Discharge medication procurement and education after kidney transplantation.

Adherence to immunosuppressant medications is a key determinant of success following organ transplantation. Medication procurement and education are precursory. In March 2018, Medicare announced a rule change interpreted to prohibit delivery of Part B-covered immunosuppressive drugs to hospitals. A subsequent Medicare announcement clarified that immunosuppressive drug delivery to hospitals is acceptable, effective April 2019. To promulgate the perceived importance of medication delivery to hospitals among key providers of transplant discharge education, a 25-question descriptive survey was distributed between May and July 2018 to pharmacists affiliated with each active US kidney transplant program (n = 238). Survey goals were to describe discharge medication procurement practices, discharge medication teaching practices, and attitudes toward the value of medication education. A total of 155 responses were received from 115 different transplant centers. A majority (93%) of respondents require discharge medications to be onsite prior to hospital discharge. A majority (81%) of respondents use discharge medications during medication education. Acquisition of immunosuppressant medications and their delivery to the inpatient environment prior to discharge for the purpose of medication education is a common practice, is viewed as important, and serves to enhance discharge education, ensure safe transitions of care, and encourage medication adherence.

Association of medication non-adherence with short-term allograft loss after the treatment of severe acute kidney transplant rejection.

BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence is a risk factor for acute kidney transplant rejection. The association of non-adherence with short-term allograft loss in patients who develop acute rejection and are subsequently treated with maximal therapy is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single center cohort study of adult patients who developed acute rejection from January 2003 to December 2017 and were treated with lymphocyte depletion. Clinicopathologic characteristics including adherence status were collected and descriptive statistics utilized to compare groups. The primary outcome was all-cause graft loss at 6 months after acute rejection treatment. A multivariable logistic regression quantified the association of non-adherence with the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were included in the cohort, of whom 71 (39%) were non-adherent. Compared to adherent patients, non-adherent patients were younger (mean age 37y vs 42y), more likely to be female (51% vs 35%) and developed acute rejection later (median 2.3y vs 0.5y from transplant). There were no differences in estimated glomerular filtration rate or need for dialysis on presentation, Banff grade, or presence of antibody mediated rejection between the 2 groups. Overall, 48 (26%) patients lost their grafts at 6 months after acute rejection treatment. In adjusted analysis, non-adherence was associated with all-cause graft loss at 6 months after acute rejection treatment [OR 2.64 (95% CI 1.23-5.65, p = 0.012]. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for common confounders, non-adherent patients were at increased risk for short-term allograft loss after a severe acute rejection despite lymphocyte depletion. This finding may aid clinicians in risk stratifying patients for poor short-term outcomes and treatment futility.

Validation of the Maryland Aggregate Pathology Index (MAPI), a pre-implantation scoring system that predicts graft outcome.

Predicting graft outcome after renal transplantation based on donor histological features has remained elusive and is subject to institutional variability. We have shown in a retrospective study that the Maryland Aggregate Pathology Index score reliably predicts graft outcome. We sought to validate the scoring system in our center and a second transplant center. We analyzed 140 deceased donor kidneys pre-implantation biopsies from center 1 and 65 from center 2. The patients had a mean follow-up of 695 ± 424 and 656 ± 305 d respectively. Although MAPI scores were similar, there were significant differences in donor and recipient parameters between both centers. Despite this, MAPI was predictive of graft outcome for both centers by Cox univariate, multivariate and time dependent ROC analysis. For center 1 and 2, three yr graft survival within each MAPI group was statistically equivalent. The three-yr graft survival at center 1 for low, intermediate, and high MAPI groups were 84.3%, 56.5%, and 50.0%, respectively, p ≤ 0.0001, and at center 2 were 83.3%, 33.3%, and 33.3%, p = 0.006. MAPI, which is based on a pre-implantation biopsy, demonstrated similar predictive and outcome results from both centers. As expanded criteria donors (ECD) criteria have redefined marginal kidneys, MAPI has the potential to further define ECD kidneys, increase utilization, and ultimately improve outcomes.

Immunosuppressive agents as risk factors for BK virus nephropathy: an overview and update.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: BK virus has emerged as an important cause of graft dysfunction and failure in renal transplant recipients. Risk factors for BK virus nephropathy (BKN) are not well established, but evidence suggests that it is the result of a complex interplay between multiple donor- and recipient-related factors. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to review the current understanding on the effect of various immunosuppressive agents on BK viral replication and the results of different reported immunosuppression reduction protocols. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: The intensity of overall immunosuppression has been accepted as a major risk factor for the development of BKN. We review the data regarding the contribution of different anti-rejection agents to the risk of BK virus-induced graft injury. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Although reduction in immunosuppression on detection of BK viral replication appears to be the most successful means in preserving allograft function, data are emerging that support the stronger association of the disease with tacrolimus, in contrast to mycophenolate compounds. Therefore, initial dose reduction for tacrolimus may be more beneficial than this anti-metabolite preemptively or after diagnosis of BKN.

Hyperkalemia-induced paralysis.

Hyperkalemia is an electrolyte abnormality that can lead to severe consequences. Paralysis induced by hyperkalemia has been described in only a few reports. We describe a 60-year-old man who experienced paralysis presumably due to hyperkalemia. He presented to the emergency department with severe weakness in all extremities. The patient's serum potassium concentration was greater than 8 mEq/L and his serum creatinine concentration was 7 mg/dl. Findings on electrocardiography were abnormal. Of note, his drug therapy included lisinopril and naproxen. After treatment for hyperkalemia, the patient's symptoms resolved; however, he was admitted for further workup for renal failure. The patient was discharged after approximately 1 week with a diagnosis of end-stage renal disease. Use of the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale indicated a probable relationship (score of 5) between the patient's paralysis and hyperkalemia. Although hyperkalemia as a cause of paralysis is extremely rare, clinicians should be aware of this potentially life-threatening, noncardiac toxicity.