Spencer T. Martin

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nearly 30% of renal transplant recipients develops BK viremia, a prerequisite for BK nephropathy. Case reports have evaluated treatment options for BK virus, but no controlled studies have assessed prophylactic therapies. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics were studied for prevention of BK viremia after renal transplantation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This retrospective analysis evaluated adult renal transplant recipients with at least one BK viral load (blood) between 90 and 400 days after transplantation. Six to 12 months of co-trimoxazole was used for Pneumocystis prophylaxis. In sulfa-allergic/-intolerant patients, 6 to 12 months of atovaquone with 1 month of a fluoroquinolone was used. Fluoroquinolones can inhibit BK DNA topoisomerase. The two groups studied were those that received 30 days of levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin after transplantation and those that did not. The primary endpoint was BK viremia rates at 1 year. Of note, of the 160 patients not receiving fluoroquinolone prophylaxis, 40 received a fluoroquinolone for treatment of a bacterial infection within 3 months after transplantation. Subgroup analysis evaluating these 40 patients against the 120 who had no exposure to fluoroquinolones was completed. RESULTS: A 1-month fluoroquinolone course after transplantation was associated with significantly lower rates of BK viremia at 1 year compared with those with no fluoroquinolone. In the subgroup analysis, exposure to fluoroquinolone for treatment of bacterial infections within 3 months after transplantation was associated with significantly lower 1-year rates of BK viremia. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that fluoroquinolones are effective at preventing BK viremia after renal transplantation.

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), also known as B-cell-mediated or humoral rejection, is a significant complication after kidney transplantation that carries a poor prognosis. Although fewer than 10% of kidney transplant patients experience AMR, as many as 30% of these patients experience graft loss as a consequence. Although AMR is mediated by antibodies against an allograft and results in histologic changes in allograft vasculature that differ from cellular rejection, it has not been recognized as a separate disease process until recently. With an improved understanding about the importance of the development of antibodies against allografts as well as complement activation, significant advances have occurred in the treatment of AMR. The standard of care for AMR includes plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulin that remove and neutralize antibodies, respectively. Agents targeting B cells (rituximab and alemtuzumab), plasma cells (bortezomib), and the complement system (eculizumab) have also been used successfully to treat AMR in kidney transplant recipients. However, the high cost of these medications, their use for unlabeled indications, and a lack of prospective studies evaluating their efficacy and safety limit the routine use of these agents in the treatment of AMR in kidney transplant recipients.

PURPOSE: Induction immunosuppressive therapies for patients undergoing renal transplantation are reviewed. SUMMARY: The goal of induction therapy is to prevent acute rejection during the early posttransplantation period by providing a high degree of immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. Induction therapy is often considered essential to optimize outcomes, particularly in patients at high risk for poor short-term outcomes. All of the induction immunosuppressive agents currently used are biological agents and are either monoclonal (muromonab-CD3, daclizumab, basiliximab, alemtuzumab) or polyclonal (antithymocyte globulin [equine] or antithymocyte globulin [rabbit]) antibodies. Although antithymocyte globulin (rabbit) is not labeled for induction therapy, it is used for this purpose more than any other agent. Basiliximab is not considered as potent an immunosuppressive agent but has a much more favorable adverse-effect profile compared with antithymocyte globulin (rabbit) and is most commonly used in patients at low risk for acute rejection. Rituximab is being studied for use as induction therapy but to date has not demonstrated any significant benefits over placebo. While head-to-head data are available comparing most induction agents, the final decision on the most appropriate induction therapy for a transplant recipient is highly dependent on preexisting medical conditions, donor characteristics, and the maintenance immunosuppressive regimen to be used. CONCLUSION: No standard induction immunosuppressive regimen exists for patients undergoing renal transplantation. Antithymocyte globulin (rabbit) is the most commonly used agent, whereas basiliximab appears safer. The choice of regimen depends on the preferences of clinicians and institutions.

For more than 60 years, warfarin was the only oral anticoagulation agent available for use in the United States. In many recent clinical trials, several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) demonstrated similar efficacy with an equal or superior safety profile, with some other notable benefits. The DOACs have lower inter- and intrapatient variability, much shorter half-lives, and less known drug-drug and drug-food interactions as compared to warfarin. Despite these demonstrated benefits, the use of DOACs has not gained uniform acceptance because of lack of supportive data in special patient populations, including recipients of solid organ transplants maintained on immunosuppression. This review describes the properties of several novel DOACs including their pharmacology and mechanisms of action as they relate to use among solid organ transplant recipients. We have particularly focused on (i) dosing in patients with impaired renal and hepatic function; (ii) considerations for drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressive medications; and (iii) management of the anticoagulated patients at the time of unplanned surgery. The risks and benefits of the use of DOACs in solid organ transplant recipients should be carefully evaluated prior to the introduction of these agents in this highly distinct patient population.

In the past decade, the availability of new immunosuppressive maintenance therapies for use in solid organ transplantation has remained limited. Patients and clinicians have relied on immunosuppressive drugs that require a significant amount of therapeutic monitoring and are associated with a variety of adverse effects that affect both quality of life and allograft function. Belatacept is an investigational intravenous biologic agent for long-term use in renal transplant recipients. The costimulatory pathway (signal 2) of T-cell activation and proliferation is produced by stimulation of the T-cell surface marker, CD28, and is essential to the immune system's cellular response and ability to recognize an allograft as foreign. Belatacept is a potent antagonist of B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86) ligands present on antigen-presenting cells that are responsible for activation of CD28. Recent phase III trials describe various dosing strategies of belatacept versus a standard cyclosporine protocol in recipients of both living- and deceased-donor renal transplants, as well as in patients receiving kidneys transplanted from extended-criteria donors. Compared with cyclosporine, belatacept has been shown to be noninferior in both patient and allograft survival rates. However, the rate of biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection occurred more frequently in the belatacept groups. Also, compared with standard calcineurin-based regimens, the risk of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder is increased in patients receiving belatacept, with the greatest risk in transplant recipients who are Epstein-Barr virus seronegative before transplantation. However, this investigational immunosuppressive agent may avert common adverse effects experienced with standard immunosuppressive protocols including renal dysfunction, metabolic disorders, neurotoxicities, glucose abnormalities, and cosmetic effects. More data on the long-term risks of belatacept are needed to better define its role as immunosuppressive maintenance therapy. Aside from an increased risk of malignancy, belatacept's limited adverse-effect profile and convenient dosing strategy may make it an attractive option for immuno-suppressive maintenance for both the patient and clinician.