Search

BACKGROUND: The use of assays detecting cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific T-cell-mediated immunity may individualize the duration of antiviral prophylaxis in transplant recipients. METHODS: In this open-label randomized trial, adult kidney and liver transplant recipients from six centers in Switzerland were enrolled if they were CMV-seronegative with seropositive donors or CMV-seropositive receiving anti-thymocyte globulins. Patients were randomized to a duration of antiviral prophylaxis based on immune-monitoring (intervention) or a fixed duration (control). Patients in the control group were planned to receive 180 days (CMV-seronegative) or 90 days (CMV-seropositive) of valganciclovir. Patients were assessed monthly with a CMV-specific interferon gamma release assay (T-Track® CMV); prophylaxis in the intervention group was stopped if the assay was positive. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with clinically significant CMV infection and reduction in days of prophylaxis. Between-group differences were adjusted for CMV serostatus. RESULTS: Overall, 193 patients were randomized (92 in the immune-monitoring and 101 in the control group) of which 185 had evaluation of the primary endpoint (87 and 98 patients, respectively). Clinically significant CMV infection occurred in 26/87 (adjusted percentage, 30.9%) in the immune-monitoring group and in 32/98 (adjusted percentage, 31.1%) in the control group (adjusted risk difference -0.1, 95%CI -13.0%, 12.7%; p = 0.064). The duration of antiviral prophylaxis was shorter in the immune-monitoring group (adjusted difference -26.0 days, 95%-CI -41.1 to -10.8 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Immune monitoring resulted in a significant reduction of antiviral prophylaxis, but we were unable to establish noninferiority of this approach on the co-primary endpoint of CMV infection.

In this study, we investigated the clinical impact of different urinary tract infection (UTI) phenotypes occurring within the first year after renal transplantation. The population included 2368 transplantations having 2363 UTI events. Patients were categorized into four groups based on their compiled UTI events observed within the first year after transplantation: (i) no colonization or UTI (n = 1404; 59%), (ii) colonization only (n = 353; 15%), (iii) occasional UTI with 1-2 episodes (n = 456; 19%), and (iv) recurrent UTI with ≥3 episodes (n = 155; 7%). One-year mortality and graft loss rate were not different among the four groups, but patients with recurrent UTI had a 7-10 ml/min lower eGFR at year one (44 ml/min vs. 54, 53, and 51 ml/min; p < .001). UTI phenotypes had no impact on long-term patient survival (p = .33). However, patients with recurrent UTI demonstrated a 10% lower long-term death-censored allograft survival (p < .001). Furthermore, recurrent UTI was a strong and independent risk factor for reduced death-censored allograft survival in a multivariable analysis (HR 4.41, 95% CI 2.53-7.68, p < .001). We conclude that colonization and occasional UTI have no impact on pertinent outcomes, but recurrent UTI are associated with lower one-year eGFR and lower long-term death-censored allograft survival. Better strategies to prevent and treat recurrent UTI are needed.

Background: Publications from the last decade have increased knowledge regarding long-term risks after kidney donation. We wanted to perform a survey to assess how transplant professionals in Europe inform potential kidney donors regarding long-term risks. The objectives of the survey were to determine how they inform donors and to what extent, and to evaluate the degree of variation. Methods: All transplant professionals involved in the evaluation process were considered eligible, regardless of the type of profession. The survey was dispatched as a link to a web-based survey. The subjects included questions on demographics, the information policy of the respondent and the use of risk calculators, including the difference of relative and absolute risks and how the respondents themselves understood these risks. Results: The main finding was a large variation in how often different long-term risks were discussed with the potential donors, i.e. from always to never. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of end-stage renal disease, while 56% of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of preeclampsia. Twenty percent of respondents answered correctly regarding the relationship between absolute and relative risks for rare outcomes. Conclusions: The use of written information and checklists should be encouraged. This may improve standardization regarding the information provided to potential living kidney donors in Europe. There is a need for information and education among European transplant professionals regarding long-term risks after kidney donation and how to interpret and present these risks.

BACKGROUND Living donor renal transplantation is widely performed in Switzerland with a superior long-term outcome and lower waiting time compared with deceased renal transplantation. However the chances of receiving a living donor kidney transplant are not the same for all transplant candidates. The current study aimed to identify psychosocial and demographic characteristics that predict lower access to living kidney donation in Switzerland. METHODS The study was a nationwide multicentre study nested within the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. Pre-transplant demographic, psychosocial and health characteristics of 1126 deceased and 859 living renal transplant recipients were compared using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Transplant candidates with higher age (odds ratio [OR] per 10 years 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.74), lower education (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36–0.59), a work capacity of less than 50% (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35–0.66), single or formerly married (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.53 / OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26–0.53) or with a higher hospital depression score (OR per 5 points 0.61, 95% CI 0.50–0.74) were less likely to receive an allograft from a living donor. In some regions of Switzerland candidates were more likely to undergo living transplantation than in other regions. No association was found with gender or income. CONCLUSIONS Interventions to increase access to kidney transplantation from living donors should target transplant candidates of older age, lower education, lower working capacity and not living in a committed relationship. The observed regional differences suggest that additional determinants of living donation may play a role such as population and health professional attitudes toward living donation.

Kidney transplantation from older and marginal donors is effective to confront organ shortage. However, limitations after transplantation of kidneys from very marginal kidney donors remain unclear. We compared patient and graft outcome, achieved allograft function and quality of life of renal transplantations from Very Senior Donors (VSD, defined as donors aged 70 years and older) with Senior Donors (SD, aged 60–70 years) and Regular Donors (RD, aged younger than 60 years) in Switzerland. We evaluated the outcome of 1554 adult recipients of deceased donor kidney transplantations from 05/2008 to 12/2019; median follow-up was 4.7 years. Failure-free survival (freedom from graft loss or death), glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and quality of life at 12 months were analyzed for RD (reference group, n = 940), SD (n = 404), and VSD (n = 210). Failure-free survival decreased with increasing donor age, mainly attributable to premature graft loss. Still, overall 5-year failure-free survival reached 83.1%, 81.0%, and 64.0% in the RD, SD, and VSD subgroups, respectively. eGFR 12 months post-transplantation was significantly higher in RD compared with SD and VSD. The acceptance rate of donor candidates for kidney TPL was 78% for the entire cohort (87% for RD, 79% for SD, and 56% for VSD). Deceased donor kidney transplantation from donors aged 70 years or older is associated with an inferior, yet acceptable failure-free outcome, with sustained quality of life.

AIMS OF THE STUDY The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on patients listed for solid organ transplantation has not been systematically investigated to date. Thus, we assessed occurrence and effects of infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on patients on the Swiss national waiting list for solid organ transplantation. METHODS Patient data were retrospectively extracted from the Swiss Organ Allocation System (SOAS). From 16 March to 31 May 2020, we included all patients listed for solid organ transplantation on the Swiss national waiting list who were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Severity of COVID-19 was categorised as follows: stage I, mild symptoms; stage II, moderate to severe symptoms; stage III, critical symptoms; stage IV, death. We compared the incidence rate (laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2), the hospital admission rate (number of admissions of SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals), and the case fatality rate (number of deaths of SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals) in our study population with the general Swiss population during the study period, calculating age-adjusted standardised incidence ratios and standardised mortality ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS A total of 1439 patients were registered on the Swiss national solid organ transplantation waiting list on 31 May 31 2020. Twenty-four (1.7%) waiting list patients were reported to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the study period. The median age was 56 years (interquartile range 45.3–65.8), and 14 (58%) were male. Of all patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, two patients were asymptomatic, 14 (58%) presented in COVID-19 stage I, 3 (13%) in stage II, and 5 (21%) in stage III. Eight patients (33%) were admitted to hospital, four (17%) required intensive care, and three (13%) mechanical ventilation. Twenty-two patients (92%) of all those infected recovered, but two male patients aged >65 years with multiple comorbidities died in ho