Search

Introducción: Early published series suggest that most renal transplant recipients remain at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to poor humoral response after vaccination. The aim was to study the occurrence of adverse events after two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine in a population of renal transplant recipients. Material and Method: Analytical, observational, and prospective study. Subjects were injected with two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 according to the schedule established by the laboratory. After injection of each dose, and up to 72 hours later, participants recorded local and/or systemic symptoms and their intensity. Results: 187 patients were included. Eighteen percent of them became infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the pre-vaccination period or between the 1st and 2nd dose. The incidence of adverse events was 91.2%. Of these, the incidence of local (62%) was higher than that of systemic (55%). Past infection was a risk factor for the occurrence of local adverse events after vaccination (OR= 2.4; p=0.045). The same association was detected for systemic adverse events, which were more frequent among those who had passed the disease (OR=3.83; p=0.003). Conclusions: The mRNA-1273 vaccine does not appear to cause serious side effects. The incidence of local and systemic adverse events was higher in those patients with past disease.

Resumen: Introducción: Varios países europeos disponen de programas de donación tras parada cardiaca controlada (cDCD). Veintidós centros participan en el grupo GEODAS, cuyos resultados clínicos presentamos desde una perspectiva nefrológica. Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo observacional con inclusión sistemática de todos los trasplantes renales (TR) procedentes de cDCD, siguiendo protocolos locales de extracción e inmunosupresión. Resultados: Se incluyó a 335 donantes tras cDCD (edad media 57,2 años) fallecidos mayoritariamente por eventos cardiovasculares. Se analizan 566 receptores (edad media de 56,5 años; el 91,9% con primer trasplante renal), con una mediana de seguimiento de 1,9 años. La terapia de inducción fue casi universal (timoglobulina 67,4%; simulect 32,8%) con mantenimiento con prednisona-MMF-tacrolimus (91,3%) o combinaciones con mTOR (6,5%). El tiempo medio de isquemia fría (CIT) fue 12,3 h. Hubo un 3,4% de fallo primario del injerto (n = 19), asociado fundamentalmente al tiempo de isquemia fría (solo el CIT ≥ 14 h se asoció a fallo primario del injerto). La función retrasada del injerto (DGF) fue 48,8%. Los factores de riesgo para la DGF fueron: CIT ≥ 14 h OR 1,6, procedencia de hemodiálisis (vs. diálisis peritoneal) OR 2,1 y edad del donante OR 1,01 (por año). Veintiún pacientes fallecieron con injerto funcionante (3,7%), con una supervivencia de paciente e injerto (censurada para muerte) al segundo año del 95% y del 95,1%, respectivamente. El filtrado glomerular estimado al año de seguimiento fue 60,9 ml/min. Conclusiones: El CIT es un factor modificable para mejorar la incidencia del fallo primario del injerto en trasplante renal procedente de cDCD. El trasplante renal con cDCD tiene mayor incidencia en la función retrasada del injerto, pero igual supervivencia de paciente e injerto que la referencia histórica para donación en muerte encefálica. Los resultados son satisfactorios para continuar promoviendo este tipo de donación. Abstract: Introduction: Many European countries have transplant programmes with controlled donors after cardiac death (cDCD). Twenty-two centres are part of GEODAS group. We analysed clinical results from a nephrological perspective. Methods: Observational, retrospective and multicentre study with systematic inclusion of all kidney transplant recipients from cDCD, following local protocols regarding extraction and immunosuppression. Results: A total of 335 cDCD donors (mean age 57.2 years) whose deaths were mainly due to cardiovascular events were included. Finally, 566 recipients (mean age 56.5 years; 91.9% first kidney transplant) were analysed with a median of follow-up of 1.9 years. Induction therapy was almost universal (thymoglobulin 67.4%; simulect 32.8%) with maintenance with prednisone-MMF-tacrolimus (91.3%) or combinations with mTOR (6.5%). Mean cold ischaemia time (CIT) was 12.3 h. Approximately 3.4% (n = 19) of recipients experienced primary non-function, essentially associated with CIT (only CIT ≥ 14 h was associated with primary non-function). Delayed graft function (DGF) was 48.8%. DGF risk factors were CIT ≥ 14 h OR 1.6, previous haemodialysis (vs. peritoneal dialysis) OR 2.1 and donor age OR 1.01 (per year). Twenty-one patients (3.7%) died with a functioning graft, with a recipient and death-censored graft survival at 2-years of 95% and 95.1%, respectively. The estimated glomerular filtration rate at one year of follow-up was 60.9 ml/min. Conclusions: CIT is a modifiable factor for improving the incidence of primary non-function in kidney transplant arising from cDCD. cDCD kidney transplant recipients have higher delayed graft function rate, but the same patient and graft survival compared to brain-dead donation in historical references. These results are convincing enough to continue fostering this type of donation. Palabras clave: Trasplante renal, Donación tras parada circulatoria controlada, Resultados clínicos, Función retrasada del injerto, Keywords: Kidney transplant, Donation with controlled donors after circulatory death, Clinical outcomes, Delayed graft function

Introduction: Many European countries have transplant programs with controlled donors after cardiac death (cDCD). Twenty-two centers are part of GEODAS group. We analyzed clinical results from a nephrological perspective. Methods: Observational, retrospective and multicentre study with systematic inclusion of all kidney transplant recipients from cDCD, following local protocols regarding extraction and immunosuppression. Results: A total of 335 cDCD donors (mean age 57.2 years) whose deaths were mainly due to cardiovascular events were included. Finally, 566 recipients (mean age 56.5 years; 91.9% first kidney transplant) were analyzed with a median of follow-up of 1.9 years. Induction therapy was almost universal (thymoglobulin 67.4%; simulect 32.8%) with maintenance with prednisone-MMF-tacrolimus (91.3%) or combinations with mTOR (6.5%). Mean cold ischemia time (CIT) was 12.3 h. Approximately 3.4% (n = 19) of recipients experienced primary non-function, essentially associated with CIT (only CIT ≥ 14 h was associated with primary non-function). Delayed graft function (DGF) was 48.8%. DGF risk factors were CIT ≥ 14 h OR 1.6, previous haemodialysis (vs. peritoneal dialysis) OR 2.1 and donor age OR 1.01 (per year). Twenty-one patients (3.7%) died with a functioning graft, with a recipient and death-censored graft survival at 2-years of 95% and 95.1%, respectively. The estimated glomerular filtration rate at one year of follow-up was 60.9 ml/min. Conclusions: CIT is a modifiable factor for improving the incidence of primary non-function in kidney transplant arising from cDCD. cDCD kidney transplant recipients have higher delayed graft function rate, but the same patient and graft survival compared to brain-dead donation in historical references. These results are convincing enough to continue fostering this type of donation. Resumen: Introducción: Varios países europeos disponen de programas de donación tras parada cardiaca controlada (cDCD). Veintidós centros participan en el grupo GEODAS, cuyos resultados clínicos presentamos desde una perspectiva nefrológica. Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo observacional con inclusión sistemática de todos los trasplantes renales (TR) procedentes de cDCD, siguiendo protocolos locales de extracción e inmunosupresión. Resultados: Se incluyó a 335 donantes tras cDCD (edad media 57,2 años) fallecidos mayoritariamente por eventos cardiovasculares. Se analizan 566 receptores (edad media de 56,5 años; el 91,9% con primer trasplante renal), con una mediana de seguimiento de 1,9 años. La terapia de inducción fue casi universal (timoglobulina 67,4%; simulect 32,8%) con mantenimiento con prednisona-MMF-tacrolimus (91,3%) o combinaciones con mTOR (6,5%). El tiempo medio de isquemia fría (CIT) fue 12,3 h. Hubo un 3,4% de fallo primario del injerto (n = 19), asociado fundamentalmente al tiempo de isquemia fría (solo el CIT ≥ 14 h se asoció a fallo primario del injerto). La función retrasada del injerto (DGF) fue 48,8%. Los factores de riesgo para la DGF fueron: CIT ≥ 14 h OR 1,6, procedencia de hemodiálisis (vs. diálisis peritoneal) OR 2,1 y edad del donante OR 1,01 (por año). Veintiún pacientes fallecieron con injerto funcionante (3,7%), con una supervivencia de paciente e injerto (censurada para muerte) al segundo año del 95% y del 95,1%, respectivamente. El filtrado glomerular estimado al año de seguimiento fue 60,9 ml/min. Conclusiones: El CIT es un factor modificable para mejorar la incidencia del fallo primario del injerto en trasplante renal procedente de cDCD. El trasplante renal con cDCD tiene mayor incidencia en la función retrasada del injerto, pero igual supervivencia de paciente e injerto que la referencia histórica para donación en muerte encefálica. Los resultados son satisfactorios para continuar promoviendo este tipo de donación. Keywords: Kidney transplant, Donation with controlled donors after circulatory death, Clinical outcomes, Delayed graft function, Palabras clave: Trasplante renal, Donación tras parada circulatoria controlada, Resultados clínicos, Función retrasada del injerto

The genes CD28, CD86 and CTLA-4 conform the costimulatory (CD28-CD86) or inhibitory (CTLA-4-CD86) signal in T-cell activation. T-cell immune response has a critical role in allograft rejection, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) located in these genes have been widely analyzed with controversial results. We analyzed a group of SNPs located in the three genes: CD28: rs3116496; CD86: rs1129055; and CTLA-4: rs231775 and rs3087243 in a cohort of 632 consecutively recruited kidney transplanted subjects. All polymorphisms were genotyped by TaqMan chemistry and the diagnosis of rejection was confirmed by biopsy and categorized according to the Banff classification. The analyses showed a statistically significant protective effect to T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) in carriers of the CTLA-4 rs3087243*G allele, especially in patients with TCMR Banff ≥2 in the overall cohort and in patients without thymoglobulin induction therapy. Both associations were corroborated as independent factors in the multivariate analysis. Interestingly, associations with rejection were not found for any SNP in patients with thymoglobulin induction therapy. As expected, considering the major role of these genes in T-cell activation, no effect was observed for antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). In conclusion, the SNP rs3087243 located in the CTLA-4 gene may be considered a useful independent biomarker for TCMR risk especially for severe TCMR in patients who did no received thymoglobulin induction therapy.

The −308G/A SNP of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) gene affects TNF-α production. As its impact on transplant outcome remains open to debate, we decided to genotype it in a cohort of transplant subjects. A retrospective analysis of 439 first kidney recipients randomly divided into two subgroups (discovery and validation cohorts) was performed to identify the best predictors of acute rejection (AR). The effect on transplant outcome was analyzed by an adjusted logistic regression model. Carriers of the A allele, associated with elevated TNF-α production, presented a higher risk of AR (OR = 2.78; 95% CI = 1.40–5.51). Logistic regression analyses for AR showed an interaction between the polymorphism and treatment with thymoglobulin (p-interaction = 0.03). In recipients who did not receive thymoglobulin, carriers of A allele had higher risk of AR (OR = 4.05; 95% CI = 1.76–9.28). Moreover, carriers of A allele not treated with thymoglobulin presented higher risk of AR than those who received thymoglobulin (OR = 13.74; 95% CI = 1.59–118.7). The AUC of the model in the discovery cohort was 0.70 and in the validation cohort was 0.69. Our findings indicate that the −308G/A TNF-α polymorphism is associated with AR risk and it modulates the effectiveness of thymoglobulin treatment. This pharmacogenetic effect lets us propose this SNP as a useful predictor biomarker to tailor immunosuppressive regimens.

Resumen: Introducción: La infección por SARS-CoV2 ha impactado de forma importante en los pacientes con trasplante renal causando una elevada mortalidad en los primeros meses de la pandemia. La reducción intencionada de la inmunosupresión se ha postulado como uno de los pilares en el manejo de la infección ante la falta de un tratamiento antiviral dirigido. Esta se ha modificado de acuerdo con la situación clínica de los pacientes, y su efecto sobre la función renal o los anticuerpos anti-HLA a medio plazo no ha sido evaluado. Objetivos: Evaluar los cambios de inmunosupresión realizados durante la infección por SARS-CoV2, así como la función renal y los anticuerpos anti-HLA de los pacientes trasplantados de riñón a los 6 meses del diagnóstico de COVID19. Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo, multicéntrico nacional (30 centros) de pacientes trasplantados de riñón con COVID19 desde el 01/02/20 al 31/12/20. Se recogieron las variables de la historia clínica y se incluyeron en una base de datos anonimizada. Se utilizó el programa estadístico SPSS para el análisis de resultados. Resultados: Se incluyeron 615 trasplantados renales con COVID19 (62,6% varones), con una edad media de 57,5 años.El tratamiento inmunosupresor predominante antes del COVID19 era la triple terapia con prednisona, tacrolimus y ácido micofenólico (54,6%) seguido de los regímenes con inhibidores m-TOR (18,6%). Tras el diagnóstico de la infección se suspendió el ácido micofenólico en el 73,8% de los pacientes, el inhibidor m-TOR en el 41,4%, tacrolimus en el 10,5% y ciclosporina A en el 10%. A su vez, el 26,9% recibieron dexametasona y al 50,9% se les inició o aumentó la dosis de prednisona basal.La creatinina media antes del diagnóstico de COVID19, en el momento del diagnóstico y a los 6 meses fue de 1,7 ± 0,8; 2,1 ± 1,2 y 1,8 ± 1 mg/dl, respectivamente (p

Introduction: SARS CoV2 infection has had a major impact on renal transplant patients with a high mortality in the first months of the pandemic. Intentional reduction of immunosuppressive therapy has been postulated as one of the cornerstone in the management of the infection in the absence of targeted antiviral treatment. This has been modified according to the patient`s clinical situation and its effect on renal function or anti-HLA antibodies in the medium term has not been evaluated. Objectives: Evaluate the management of immunosuppressive therapy made during SARS-CoV2 infection, as well as renal function and anti-HLA antibodies in kidney transplant patients 6 months after COVID19 diagnosis. Material and methods: Retrospective, national multicentre, retrospective study (30 centres) of kidney transplant recipients with COVID19 from 01/02/20 to 31/12/20. Clinical variables were collected from medical records and included in an anonymised database. SPSS statistical software was used for data analysis. Results: renal transplant recipients with COVID19 were included (62.6% male), with a mean age of 57.5 years.The predominant immunosuppressive treatment prior to COVID19 was triple therapy with prednisone, tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid (54.6%) followed by m-TOR inhibitor regimens (18.6%). After diagnosis of infection, mycophenolic acid was discontinued in 73.8% of patients, m-TOR inhibitor in 41.4%, tacrolimus in 10.5% and cyclosporin A in 10%. In turn, 26.9% received dexamethasone and 50.9% were started on or had their baseline prednisone dose increased.Mean creatinine before diagnosis of COVID19, at diagnosis and at 6 months was: 1.7 ± 0.8, 2.1 ± 1.2 and 1.8 ± 1 mg/dl respectively (p

BackgroundRenal transplantation is the treatment of choice for most cases of end-stage renal disease. Recipients need to lead a healthy lifestyle to minimize the potential side effects of immunosuppressive drugs and improve transplant outcomes. There is not much evidence about the best way to increase adherence to healthy lifestyles in kidney transplant recipients, so one of the objectives set by the nursing team is to train people to acquire the necessary skills and tools to be able to take care of themselves. In this sense, the consensual development of appropriate materials may be useful and of interest. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop an information guide for adults with kidney transplants to be assessed in a subsequent clinical trial as an intervention to increase adherence to healthy habits. MethodsWe used a 3-step, methodological, sequential approach: (1) training from a group of experts and item consensus; (2) review of the medical literature available; and (3) use of the Delphi technique with on-site meetings. A total of 5 nurses from the Community of Madrid Kidney Transplantation Unit in Spain were asked to participate. The patients’ lifestyle factors that, according to the medical literature available and experts’ opinions, have the greatest impact on the survival of the transplanted organ and the recipients themselves were all described. ResultsAfter using the modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on the items to be included and the information needed in each, an information guide for adult kidney transplant patients was developed. This guide facilitates the structuring of health care, information, and recommendations necessary for effective self-care for each person. The result is considered to be an easy-to-understand tool, useful for transplant doctors and nurses, in simple language, with information based on the latest scientific-medical evidence published to date, aspects of which will be evaluated in a clinical trial designed for this purpose. ConclusionsCurrently, this guide is the main intervention variable of a clinical trial (registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT05715580) aimed at improving compliance with healthy habits in kidney transplant recipients in the Community of Madrid, Spain. The method used in its development has been useful and agile, and the result is a guide that can be easily updated periodically following the same procedure. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/46961

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for end stage renal disease in terms of both patient and graft survival. However, figures on LDKT in Spain that had been continuously growing from 2005 to 2014, have experienced a continuous decrease in the last five years.One possible explanation for this decrease is that the significant increase in the number of deceased donors in Spain during the last years, both brain death and controlled circulatory death donors, might have generated the false idea that we have coped with the transplant needs. Moreover, a greater number of deceased donor kidney transplants have caused a heavy workload for the transplant teams.Furthermore, the transplant teams could have moved on to a more conservative approach to the information and assessment of patients and families considering the potential long-term risks for donors in recent papers. However, there is a significant variability in the LDKT rate among transplant centers and regions in Spain independent of their deceased donor rates. This fact and the fact that LDKT is usually a preemptive option for patients with advanced chronic renal failure, as time on dialysis is a negative independent factor for transplant outcomes, lead us to conclude that the decrease in LDKT depends on other factors.Thus, in the kidney transplant annual meeting held at ONT site in 2018, a working group was created to identify other causes for the decrease of LDKT in Spain and its relationship with the different steps of the process. The group was formed by transplant teams, a representative of the transplant group of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENTRA), a representative of the Spanish Society of Transplants (SET) and representatives of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT).A self-evaluation survey that contains requests about the phases of the LDKT processes (information, donor work out, informed consent, surgeries, follow-up and human resources) were developed and sent to 33 LDKT teams. All the centers answered the questionnaire. The analysis of the answers has resulted in the creation of a national analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) of the LDKT program in Spain and the development of recommendations targeted to improve every step of the donation process. The work performed, the conclusions and recommendations provided, have been reflected in the following report: Spanish living donor kidney transplant program assessment: recommendations for optimization. This document has also been reviewed by a panel of experts, representatives of the scientific societies (Spanish Society of Urology (AEU), Spanish Society of Nephrology Nursery (SEDEN), Spanish Society of Immunology (SEI/GETH)) and the patient association ALCER. Finally, the report has been submitted to public consultation, reaching ample consensus. In addition, the transplant competent authorities of the different regions in Spainhave adopted the report at institutional level.The work done and the recommendations to optimize LDKT are summarized in the present manuscript, organized by the different phases of the donation process. Resumen: El trasplante renal de donante vivo (TRDV) es la opción terapéutica con las mejores expectativas de supervivencia para el injerto y para el paciente con insuficiencia renal terminal; sin embargo, este tipo de trasplantes ha experimentado un descenso progresivo en los últimos años en España.Entre las posibles explicaciones del descenso de actividad se encuentra la coincidencia en el tiempo con un aumento en el número de donantes renales fallecidos, tanto por muerte encefálica como por asistolia controlada, que podría haber generado una falsa impresión de ausencia de necesidad del TRDV. Además, la disponibilidad de un mayor número de riñones para trasplante habría supuesto un incremento en la carga de trabajo de los profesionales que pudiera enlentecer los procesos de donación en vida. Otro posible argumento radica en un posible cambio de actitud hacia posturas más conservadoras a la hora de informar a pacientes y a familiares acerca de esta opción terapéutica, a raíz de los artículos publicados respecto al riesgo de la donación a largo plazo. Sin embargo, existe una importantísima variabilidad en la actividad entre centros y comunidades autónomas, no explicada por el volumen de trasplante procedente de otros tipos de donante. Este dato, unido a que la indicación de donación renal en vida se realiza de manera mayoritaria en situación de enfermedad renal crónica avanzada (ERCA) y que el tiempo en diálisis es un factor pronóstico negativo respecto a la supervivencia postrasplante, permite concluir que el descenso depende además de otros factores.Por este motivo, en la reunión anual de equipos de trasplante renal, celebrada en la sede de la Organización Nacional de Trasplantes (ONT) en 2018, se constituyó un grupo de trabajo formado por equipos de trasplante renal, el grupo de trasplantes de la Sociedad Española de Nefrología (SEN) (SENTRA), la Sociedad Española de Trasplantes (SET) y la ONT, con el objetivo de identificar otras causas que condicionaron el descenso de la actividad de este tipo de trasplantes en España y su posible relación con la gestión del proceso de donación de vivo.El grupo de trabajo diseñó un cuestionario de autoevaluación, que fue cumplimentado por las 33 unidades de trasplante renal de donante vivo activas en España. El cuestionario contiene preguntas sobre las diferentes fases del proceso de donación de vivo: información inicial, estudio del donante vivo e información de los riesgos, consentimiento, recursos humanos (RRHH), nefrectomía, trasplante y seguimiento posterior.El análisis de las respuestas ha dado como resultado la creación de un análisis de debilidades, amenazas, fortalezas y oportunidades (DAFO) del programa a nivel nacional y ha permitido elaborar recomendaciones específicas dirigidas a mejorar cada una de las fases del proceso de donación en vida. El documento, denominado Análisis de situación del trasplante renal de donante vivo y hoja de ruta ha sido también revisado por un panel de expertos en TRDV, representantes de varias sociedades científicas implicadas (Asociación Espa˜nola de Urología [AEU], Sociedad Espa˜nola de Enfermería Nefrológica [SEDEN], Sociedad Espa˜nola de Inmunología [SEI/GETH]), el Grupo de Trabajo Enfermedad Renal Crónica Avanzada (ACERCA), la Asociación de Pacientes para la Lucha Contra la Enfermedad Renal (ALCER) y sometido posteriormente a consulta pública. Tras incluir las mejoras sugeridas, el documento final ha sido adoptado institucionalmente en el Consejo Interterritorial de Trasplantes (CIT) del Sistema Nacional de Salud.El trabajo realizado y las recomendaciones para optimizar el TRVD se describen a lo largo del presente artículo, organizados por los diferentes apartados del proceso de donación.

BackgroundImmunocompromised patients have an increased risk of developing severe COVID disease, as well as a tendency to suboptimal responses to vaccines. The objective of this study was to evaluate the specific cellular and humoral adaptive immune responses of a cohort of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) after 3 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine and to determinate the main factors involved.MethodsProspective observational study in 221 KTR (149 non infected), 55 healthy volunteers (HV) and 23 dialysis patients (DP). We evaluated anti-spike (by quantitative chemiluminescence immunoassay) and anti-nucleocapsid IgG (ELISA), percentage of TCD4+ and TCD8+ lymphocytes producing IFNγ against S-protein by intracellular flow cytometry after Spike-specific 15-mer peptide stimulation and serum neutralizing activity (competitive ELISA) at baseline and after vaccination.ResultsAmong COVID-19 naïve KTR, 54.2% developed cellular and humoral response after the third dose (vs 100% in DP and 91.7% in HV), 18% only showed cell-mediated response, 22.2% exclusively antibody response and 5.6% none. A correlation of neutralizing activity with both the IgG titer (r=0.485, p1000/mm3 [4.68 (1.72-12.73, p=0.003], eGFR>30 mL/min [7.34(2.72-19.84), p

The +874 A/T polymorphism in the interferon gamma (IFNG) gene has been associated with Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection risk in lung and kidney transplant recipients. To replicate this association, we performed a retrospective observational study of this polymorphism and immunosuppressive therapies considering the prophylactic treatment in 600 consecutive kidney transplanted recipients. We found no association of the aforementioned polymorphism with CMV infection in univariate and multivariate analyses regardless of the prophylactic treatment. In addition, the immunosuppressive treatment with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (imTOR) showed a protective effect in all patients independently of prophylaxis. Moreover, in the adjusted model, we found interactions between prophylaxis with high-risk (Donor+/Recipient–, D+/R–) status (p-interaction = 0.01), with thymoglobulin induction therapy (p-interaction = 0.03) and with thymoglobulin anti-rejection therapy (p-interaction = 0.002). Data also revealed that prophylaxis was not an advantage in the not D+/R– and without thymoglobulin therapy group (HR = 0.98, p = 0.95). The benefit of prophylaxis was observed in all groups with thymoglobulin therapy, but it was maximal in the high-risk CMV infection group with both thymoglobulin induction therapy and thymoglobulin anti-rejection therapy (HR = 0.01, p < 0.001). In conclusion, the IFNG +874 polymorphism is not a predictive marker of CMV infection. The protective effect of imTOR is not improved with prophylaxis. Interestingly, the thymoglobulin therapy associated with prophylaxis is not a risk factor for CMV infection, and prophylaxis is not effective in recipients with no high-risk CMV status and without thymoglobulin therapy.