Non-adherence assessment to immunosuppressant therapy with a self-report questionnaire and intra-patient variability in renal transplantation: risk factors and clinical correlations.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence (NA) to immunosuppressive drugs is to date considered a crucial issue in kidney transplanted patients (KTRs), leading to de-novo donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (dnDSA) development, acute and chronic rejection, and at least graft loss. However, NA assessment is challenging, often leading to underestimation in real-life settings. METHODS: NA evaluation in all KTRs referred to our post-transplantation clinic in the period between 01/01-15/07/2018 with self-report questionnaire combined to intra-patient variability (IPV) of the pivotal immunosuppressive drug (based on trough levels of tacrolimus/mTOR inhibitor). RESULTS: Based on both questionnaire and IPV, 86 out of the 504 tested KTRs (17%) were classified as NA. Male gender (OR, 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 3.4), high educational level (OR for KTRs with a degree, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1]), employment (OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.2 to 3.3]), young age at transplantation (P=0.017), longer time on the waiting list and after transplantation (P=0.027 and 0.049 respectively) were all associated with NA. High IPV was mostly documented in KTRs treated with the twice-daily formulation of the immunosuppressive drug (OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0 to 2.1]) and better associated with dnDSA appearance (OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.9]). CONCLUSIONS: NA is a significant problem, difficult to assess, and can lead to dnDSA development also in our population. Identifying risk factors for NA might be an underestimated tool to improve graft and patient outcome in KTRs.

Follow-up of acute pyelonephritis: what causes the diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging recovery to lag clinical recovery?

PURPOSE: To analyze with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) the evolution and progress to resolution of acute pyelonephritis (APN) foci over a period of 3 months after onset. METHODS: 30 women (age 22-51 years) with clinical, laboratory (white blood cell and C-reactive protein), and DW-MRI (4b-values 0, 50, 600, 1000 s/mm2) diagnosis of APN were prospectively enrolled. Two double-blinded radiologists evaluated the number of APN foci, and for each of them dimension (D), absolute diffusion coefficient (ADC), and its ratio R to the ADC of unaffected parenchyma. Signature of radiological recovery was focus no longer visible (DW-) and ADC of its site not inferior to the ADC of the unaffected parenchyma, i.e., R ≥ 0.9. Clinical and DW-MRI follow-ups (FU) were performed at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: At the acute stage (t 0), 187 APN foci were found, with ADC0 = 1.3 ± 0.2 × 10-3 mm2/s, R 0 = 0.65 ± 0.12, and D 0 = 14 ± 7.5 mm. By the 1-month FU (t 1), all patients had no symptoms and physiological laboratory values; despite this, only 80 (43%) foci were solved, increasing to 138 (74%) by at the 3-month FU. The ROC curve (AUC ≥ 0.80) identified R 0 ≤ 0.6 and D 0 > 15 mm as forecast of slow radiologic resolution. About 80% of foci unsolved at 1 month but with R 1 ≥ 0.8 and D 1 ≤ 10 mm reached solution at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: DW-MRI recovery of APN foci does not always coincide with clinical recovery. The evolution of an APN focus is shaped by its initial values R 0 and D 0. About half of the foci still visible at 1 month reached radiological resolution in the two following months.