Evolving trends in immunosuppression use and cytomegalovirus infection risk over the past decade in kidney transplantation
- PMID: 38946207
- DOI: 10.1111/tid.14318
Evolving trends in immunosuppression use and cytomegalovirus infection risk over the past decade in kidney transplantation
Abstract
Background: The goal was to determine trends in immunosuppression use and its impact on cytomegalovirus (CMV) outcomes over the past 10 years.
Methods: This was a single-center longitudinal cohort study of adult kidney recipients transplanted between Jan 2012 and June 2021. Baseline and follow-up data were gathered via chart abstraction and analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results: Of 2392 kidney transplants conducted, 131 patients did not meet inclusion criteria. The mean age was 52 years, 41% were female, 57% were black, and 19% were CMV high-risk. The use of rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (RATG) induction (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 1.3-2.1), tacrolimus (FK) level >8 ng/mL (OR 1.1, 1.09-1.11), CMV D+/R- rates (OR 1.06, 1.02-1.10), white blood cell count <3000 (OR 1.22, 1.18-1.26) and valganciclovir prophylaxis (OR 1.7, 1.6-1.9) have significantly increased over the past 10 years. Rejection rates (OR 0.86, 0.82-0.91) and BK viremia >2000 (OR 0.91, 0.91-0.98) have decreased. RATG induction (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.35, 1.2-1.5), FK >8 ng/mL (aHR 3.5, 3.2-3.9), Belatacept conversion (aHR 2.5, 2.1-3.1), and rejection (aHR 1.8, 1.6-2.0) were significant risk factors for developing CMV infection, while mycophenolate mofetil <1500 mg (aHR 0.52, 0.47-0.59), mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) conversion (0.77, 0.56-0.89), cyclosporine-A conversion (aHR 0.68, 0.56-0.84) were associated with lower risk of CMV infection.
Conclusion: Increasing use of potent immunosuppression coupled with higher CMV D+/R- F rates may be driving higher rates of CMV infection. Cyclosporine and mTORi conversion appears to be protective against CMV. A more individualized immunosuppression regimen based on infection risk merits consideration.
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Al Atbee MYN, Tuama HS. Cytomegalovirus infection after renal transplantation. J Med Life. 2022;15(1):71‐77. doi:10.25122/jml‐2021‐0209
-
- Pilch NA, Bowman LJ, Taber DJ. Immunosuppression trends in solid organ transplantation: The future of individualization, monitoring, and management. Pharmacotherapy. 2021;41(1):119‐131. doi:10.1002/phar.2481
-
- Roberts MB, Fishman JA. Immunosuppressive agents and infectious risk in transplantation: managing the “net state of immunosuppression”. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(7):e1302‐e1317. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1189
-
- Ljungman P, Boeckh M, Hirsch HH, et al. Definitions of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant patients for use in clinical trials. Clin Transplant. 2017;64(1):87‐91. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw668
-
- Chemaly RF, Chou S, Einsele H, et al. Definitions of resistant and refractory cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients for use in clinical trials. Clin Transplant. 2019;68(8):1420‐1426. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy696
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous