The use of lymphocyte-depleting antibodies in specific populations of kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations of the use of antibody induction treatments in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are based on moderate quality and historical studies. This systematic review aims to reevaluate, based on actual studies, the effects of different antibody preparations when used in specific KTR subgroups. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL and selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies looking at different antibody preparations used as induction in KTR. Comparisons were categorized into different KTR subgroups: standard, high risk of rejection, high risk of delayed graft function (DGF), living donor, and elderly KTR. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirty-seven RCT and 99 observational studies were finally included. Compared to anti-interleukin-2-receptor antibodies (IL2RA), anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) reduced the risk of acute rejection at two years in standard KTR (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.61-0.89) and high risk of rejection KTR (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.72), but without decreasing the risk of graft loss. We did not find significant differences comparing ATG vs. alemtuzumab or different ATG dosages in any KTR group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite many studies carried out on induction treatment in KTR, their heterogeneity and short follow-up preclude definitive conclusions to determine the optimal induction therapy. Compared with IL2RA, ATG reduced rejection in standard-risk, highly sensitized, and living donor graft recipients, but not in high DGF risk or elderly recipients. More studies are needed to demonstrate beneficial effects in other KTR subgroups and overall patient and graft survival.

Clinical Profiles in Renal Patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to frequent referrals to the emergency department on suspicion of this infection in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) and kidney transplant (KT) patients. We aimed to describe their clinical features comparing confirmed and suspected non-confirmed COVID-19 cases during the Spanish epidemic peak. Confirmed COVID-19 ((+)COVID-19) corresponds to patient with positive RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 assay. Non-confirmed COVID-19 ((-)COVID-19) corresponds to patients with negative RT-PCR. COVID-19 was suspected in 61 patients (40/803 KT (4.9%), 21/220 MHD (9.5%)). Prevalence of (+)COVID-19 was 3.2% in KT and 3.6% in MHD patients. Thirty-four (26 KT and 8 MHD) were (+)COVID-19 and 27 (14 KT and 13 MHD) (-)COVID-19. In comparison with (-)COVID-19 patients, (+)COVID-19 showed higher frequency of typical viral symptoms (cough, dyspnea, asthenia and myalgias), pneumonia (88.2% vs. 14.3%) and LDH and CRP while lower phosphate levels, need of hospital admission (100% vs. 63%), use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (36% vs. 11%) and mortality (38% vs. 0%) (p < 0.001). Time from symptoms onset to admission was longer in patients who finally died than in survivors (8.5 vs. 3.8, p = 0.007). In KT and MHD patients, (+)COVID-19 shows more clinical severity than suspected non-confirmed cases. Prompt RT-PCR is mandatory to confirm COVID-19 diagnosis.