TREX1 Mutation Causing Autosomal Dominant Thrombotic Microangiopathy and CKD-A Novel Presentation.

Renal thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) involves diverse causes and clinical presentations. Genetic determinants causing alternate pathway complement dysregulation underlie a substantial proportion of cases. In a significant proportion of TMAs, no defect in complement regulation is identified. Mutations in the major mammalian 3' DNA repair exonuclease 1 (TREX1) have been associated with autoimmune and cerebroretinal vasculopathy syndromes. Carboxy-terminal TREX1 mutations that result in only altered localization of the exonuclease protein with preserved catalytic function cause microangiopathy of the brain and retina, termed retinal vasculopathy and cerebral leukodystrophy (RVCL). Kidney involvement reported with RVCL usually accompanies significant brain and retinal microangiopathy. We present a pedigree with autosomal dominant renal TMA and chronic kidney disease found to have a carboxy-terminal frameshift TREX1 variant. Although symptomatic brain and retinal microangiopathy is known to associate with carboxy-terminal TREX1 mutations, this report describes a carboxy-terminal TREX1 frameshift variant causing predominant renal TMA. These findings underscore the clinical importance of recognizing TREX1 mutations as a cause of renal TMA. This case demonstrates the value of whole-exome sequencing in unsolved TMA.

A one-day centralized work-up for kidney transplant recipient candidates: a quality improvement report.

BACKGROUND: Waiting time for a kidney transplant is calculated from the date the patient is placed on the UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) waitlist to the date the patient undergoes transplant. Time from transplant evaluation to listing represents unaccounted waiting time, potentially resulting in longer dialysis exposure for some patients with prolonged evaluation times. There are established disparities demonstrating that groups of patients take longer to be placed on the waitlist and thus have less access to kidney transplant. STUDY DESIGN: Quality improvement report. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 905 patients from a university-based hospital were evaluated for kidney transplant candidacy, and analysis was performed from July 1, 2004, to January 31, 2010. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: A 1-day centralized work-up was implemented on July 1, 2007, whereby the transplant center coordinated the necessary tests needed to fulfill minimal listing criteria. OUTCOME: Time from evaluation to UNOS listing was compared between the 2 cohorts. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were created to assess the relative hazards of waitlist placement comparing 1-day versus conventional work-up and were adjusted for age, sex, race, and education. RESULTS: Of 905 patients analyzed, 378 underwent conventional evaluation and 527 underwent a 1-day center-coordinated evaluation. Median time to listing in the 1-day center-coordinated evaluation compared with conventional was significantly less (46 vs 226 days, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, and education level, the 1-day in-center group was 3 times more likely to place patients on the wait list (adjusted HR, 3.08; 95% CI, 2.64-3.59). Listing time was significantly decreased across race, sex, education, and ethnicity. LIMITATIONS: Single center, retrospective. Variables that may influence transplant practitioners, such as comorbid conditions or functional status, were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: A 1-day center-coordinated pretransplant work-up model significantly decreased time to listing for kidney transplant.

New Organ Allocation System for Combined Liver-Kidney Transplants and the Availability of Kidneys for Transplant to Patients with Stage 4-5 CKD.

A new proposal has been created for establishing medical criteria for organ allocation in recipients receiving simultaneous liver-kidney transplants. In this article, we describe the new policy, elaborate on the points of greatest controversy, and offer a perspective on the policy going forward. Although we applaud the fact that simultaneous liver-kidney transplant activity will now be monitored and appreciate the creation of medical criteria for allocation in simultaneous liver-kidney transplants, we argue that some of the criteria proposed, especially those for allocating a kidney to a liver recipient with AKI, are too liberal. We call on the nephrology community to follow the consequences of this new policy and push for a re-examination of the longstanding policy of allocating kidneys to multiorgan transplant recipients before all other candidates. The charge to protect our system of equitable organ allocation is very challenging, but it is a challenge that we must embrace.

Renal transplant recipients over aged 60 have diminished immune activity and a low risk of rejection.

Strict consideration of the renal transplant candidate's chronologic age is generally supplanted by more subjective reflection on his (her) physiologic state. In the US, patients over 64 years old represented 9.0% of renal transplant recipients in the year 2000, yet little prior experience is available with which to guide the management of geriatric patients. Two hundred and forty six consecutive recipients of primary kidney transplants at the Yale-New Haven Organ Transplant Center between 1990 and 1995 were included in an outcome analysis. Age at transplantation ranged from 2 to 68 years; the study group consisted of the 16 (6.5%) over age 60. The immunosuppressive protocol was uniform for all patients. There was a disproportionately high use of cadaveric organs by older patients; only 1/16 (6.3%) received a living donor kidney. The overall rate of rejection within the first 90 days was 6.7% of cadaveric recipients over 60 versus 37.6% of younger recipients, P=0.001. Actual patient survival rates at 6 years were 100% of patients younger than 11 years versus 69% (11/16) of those older than 60 years. Death censored 5 year graft survival was 100% in older patients versus 85% among the younger patients. The older and younger patients received quantitatively equivalent immunosuppression, but acute rejection was uncommon in the former (6%) versus the younger cohort (34%). It seems logical to consider whether older renal transplant recipients may benefit from a less aggressive immunosuppression strategy.

Oncologic issues and kidney transplantation: a review of frequency, mortality, and screening.

Kidney transplant recipients are at increased risk for development of malignancy compared with the general population, and malignancies occur at an earlier age. This increased risk, as expressed by the standard incidence ratio (SIR), varies widely, but it is highest in malignancies triggered by oncogenic viruses. For other cancers, this increased risk is the direct consequence of immunosuppressants promoting tumor growth and lowering immune system tumor surveillance. In this review, we briefly discuss the common malignancies with increased risk after kidney transplantation, explore the pros and cons associated with screening, and summarize current prevention and treatment recommendations.

Management of cardiovascular disease in renal transplant recipients.

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of graft loss and the leading cause of death in renal transplant recipients. Although there are robust data on the frequency of risk factors and their contributions to cardiovascular disease in this population, few trials have demonstrated the benefit of modifying these risk factors to reduce cardiovascular events. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that the clinical acumen filtered through the best available studies in the general population be used to treat individual renal transplant recipients given their high cardiovascular mortality. Transplant task forces and the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative have created guidelines for this purpose. This review examines the data available for prevention and treatment of major risk factors contributing to cardiovascular disease in renal transplant recipients. The contribution of immunosuppressive agents to each risk factor and the evidence to support lifestyle modification as well as drug therapy are examined. Reducing cardiovascular risk factors requires an integrative approach that is best accomplished by a team of health care professionals. It creates a significant challenge but one that must be met if allograft survival is to improve.

A randomized trial comparing losartan with amlodipine as initial therapy for hypertension in the early post-transplant period.

BACKGROUND: Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the early post-transplant period remains controversial. Angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARB) have many benefits to the patient with chronic kidney disease and these benefits may also apply to the renal transplant recipient (RTR). Additionally, there are theoretical benefits of ARB use in RTR. This study was designed to investigate the safety of early ARB use after renal transplantation. METHODS: RTR with serum creatinine levels <3.0 mg/dl were randomized to receive either ARB (n = 29) or calcium-channel blocker (CCB; n = 27) as initial therapy for post-transplant hypertension. Differences in potassium, creatinine and haemoglobin concentrations were compared at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after transplantation. RESULTS: Withdrawal from the assigned treatment was high: 12 in the ARB group (due to hyperkalaemia in six) and 17 in the CCB group (due to intractable oedema in seven and post-transplant erythrocytosis requiring an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in seven). There were no differences in blood pressure, haemoglobin or creatinine concentration at any time-points. Mean potassium concentrations were only slightly higher in the ARB vs CCB group (range: 4.2-4.3 vs 3.7-3.8 mEq/l, respectively, but clinically significant) and the number of patients with potassium values >6.0 mEq/l was higher in ARB (n = 7) vs CCB (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that hyperkalaemia is the major complication that occurs with the use of ARB in the immediate post-transplant period. ARB use does not affect renal function or complicate the post-transplant management of RTR. Other than reducing the incidence of post-transplant erythrocytosis, ARB use does not cause an excess incidence of anaemia. Strategies to reduce the risk of hyperkalaemia may allow increased use of ARB immediately after kidney transplantation.

Treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia in long-term renal transplant patients with alendronate.

Bone mineral density (BMD) and biochemical markers of bone-turnover were evaluated in a 2-year study in 58 long-term renal transplant recipients with good renal function. In the first year of study, data were collected and patients with osteoporosis and parameters of high bone turnover were classified as being at high risk for on-going bone loss (Group A; n = 29). Patients with lesser degrees of bone loss or without biochemical parameters of high bone turnover were followed longitudinally (Group B; n = 29). Group A patients were then placed on alendronate 10mg/day and both groups were followed for an additional year. Changes in regional BMD and bone-turnover markers between the first and second year within each group were analyzed using paired tests. BMD in Group A, which had declined at the lumbar spine (- 1.6 +/- 0.5%) and total femur (-1.5 +/- 0.4%) during the first year of the study, increased on alendronate therapy at both the lumbar spine (+3.4 +/- 0.6%, p = 0.001) and total femur (+1.6 +/- 0.6%, p <0.001). These patients also experienced a significant decline in levels of serum alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin, urinary levels of deoxypyridinoline and pyridinoline. In contrast, neither BMD nor biochemical markers changed significantly over 2 years in Group B. The current results demonstrate that renal transplant patients with osteoporosis and biochemical parameters of high bone turnover are at continued risk for bone loss. Therapy with a bisphosphonate can reverse this bone loss and even increase bone mass in these patients. Whether patients with lesser degrees of bone loss and/or patients without parameters of high bone turnover can also benefit from bisphosphonate therapy deserves further study.