Management of immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19. A multicentre national study derived from the Spanish Society of Nephrology COVID registry.

INTRODUCTION: SARS CoV2 infection has had a major impact on renal transplant patients with a high mortality in the first months of the pandemic. Intentional reduction of immunosuppressive therapy has been postulated as one of the cornerstone in the management of the infection in the absence of targeted antiviral treatment. This has been modified according to the patient`s clinical situation and its effect on renal function or anti-HLA antibodies in the medium term has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the management of immunosuppressive therapy made during SARS-CoV2 infection, as well as renal function and anti-HLA antibodies in kidney transplant patients 6 months after COVID19 diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective, national multicentre, retrospective study (30 centres) of kidney transplant recipients with COVID19 from 01/02/20 to 31/12/20. Clinical variables were collected from medical records and included in an anonymised database. SPSS statistical software was used for data analysis. RESULTS: renal transplant recipients with COVID19 were included (62.6% male), with a mean age of 57.5 years. The predominant immunosuppressive treatment prior to COVID19 was triple therapy with prednisone, tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid (54.6%) followed by m-TOR inhibitor regimens (18.6%). After diagnosis of infection, mycophenolic acid was discontinued in 73.8% of patients, m-TOR inhibitor in 41.4%, tacrolimus in 10.5% and cyclosporin A in 10%. In turn, 26.9% received dexamethasone and 50.9% were started on or had their baseline prednisone dose increased. Mean creatinine before diagnosis of COVID19, at diagnosis and at 6 months was: 1.7 ±â€¯0.8, 2.1 ±â€¯1.2 and 1.8 ±â€¯1 mg/dl respectively (p < 0.001). 56.9% of the patients (N = 350) were monitored for anti-HLA antibodies. 94% (N = 329) had no anti-HLA changes, while 6% (N = 21) had positive anti-HLA antibodies. Among the patients with donor-specific antibodies post-COVID19 (N = 9), 7 patients (3.1%) had one immunosuppressant discontinued (5 patients had mycophenolic acid and 2 had tacrolimus), 1 patient had both immunosuppressants discontinued (3.4%) and 1 patient had no change in immunosuppression (1.1%), these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The management of immunosuppressive therapy after diagnosis of COVID19 was primarily based on discontinuation of mycophenolic acid with very discrete reductions or discontinuations of calcineurin inhibitors. This immunosuppression management did not influence renal function or changes in anti-HLA antibodies 6 months after diagnosis.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation.

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Treatment of early borderline lesions in low immunological risk kidney transplant patients: a Spanish multicenter, randomized, controlled parallel-group study protocol: the TRAINING study.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical inflammation, including borderline lesions (BL), is very common (30-40%) after kidney transplantation (KT), even in low immunological risk patients, and can lead to interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) and worsening of renal function with graft loss. Few controlled studies have analyzed the therapeutic benefit of treating these BL on renal function and graft histology. Furthermore, these studies have only used bolus steroids, which may be insufficient to slow the progression of these lesions. Klotho, a transmembrane protein produced mainly in the kidney with antifibrotic properties, plays a crucial role in the senescence-inflammation binomial of kidney tissue. Systemic and local inflammation decrease renal tissue expression and soluble levels of α-klotho. It is therefore important to determine whether treatment of BL prevents a decrease in α-klotho levels, progression of IFTA, and loss of kidney function. METHODS: The TRAINING study will randomize 80 patients with low immunological risk who will receive their first KT. The aim of the study is to determine whether the treatment of early BL (3rd month post-KT) with polyclonal rabbit antithymocyte globulin (Grafalon®) (6 mg/kg/day) prevents or decreases the progression of IFTA and the worsening of graft function compared to conventional therapy after two years post-KT, as well as to analyze whether treatment of BL with Grafalon® can modify the expression and levels of klotho, as well as the pro-inflammatory cytokines that regulate its expression. DISCUSSION: This phase IV investigator-driven, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial will examine the efficacy and safety of Grafalon® treatment in low-immunological-risk KT patients with early BL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov : NCT04936282. Registered June 23, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04936282?term=NCT04936282&draw=2&rank=1 . Protocol Version 2 of 21 January 2022. SPONSOR: Canary Isles Institute for Health Research Foundation, Canary Isles (FIISC). mgomez@fciisc.org .

Induction immunosuppression and outcome in kidney transplant recipients with early COVID-19 after transplantation.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in kidney transplant recipients has a high risk of complications and mortality, especially in older recipients diagnosed during the early period after transplantation. Management of immunosuppression has been challenging during the pandemic. We investigated the impact of induction immunosuppression, either basiliximab or thymoglobulin, on the clinical evolution of kidney transplant recipients developing COVID-19 during the early period after transplantation. We included kidney transplant recipients with ˂6 months with a functioning graft diagnosed with COVID-19 from the initial pandemic outbreak (March 2020) until 31 July 2021 from different Spanish centres participating in a nationwide registry. A total of 127 patients from 17 Spanish centres developed COVID-19 during the first 6 months after transplantation; 73 (57.5%) received basiliximab and 54 (42.5%) thymoglobulin. Demographics were not different between groups but patients receiving thymoglobulin were more sensitized [calculated panel reactive antibodies (cPRAs) 32.7 ± 40.8% versus 5.6 ± 18.5%] and were more frequently retransplants (30% versus 4%). Recipients ˃65 years of age treated with thymoglobulin showed the highest rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome [64.7% versus 37.1% for older recipients receiving thymoglobulin and basiliximab (P < .05), respectively, and 23.7% and 18.9% for young recipients receiving basiliximab and thymoglobulin (P > .05)], respectively, and the poorest survival [mortality rate 64.7% and 42.9% for older recipients treated with thymoglobulin and basiliximab, respectively (P < .05) and 8.1% and 10.5% for young recipients treated with thymoglobulin and basiliximab (P > .05), respectively]. Older recipients treated with thymoglobulin showed the poorest survival in the Cox regression model adjusted for comorbidities. Thus thymoglobulin should be used with caution in older recipients during the present pandemic era.

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.

[Management of immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients with COVID19. A multicentre national study derived form the S.E.N. COVID registry.] / Manejo de la inmunosupresión en pacientes trasplantados de riñón con COVID19. Estudio multicéntrico nacional derivado del registro COVID de la S.E.N.

INTRODUCTION: SARS CoV2 infection has had a major impact on renal transplant patients with a high mortality in the first months of the pandemic. Intentional reduction of immunosuppressive therapy has been postulated as one of the cornerstone in the management of the infection in the absence of targeted antiviral treatment. This has been modified according to the patient`s clinical situation and its effect on renal function or anti-HLA antibodies in the medium term has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the management of immunosuppressive therapy made during SARS-CoV2 infection, as well as renal function and anti-HLA antibodies in kidney transplant patients 6 months after COVID19 diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective, national multicentre, retrospective study (30 centres) of kidney transplant recipients with COVID19 from 01/02/20 to 31/12/20. Clinical variables were collected from medical records and included in an anonymised database. SPSS statistical software was used for data analysis. RESULTS: 615 renal transplant recipients with COVID19 were included (62.6% male), with a mean age of 57.5 years.The predominant immunosuppressive treatment prior to COVID19 was triple therapy with prednisone, tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid (54.6%) followed by m-TOR inhibitor regimens (18.6%). After diagnosis of infection, mycophenolic acid was discontinued in 73.8% of patients, m-TOR inhibitor in 41.4%, tacrolimus in 10.5% and cyclosporin A in 10%. In turn, 26.9% received dexamethasone and 50.9% were started on or had their baseline prednisone dose increased.Mean creatinine before diagnosis of COVID19, at diagnosis and at 6 months was: 1.7±0.8, 2.1±1.2 and 1.8±1 mg/dl respectively (p<0.001).56.9% of the patients (N=350) were monitored for anti-HLA antibodies. 94% (N=329) had no anti-HLA changes, while 6% (N=21) had positive anti-HLA antibodies. Among the patients with donor-specific antibodies post-COVID19 (N=9), 7 patients (3.1%) had one immunosuppressant discontinued (5 patients had mycophenolic acid and 2 had tacrolimus), 1 patient had both immunosuppressants discontinued (3.4%) and 1 patient had no change in immunosuppression (1.1%), these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The management of immunosuppressive therapy after diagnosis of COVID19 was primarily based on discontinuation of mycophenolic acid with very discrete reductions or discontinuations of calcineurin inhibitors. This immunosuppression management did not influence renal function or changes in anti-HLA antibodies 6 months after diagnosis.

A comprehensive assessment of long-term SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune memory in convalescent COVID-19 Solid Organ Transplant recipients.

Long-term adaptive immune memory has been reported among immunocompetent individuals up to eight months following SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, limited data is available in convalescent patients with a solid organ transplant. To investigate this, we performed a thorough evaluation of adaptive immune memory at different compartments (serological, memory B cells and cytokine [IFN-γ, IL-2, IFN-γ/IL12 and IL-21] producing T cells) specific to SARS-CoV-2 by ELISA and FluoroSpot-based assays in 102 convalescent patients (53 with a solid organ transplants (38 kidney, 5 liver, 5 lung and 5 heart transplant) and 49 immunocompetent controls) with different clinical COVID-19 severity (severe, mild and asymptomatic) beyond six months after infection. While similar detectable memory responses at different immune compartments were detected between those with a solid organ transplant and immunocompetent individuals, these responses were predominantly driven by distinct COVID-19 clinical severities (97.6%, 80.5% and 42.1%, all significantly different, were seropositive; 84% vs 75% vs 35.7%, all significantly different, showed IgG-producing memory B cells and 82.5%, 86.9% and 31.6%, displayed IFN-γ producing T cells; in severe, mild and asymptomatic convalescent patients, respectively). Notably, patients with a solid organ transplant with longer time after transplantation did more likely show detectable long-lasting immune memory, regardless of COVID-19 severity. Thus, our study shows that patients with a solid organ transplant are capable of maintaining long-lasting peripheral immune memory after COVID-19 infection; mainly determined by the degree of infection severity.

Immunoguided Discontinuation of Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus Disease in Kidney Transplant Recipients Treated With Antithymocyte Globulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral prophylaxis is recommended in cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive kidney transplant (KT) recipients receiving antithymocyte globulin (ATG) as induction. An alternative strategy of premature discontinuation of prophylaxis after CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMV-CMI) recovery (immunoguided prevention) has not been studied. Our aim was to determine whether it is effective and safe to discontinue prophylaxis when CMV-CMI is detected and to continue with preemptive therapy. METHODS: In this open-label, noninferiority clinical trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to follow an immunoguided strategy, receiving prophylaxis until CMV-CMI recovery or to receive fixed-duration prophylaxis until day 90. After prophylaxis, preemptive therapy (valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily) was indicated in both arms until month 6. The primary and secondary outcomes were incidence of CMV disease and replication, respectively, within the first 12 months. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) assessed 2 deleterious events (CMV disease/replication and neutropenia). RESULTS: A total of 150 CMV-seropositive KT recipients were randomly assigned. There was no difference in the incidence of CMV disease (0% vs 2.7%; P = .149) and replication (17.1% vs 13.5%; log-rank test, P = .422) between both arms. Incidence of neutropenia was lower in the immunoguided arm (9.2% vs 37.8%; odds ratio, 6.0; P < .001). A total of 66.1% of patients in the immunoguided arm showed a better DOOR, indicating a greater likelihood of a better outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis can be prematurely discontinued in CMV-seropositive KT patients receiving ATG when CMV-CMI is recovered since no significant increase in the incidence of CMV replication or disease is observed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03123627.

Deciphering transplant outcomes of expanded kidney allografts donated after controlled circulatory death in the current transplant era. A call for caution.

Outcomes of kidney transplantation (KT) after controlled circulatory death (cDCD) with highly expanded criteria donors (ECD) and recipients have not been thoroughly evaluated. We analyzed in a multicenter cohort of 1161 consecutive KT, granular baseline donor and recipient factors predicting transplant outcomes, selected by bootstrapping and Cox proportional hazards, and were validated in a contemporaneous European KT cohort (n = 1585). 74.3% were DBD and 25.7% cDCD-KT. ECD-KT showed the poorest graft survival rates, irrespective of cDCD or DBD (log-rank < 0.001). Besides standard ECD classification, dialysis vintage, older age, and previous cardiovascular recipient events together with low class-II-HLA match, long cold ischemia time and combining a diabetic donor with a cDCD predicted graft loss (C-Index 0.715, 95% CI 0.675-0.755). External validation showed good prediction accuracy (C-Index 0.697, 95%CI 0.643-0.741). Recipient older age, male gender, dialysis vintage, previous cardiovascular events, and receiving a cDCD independently predicted patient death. Benefit/risk assessment of undergoing KT was compared with concurrent waitlisted candidates, and despite the fact that undergoing KT outperformed remaining waitlisted, remarkably high mortality rates were predicted if KT was undertaken under the worst risk-prediction model. Strategies to increase the donor pool, including cDCD transplants with highly expanded donor and recipient candidates, should be performed with caution.

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.

COVID-19 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients in Spain Throughout 2020: Catching the Wave?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have analyzed differences in clinical presentation and outcomes in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across different pandemic waves. METHODS: In this multicenter, nationwide, prospective study, we compared demographics and clinical features, therapeutic management, and outcomes in SOT recipients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Spain before (first wave) or after (second wave) 13 July 2020. RESULTS: Of 1634 SOT recipients, 690 (42.2%) and 944 (57.8%) were diagnosed during the first and second periods, respectively. Compared with the first wave, recipients in the second were younger (median: 63 y [interquartile range, IQR: 53-71] versus 59 y [IQR: 49-68]; P < 0.001) and less likely to receive anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 drugs (81.8% versus 8.1%; P < 0.001), with no differences in immunomodulatory therapies (46.8% versus 47.0%; P = 0.931). Adjustment of immunosuppression was less common during the second period (76.4% versus 53.6%; P < 0.001). Hospital admission (86.7% versus 58.1%; P < 0.001), occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.1% versus 21.0%; P < 0.001), and case-fatality rate (25.8% versus 16.7%; P < 0.001) were lower in the second period. In multivariate analysis, acquiring COVID-19 during the first wave was associated with an increased risk of death (OR: 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.93; P = 0.005), although this impact was lost in the subgroup of patients requiring hospital (OR: 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = 0.873) or intensive care unit admission (OR: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35-1.18; P = 0.157). CONCLUSIONS: We observed meaningful changes in demographics, therapeutic approaches, level of care, and outcomes between the first and second pandemic waves. However, outcomes have not improved in the more severe cases of posttransplant COVID-19.

A Prospective Multicenter Trial to Evaluate Urinary Metabolomics for Non-invasive Detection of Renal Allograft Rejection (PARASOL): Study Protocol and Patient Recruitment.

Background: In an earlier monocentric study, we have developed a novel non-invasive test system for the prediction of renal allograft rejection, based on the detection of a specific urine metabolite constellation. To further validate our results in a large real-world patient cohort, we designed a multicentric observational prospective study (PARASOL) including six independent European transplant centers. This article describes the study protocol and characteristics of recruited better patients as subjects. Methods: Within the PARASOL study, urine samples were taken from renal transplant recipients when kidney biopsies were performed. According to the Banff classification, urine samples were assigned to a case group (renal allograft rejection), a control group (normal renal histology), or an additional group (kidney damage other than rejection). Results: Between June 2017 and March 2020, 972 transplant recipients were included in the trial (1,230 urine samples and matched biopsies, respectively). Overall, 237 samples (19.3%) were assigned to the case group, 541 (44.0%) to the control group, and 452 (36.7%) samples to the additional group. About 65.9% were obtained from male patients, the mean age of transplant recipients participating in the study was 53.7 ± 13.8 years. The most frequently used immunosuppressive drugs were tacrolimus (92.8%), mycophenolate mofetil (88.0%), and steroids (79.3%). Antihypertensives and antidiabetics were used in 88.0 and 27.4% of the patients, respectively. Approximately 20.9% of patients showed the presence of circulating donor-specific anti-HLA IgG antibodies at time of biopsy. Most of the samples (51.1%) were collected within the first 6 months after transplantation, 48.0% were protocol biopsies, followed by event-driven (43.6%), and follow-up biopsies (8.5%). Over time the proportion of biopsies classified into the categories Banff 4 (T-cell-mediated rejection [TCMR]) and Banff 1 (normal tissue) decreased whereas Banff 2 (antibody-mediated rejection [ABMR]) and Banff 5I (mild interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy) increased to 84.2 and 74.5%, respectively, after 4 years post transplantation. Patients with rejection showed worse kidney function than patients without rejection. Conclusion: The clinical characteristics of subjects recruited indicate a patient cohort typical for routine renal transplantation all over Europe. A typical shift from T-cellular early rejections episodes to later antibody mediated allograft damage over time after renal transplantation further strengthens the usefulness of our cohort for the evaluation of novel biomarkers for allograft damage.

COVID-19 in transplant recipients: The Spanish experience.

We report the nationwide experience with solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Spain until 13 July 2020. We compiled information for 778 (423 kidney, 113 HSCT, 110 liver, 69 heart, 54 lung, 8 pancreas, 1 multivisceral) recipients. Median age at diagnosis was 61 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 52-70), and 66% were male. The incidence of COVID-19 in SOT recipients was two-fold higher compared to the Spanish general population. The median interval from transplantation was 59 months (IQR: 18-131). Infection was hospital-acquired in 13% of cases. No donor-derived COVID-19 was suspected. Most patients (89%) were admitted to the hospital. Therapies included hydroxychloroquine (84%), azithromycin (53%), protease inhibitors (37%), and interferon-ß (5%), whereas immunomodulation was based on corticosteroids (41%) and tocilizumab (21%). Adjustment of immunosuppression was performed in 85% of patients. At the time of analysis, complete follow-up was available from 652 patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 35% of patients. Ultimately, 174 (27%) patients died. In univariate analysis, risk factors for death were lung transplantation (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.4-4.6), age >60 years (OR: 3.7; 95% CI: 2.5-5.5), and hospital-acquired COVID-19 (OR: 3.0; 95% CI: 1.9-4.9).

Clinical characteristics and risk factors for severe COVID-19 in hospitalized kidney transplant recipients: A multicentric cohort study.

Kidney transplant recipients might be at higher risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, risk factors for relevant outcomes remain uncertain in this population. This is a multicentric kidney transplant cohort including 104 hospitalized patients between March 4 and April 17, 2020. Risk factors for death and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were investigated, and clinical and laboratory data were analyzed. The mean age was 60 years. Forty-seven patients (54.8%) developed ARDS. Obesity was associated to ARDS development (OR 2.63; P = .04). Significant age differences were not found among patients developing and not developing ARDS (61.3 vs 57.8 years, P = .16). Seventy-six (73%) patients were discharged, and 28 (27%) died. Death was more common among the elderly (55 and 70.8 years, P < .001) and those with preexisting pulmonary disease (OR 2.89, P = .009). At admission, higher baseline lactate dehydrogenase (257 vs 358 IU/mL, P = .001) or ARDS conferred higher risk of death (HR 2.09, P = .044). In our cohort, ARDS was equally present among young and old kidney recipients. However, the elderly might be at higher risk of death, along with those showing higher baseline LDH at admission.

Cellular Immunity to Predict the Risk of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Kidney Transplantation: A Prospective, Interventional, Multicenter Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving cytomegalovirus (CMV) immune-risk stratification in kidney transplantation is highly needed to establish guided preventive strategies. METHODS: This prospective, interventional, multicenter clinical trial assessed the value of monitoring pretransplant CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) using an interferon-γ release assay to predict CMV infection in kidney transplantation. One hundred sixty donor/recipient CMV-seropositive (D+/R+) patients, stratified by their baseline CMV (immediate-early protein 1)-specific CMI risk, were randomized to receive either preemptive or 3-month antiviral prophylaxis. Also, 15-day posttransplant CMI risk stratification and CMI specific to the 65 kDa phosphoprotein (pp65) CMV antigen were investigated. Immunosuppression consisted of basiliximab, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids in 80% of patients, whereas 20% received thymoglobulin induction therapy. RESULTS: Patients at high risk for CMV based on pretransplant CMI developed significantly higher CMV infection rates than those deemed to be at low risk with both preemptive (73.3% vs 44.4%; odds ratio [OR], 3.44 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.30-9.08]) and prophylaxis (33.3% vs 4.1%; OR, 11.75 [95% CI, 2.31-59.71]) approaches. The predictive capacity for CMV-specific CMI was only found in basiliximab-treated patients for both preemptive and prophylaxis therapy. Fifteen-day CMI risk stratification better predicted CMV infection (81.3% vs 9.1%; OR, 43.33 [95% CI, 7.89-237.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Pretransplant CMV-specific CMI identifies D+/R+ kidney recipients at high risk of developing CMV infection if not receiving T-cell-depleting antibodies. Monitoring CMV-specific CMI soon after transplantation further defines the CMV infection prediction risk. Monitoring CMV-specific CMI may guide decision making regarding the type of CMV preventive strategy in kidney transplantation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02550639.

Three cases of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance after kidney transplantation. De novo C3 glomerulopathy. / Tres casos de gammapatía monoclonal de significado renal postrasplante renal: nefropatía c3 de novo.

Monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance includes all renal disorders caused by a monoclonal immunoglobulin secreted by a non-malignant B-cell clone. Patients with MGRS do not, by definition, meet criteria for multiple myeloma, with haematological disorders generally considered to be monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Nevertheless, the renal involvement can be serious and require specific treatment. Monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance is associated with a wide spectrum of disorders, including the recently discovered C3 glomerulopathy. Development of C3 glomerulopathy in the context of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance after kidney transplantation is uncommon and very few cases have been published to date. We report on three cases of C3 glomerulopathy in the context of de novo monoclonal gammopathy after kidney transplantation.

Robot-assisted Kidney Transplantation with Regional Hypothermia Using Grafts with Multiple Vessels After Extracorporeal Vascular Reconstruction: Results from the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation using grafts with multiple vessels (GMVs) is technically demanding and may be associated with increased risk of complications or suboptimal graft function. To date, no studies have reported on robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) using GMVs. OBJECTIVE: To report our experience with RAKT using GMVs from living donors, focusing on technical feasibility and early postoperative outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed the multi-institutional, prospectively collected European Association of Urology (EAU) Robotic Urology Section (ERUS)-RAKT database to select consecutive patients undergoing RAKT from living donors using GMVs between July 2015 and January 2018. Patients undergoing RAKT using grafts with single vessels (GSVs) served as controls. In case of GMVs, ex vivo vascular reconstruction techniques were performed during bench surgery according to the case-specific anatomy. INTERVENTION: RAKT with regional hypothermia. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Intraoperative outcomes and early (30 d) postoperative complications and functional results were the main study endpoints. Multivariable logistic regression analysis evaluated potential predictors of suboptimal renal function at 1 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 148 RAKTs were performed during the study period. Of these, 21/148 (14.2%) used GMVs; in all cases, single arterial and venous anastomoses could be performed after vascular reconstruction. Median anastomoses and rewarming times did not differ significantly between the GMV and GSV groups. Total and cold ischemia times were significantly higher in the GMV cohort (112 vs 88min, p=0.004 and 50 vs 34min, p=0.003, respectively). Overall complication rate and early functional outcomes were similar among the two groups. No major intra- or postoperative complications were recorded in the GMV cohort. At multivariable analysis, use of GMVs was not significantly associated with suboptimal renal function at 1 mo. Small sample size and short follow-up represent the main study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: RAKT using GMVs from living donors is technically feasible and achieved favorable perioperative and short-term functional outcomes. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm our findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluated for the first time in literature the results of RAKT from living donors using kidneys with multiple arteries and veins. We found that, in experienced centers, RAKT using kidneys with multiple vessels is feasible and achieves optimal results in terms of postoperative kidney function with a low number of postoperative complications.