year after kidney transplantation and on an individual basis thereafter. RESULTS: Three patients (9%) developed PTLD including 2 early-onset (<12 months) and 1 late-onset (>12 months) disease. In D+/R- and D-/R- patients, the frequencies of PTLD (8% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.7), EBV seroconversion (64% vs. 50%, P = 0.4), and EBV viremia (40% vs. 25%, P = 0.6) were not significantly different. Clinical, serologic, and virologic surveillance as well as reduction in immunosuppression after evidence of primary EBV infection resulted in a PTLD rate of 9%, despite a seroconversion rate of 60.6%. Rate of graft loss after reduction in immunosuppression was 10% (2 of 20), which was not significantly different from 13 patients without EBV seroconversion (no graft loss, P = 0.5). Rates of viremia, seroconversion, and PTLD in D+/R- and D-/R- patients appear to be similar. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PTLD in renal transplants ranges from 0.5% to 2.9%. Our data show a significantly higher rate in EBV-seronegative renal allograft recipients, suggesting the need for close surveillance. Our data also suggest that donors for EBV-seronegative recipients may be accepted irrespective of positive or negative serostatus, with ongoing surveillance important in either circumstance.

Technical aspects of home hemodialysis.

Home hemodialysis (HHD) has proved to be a useful form of renal replacement therapy. The economic advantage of HHD is well established and interest in it is renewed. Once it has been decided to establish a HHD program, a well developed strategic plan is required. This should address financial and logistical issues and establish policies that will address responsi-bilities of both patients and HD centers. The recruitment of patients is facilitated by ensuring that all incident patients have early access to an education program describing all forms of renal replacement therapy that the regional renal program provides. Patients and members of the pre-dialysis education program should understand the selection process criteria in advance. Once the assessment is completed and the patient agrees to the proceedings, a plan of action should be esta-blished for enrolling the patient into the program and initiating training. Patients' education pro-gram should take into consideration principles of adult learning. When choosing dialysis equip-ment for home use, the needs and preferences of the patients should be respected. As a rule of thumb, the equipment should be simple to use, yet still provide adequate and reliable therapy. De-ciding where to set up and position the HHD equipment is important. Installation of HHD ma-chine at home requires a continuous supply of accessories. Before establishing a HHD program, commitment of the dialysis center to provide and maintain the infrastructure of the program is mandatory. The estimated patients suitable for HHD are less than 15% of all prospective dialysis patients. Generally, those who are have greatly improved quality of life and by using modalities such as nocturnal and daily dialysis can have improved physical well-being with considerable potential cost savings.