The effectiveness and safety of rituximab as induction therapy in ABO-compatible non-sensitized renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rituximab as induction therapy in ABO-compatible, non-sensitized renal transplantation. METHODS: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed from inception through February 2015. Studies that reported relative risks or hazard ratios comparing the risks of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, leukopenia, infection or mortality in ABO-compatible, non-sensitized renal transplant recipients who received rituximab as induction therapy versus controls were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method. RESULTS: Four RCTs with 480 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR of BPAR in recipients with rituximab induction was 0.90 (95% CI 0.50-1.60). Compared to placebo, the risk of BPAR in rituximab group was 0.76 (95% CI 0.51-1.14, I(2) = 0). The risk of leukopenia was increased in rituximab group with the pooled RR of 8.22 (95% CI 2.08-32.47). There were no statistical differences in the risks of infection, graft loss and mortality at 3-6 months after transplantation with pool RRs of 1.02 (95% CI 0.85-1.21), 0.55 (95% CI 0.21-1.48) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.17-1.99), respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated insignificant reduced risks of BPAR, graft loss or mortality among in ABO-compatible, non-sensitized renal transplant recipients with rituximab induction. Although rituximab induction significantly increases risk of leukopenia, it appears to be safe with no significant risk of infection.

Evaluation of high-risk living kidney donors.

Careful evaluation of potential living kidney donors is crucial to assure the well being of the donors, especially because they do not gain any direct medical benefit from donation. This process also helps assess the quality and safety of the organs donated to the recipients. While all programs share these goals, donor selection criteria vary significantly among U.S. transplant centers. In part, this is due to the limited data that exists as to long-term outcomes among donors who are medically complex, or at higher risk for complications, such as those with hypertension, obesity, or lower kidney function. This article reviews available evidence regarding outcomes after living donation and current trends in U.S. practices, and seeks to provide practical guidance in evaluating high-risk potential living kidney donors.

Cost-benefit analysis of hepatitis a vaccination in Thailand.

We constructed a decision model to simulate costs and benefits for persons in the context of hepatitis A prevention. Three strategies were compared: i) no intervention; ii) vaccination against hepatitis A without screening; iii) vaccination against hepatitis A for those susceptible after screening for anti-HAV. We divided the population into 3 age groups : 3-11 years, 12-18 years and 19-40 years. Data regarding the cost of treatment and vaccination were obtained from the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. Relevant probabilities were obtained from published literature and expert opinion. At the present incidence of hepatitis A infection, in all age groups examined, the net benefits of a universal no-intervention strategy were higher than those of either vaccination (intervention) strategy. The cost of vaccination without screening in the 3-11-year and 12-18-year groups would equal the benefit if the incidence rates amounted to approximately 138 and 212 infected individuals per 100,000, respectively, that of vaccination with screening at incidence rates of about 200 and 260 infected persons per 100,000, respectively. In the 19-40-year group, the cost incurred by vaccination either with or without screening would equal the benefit at an incidence rate above 450 infected individual per 100,000. For the benefits to outweigh the estimated vaccination costs at present the vaccine is still too expensive. The cost of vaccination without screening in the 3-11-year group would equal the benefit if the cost of vaccine was about 586 baht/2 doses (293 baht/dose), and about 500 baht/2 doses (250 baht/dose) in the 12-18-year group. Likewise, because of the cost of vaccine, it would not be cost-beneficial in the 19-40-year group both with and without screening, and neither would it be in the 3-11-year and 12-18-year groups including screening. According to current standards, under the conditions of the present study the benefit of hepatitis A vaccination administered to the general population between the age of 3 and 40 years in Thailand does not justify the expenses incurred. Major changes in hepatitis A incidence, anti-HAV seroprevalence, vaccine cost or the treatment outcome would be required to potentially render either intervention strategy cost beneficial.

Statins decrease the occurrence of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest a reduction in the occurrence of venous thromboembolism in select groups of patients who use statins. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of statin use on the occurrence of venous thromboembolism in patients with solid organ tumor. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, case-control study reviewing 740 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of solid organ tumor who were admitted to the Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Penn, between October 2004 and September 2007. Patients treated with anticoagulation therapy before their first admission were excluded. The occurrence of venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and statin use were recorded. Patients who never used statins or had used them for less than 2 months were relegated to the control group. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 65 years, and 52% of the patients were women and 76% were African American. The occurrence of venous thromboembolism was 18% (N=132), and 26% (N=194) were receiving statins. Among patients receiving statins, 8% (N=16) developed a venous thromboembolism compared with 21% (N=116) in the control group (odds ratio 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.57). A logistic regression analysis including risk factors for venous thromboembolism (metastatic disease, use of chemotherapy, immobilization, smoking, and aspirin use) along with statin use yielded the same results. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the use of statins is associated with a significant reduction in the occurrence of venous thromboembolism. This pleiotropic effect warrants further investigation.