Search

Background: Galectin-3 may play a causal role in kidney inflammation and fibrosis, which may also be involved in the development of kidney graft failure. With novel galectin-3-targeted pharmacological therapies increasingly coming available, we aimed to investigate whether galectin-3 is associated with risk of late graft failure in kidney transplant recipients (KTR)., Methods: We studied adult KTR who participated in TransplantLines Insulin Resistance and Inflammation Biobank and Cohort Study, recruited in a university setting (2001-2003). Follow-up was performed for a median of 9.5 (interquartile range, 6.2-10.2) years. Overall and stratified (Pinteraction < 0.05) multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses were performed to study the association of galectin-3 with risk of graft failure (restart of dialysis or retransplantation)., Results: Among 561 KTR (age 52 ± 12 y; 54% males), baseline median galectin-3 was 21.1 (interquartile range, 17.0-27.2) ng/mL. During follow-up, 72 KTR developed graft failure (13, 18, and 44 events over increasing tertiles of galectin-3). Independent of adjustment for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics, galectin-3-associated with increased risk of graft failure (hazard ratios [HR] per 1 SD change, 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-2.75; P < 0.001), particularly among KTR with systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.80-2.92; P < 0.001; Pinteraction = 0.01) or smoking history (HR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.95-3.37; P < 0.001; Pinteraction = 0.03). Similarly, patients in the highest tertile of galectin-3 were consistently at increased risk of graft failure., Conclusions: Serum galectin-3 levels are elevated in KTR, and independently associated with increased risk of late graft failure. Whether galectin-3-targeted therapies may represent novel opportunities to decrease the long-standing high burden of late graft failure in stable KTR warrants further studies., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorders (CKD-MBD) and vascular calcification are often seen in kidney transplantation recipients (KTR). This study focused on the bone-vascular axis hypothesis, the pathophysiological mechanisms driving both bone loss and vascular calcification, supported by an association between lower bone mineral density (BMD) and higher risk of vascular calcification., Methods: KTR referred for a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry procedure within 6 mo after transplantation were included in a cross-sectional study (2004-2014). Areal BMD was measured at the proximal femur, and abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) was quantified (8-points score) from lateral single-energy images of the lumbar spine. Patients were divided into 3 AAC categories (negative-AAC: AAC 0; low-AAC: AAC 1-3; and high-AAC: AAC 4-8). Multivariable-adjusted multinomial logistic regression models were performed to study the association between BMD and AAC., Results: We included 678 KTR (51 ± 13 y old, 58% males), 366 (54%) had BMD disorders, and 266 (39%) had detectable calcification. High-AAC was observed in 9%, 11%, and 25% of KTR with normal BMD, osteopenia, and osteoporosis, respectively (P < 0.001). Higher BMD (T-score, continuous) was associated with a lower risk of high-AAC (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.88; P = 0.008), independent of age, sex, body mass index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and immunosuppressive therapy. KTR with normal BMD were less likely to have high-AAC (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.72; P = 0.01)., Conclusions: BMD disorders are highly prevalent in KTR. The independent inverse association between BMD and AAC may provide evidence to point toward the existence, while highlighting the clinical and epidemiological relevance, of a bone-vascular axis after kidney transplantation., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)