Efficacy and safety of oral fosfomycin for asymptomatic bacteriuria in kidney transplant recipients: Results from a Spanish multicenter cohort.

Current guidelines recommend against systematic screening or treating asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) among kidney transplant (KT) recipients, although the evidence regarding episodes occurring early after transplantation or in the presence of anatomical abnormalities is inconclusive. Oral fosfomycin may constitute a good option for the treatment of post-transplant AB, particularly due to the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) uropathogens. Available clinical evidence supporting its use in this specific setting, however, remains scarce. We performed a retrospective study in 14 Spanish institutions from January 2005 to December 2017. Overall, 137 episodes of AB diagnosed in 133 KT recipients treated with oral fosfomycin (calcium and trometamol salts) with a test-of-cure urine culture within the first 30 days were included. Median time from transplantation to diagnosis was 3.1 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.1 - 10.5). Most episodes (96.4% [132/137]) were caused by gram-negative bacteria (GNB), and 56.9% (78/137) were categorized as MDR (extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales [20.4%] and carbapenem-resistant GNB [2.9%]). Rate of microbiological failure at month 1 was 40.1% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 31.9 - 48.9) for the whole cohort and 42.3% (95%CI: 31.2 - 54.0) for episodes due to MDR pathogens. Previous urinary tract infection (odds ratio [OR]: 2.42; 95%CI: 1.11 - 5.29; P-value = 0.027) and use of fosfomycin as salvage therapy (OR: 8.31; 95%CI: 1.67 - 41.35; P-value = 0.010) were predictors of microbiological failure. No severe treatment-related adverse event were detected. Oral fosfomycin appears to be a suitable and safe alternative for the treatment (if indicated) of AB after KT, including those episodes due to MDR uropathogens.

Oral fosfomycin for the treatment of lower urinary tract infections among kidney transplant recipients-Results of a Spanish multicenter cohort.

Oral fosfomycin may constitute an alternative for the treatment of lower urinary tract infections (UTIs) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), particularly in view of recent safety concerns with fluroquinolones. Specific data on the efficacy and safety of fosfomycin in KTR are scarce. We performed a retrospective study in 14 Spanish hospitals including KTRs treated with oral fosfomycin (calcium and trometamol salts) for posttransplant cystitis between January 2005 and December 2017. A total of 133 KTRs developed 143 episodes of cystitis. Most episodes (131 [91.6%]) were produced by gram-negative bacilli (GNB), and 78 (54.5%) were categorized as multidrug resistant (including extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [14%] or carbapenem-resistant GNB [3.5%]). A median daily dose of 1.5 g of fosfomycin (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.5-2) was administered for a median of 7 days (IQR: 3-10). Clinical cure (remission of UTI-attributable symptoms at the end of therapy) was achieved in 83.9% (120/143) episodes. Among those episodes with follow-up urine culture, microbiological cure at month 1 was achieved in 70.2% (59/84) episodes. Percutaneous nephrostomy was associated with a lower probability of clinical cure (adjusted odds ratio: 10.50; 95% confidence interval: 0.98-112.29; P = 0.052). In conclusion, fosfomycin is an effective orally available alternative for treating cystitis among KTRs.

Role of TGF-ß1 +869T>C polymorphism in renal dysfunction one year after heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is a major complication after heart transplantation with wide inter-individual variability. Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity, mediated by transforming growth factor-beta1 (TGF-ß1), is an important contributing factor. Our objective was to evaluate the association between TGF-ß1 polymorphisms and renal dysfunction 1-year after heart transplantation. METHODS: Single-center observational study that included patients who received a first heart transplant between 1990-2013. According to the 1-year eGFR decline, patients were classified as "Stable" (decrease in eGFR<10% or eGFR>60 ml/min/1.73m2) or "Progressors" (decrease in eGFR>10% and eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73m2). "Progressors" were then subdivided by the degree of eGFR decrease in "Mild progressors" (10-30%) or "Rapid progressors" (>30%). The association between TGF-ß1 +869T>C polymorphism and other risk factors with the eGFR outcome was analysed. RESULTS: A total of 355 patients (78% male; 50.7 ± 11.8 years) were included. According to the 1-year eGFR decline, 220 patients (62%) were classified as "Stable" and 135 (38%) as "Progressors". TGF-ß1+869CC genotype was more prevalent in "Stable" vs "Progressors" group (20% vs 8%, p = 0.009). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (p 0.02) and eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m2 at first month post-heart transplant (p = 0.004) remained as risk factors of eGFR decline, and TGF-ß1 + 869CC genotype (p = 0.001) and renal dysfunction pre-heart transplant (p = 0.04) as protective factors. TGF-ß1 + 869CC genotype was less frequently found in "Mild progressors" compared to "Rapid progressors" [p = 0.019; OR (95%CI) = 0.19 (.05-.76)]. CONCLUSIONS: The TGF-ß1 +869CC genotype is associated with a lower risk of calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity after heart transplant. This genetic susceptibility could enable a more personalized patient treatment.

Live donor kidney transplantation. Situation analysis and roadmap.

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for end stage renal disease in terms of both patient and graft survival. However, figures on LDKT in Spain that had been continuously growing from 2005 to 2014, have experienced a continuous decrease in the last five years. One possible explanation for this decrease is that the significant increase in the number of deceased donors in Spain during the last years, both brain death and controlled circulatory death donors, might have generated the false idea that we have coped with the transplant needs. Moreover, a greater number of deceased donor kidney transplants have caused a heavy workload for the transplant teams. Furthermore, the transplant teams could have moved on to a more conservative approach to the information and assessment of patients and families considering the potential long-term risks for donors in recent papers. However, there is a significant variability in the LDKT rate among transplant centers and regions in Spain independent of their deceased donor rates. This fact and the fact that LDKT is usually a preemptive option for patients with advanced chronic renal failure, as time on dialysis is a negative independent factor for transplant outcomes, lead us to conclude that the decrease in LDKT depends on other factors. Thus, in the kidney transplant annual meeting held at ONT site in 2018, a working group was created to identify other causes for the decrease of LDKT in Spain and its relationship with the different steps of the process. The group was formed by transplant teams, a representative of the transplant group of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENTRA), a representative of the Spanish Society of Transplants (SET) and representatives of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). A self-evaluation survey that contains requests about the phases of the LDKT processes (information, donor work out, informed consent, surgeries, follow-up and human resources) were developed and sent to 33 LDKT teams. All the centers answered the questionnaire. The analysis of the answers has resulted in the creation of a national analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) of the LDKT program in Spain and the development of recommendations targeted to improve every step of the donation process. The work performed, the conclusions and recommendations provided, have been reflected in the following report: Spanish living donor kidney transplant program assessment: recommendations for optimization. This document has also been reviewed by a panel of experts, representatives of the scientific societies (Spanish Society of Urology (AEU), Spanish Society of Nephrology Nursery (SEDEN), Spanish Society of Immunology (SEI/GETH)) and the patient association ALCER. Finally, the report has been submitted to public consultation, reaching ample consensus. In addition, the transplant competent authorities of the different regions in Spainhave adopted the report at institutional level. The work done and the recommendations to optimize LDKT are summarized in the present manuscript, organized by the different phases of the donation process.

Live donor kidney transplantation. Situation analysis and roadmap. / Trasplante renal de donante vivo. Análisis de situación y hoja de ruta.

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for end stage renal disease in terms of both patient and graft survival. However, figures on LDKT in Spain that had been continuously growing from 2005 to 2014, have experienced a continuous decrease in the last five years. One possible explanation for this decrease is that the significant increase in the number of deceased donors in Spain during the last years, both brain death and controlled circulatory death donors, might have generated the false idea that we have coped with the transplant needs. Moreover, a greater number of deceased donor kidney transplants have caused a heavy workload for the transplant teams. Furthermore, the transplant teams could have moved on to a more conservative approach to the information and assessment of patients and families considering the potential long-term risks for donors in recent papers. However, there is a significant variability in the LDKT rate among transplant centers and regions in Spain independent of their deceased donor rates. This fact and the fact that LDKT is usually a preemptive option for patients with advanced chronic renal failure, as time on dialysis is a negative independent factor for transplant outcomes, lead us to conclude that the decrease in LDKT depends on other factors. Thus, in the kidney transplant annual meeting held at ONT site in 2018, a working group was created to identify other causes for the decrease of LDKT in Spain and its relationship with the different steps of the process. The group was formed by transplant teams, a representative of the transplant group of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENTRA), a representative of the Spanish Society of Transplants (SET) and representatives of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). A self-evaluation survey that contains requests about the phases of the LDKT processes (information, donor work out, informed consent, surgeries, follow-up and human resources) were developed and sent to 33 LDKT teams. All the centers answered the questionnaire. The analysis of the answers has resulted in the creation of a national analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) of the LDKT program in Spain and the development of recommendations targeted to improve every step of the donation process. The work performed, the conclusions and recommendations provided, have been reflected in the following report: Spanish living donor kidney transplant program assessment: recommendations for optimization. This document has also been reviewed by a panel of experts, representatives of the scientific societies (Spanish Society of Urology (AEU), Spanish Society of Nephrology Nursery (SEDEN), Spanish Society of Immunology (SEI/GETH)) and the patient association ALCER. Finally, the report has been submitted to public consultation, reaching ample consensus. In addition, the transplant competent authorities of the different regions in Spain have adopted the report at institutional level. The work done and the recommendations to optimize LDKT are summarized in the present manuscript, organized by the different phases of the donation process.

Development of a program for kidney transplants using organs donated from donors awaiting cardiac arrest (type III Maastricht).

INTRODUCTION: The availability of organ donors is a limiting factor for kidney transplants. Donations from non-heart-beating donors (NHBD) can provide as many as one-third of all organs. Controlled patients awaiting cardiac arrest following limitation of life support techniques, or type III Maastricht donors, constitute an alternative that still has yet to be systematically developed. STUDY TYPE: Descriptive series of 10 cases occurring between January and April 2012. METHOD: Over a period of 6 months, we designed a protocol for extracting and managing kidney transplants and providing immunosuppression therapy. Patients are evaluated in accordance with the criteria agreed by a different team responsible for transplant coordination. We established a maximum duration of time between limitation of life-sustaining therapy and death of 120 minutes and 60 minutes warm ischaemia. Two types of graft perfusion were used, one in situ through direct application to the surgical area, and another using ante mortem vascular canalisation. Immunosuppression therapy included induction with thymoglobulin, steroids, and mycophenolate, with introduction of tacrolimus on the seventh day. Data are expressed as median and (range). RESULTS: We included the first 10 cases of kidney transplants with organs from 5 NHBD (type III Maastricht): 4 males, mean age of 57 years (45-66 years), with limitation of life-sustaining therapy due to anoxic encephalopathy (2), intoxication (1), acute stroke (2) and terminal respiratory failure (1). The following mean time intervals were recorded: effective warm ischaemia: 20 minutes (8-23 minutes) and cold ischaemia: 7.5 hours (4-14.1 hours). Recipients had a mean age of 58 years (32-71 years), with various aetiologies (2 cases of glomerulonephritis, 1 polycystic kidney disease, 2 tubulo-interstitial nephropathy, 4 vascular, and 1 unknown), with a mean 31.7 months on haemodialysis (11-84 months); the kidney was a second transplant in two cases. No patients were hyper-immunised. Six patients required a dialysis session at some point, and four had prolonged acute tubular necrosis, over a mean hospitalisation period of 24.5 days (8-44 days). Mean creatinine (Cr) one month after transplantation was 2.1mg/dl (0.7-3.2mg/dl), and mean nadir creatinine was 1.2mg/dl (0.7-3.2mg/dl). One patient did not improve upon Cr values <3.2mg/dl, despite the absence of evidence of toxicity or rejection in a renal biopsy, and the transplant pair reached a Cr of 1.4mg/dl. Throughout the series, similar surgical complications were recorded to those observed in conventional donor situations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of this preliminary study, the use of this type of transplant produces favourable short-term evolution. Expanded use of this type of donor could reduce the waiting-list time for a kidney transplant.