Search

Background Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 4 infection are poorly represented in clinical trials of 2nd-generation direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), and more data are needed to help guide treatment decisions. We still have even fewer data concerning liver transplant patients. Simeprevir (SIM) and sofosbuvir (SOF) combination is useful to treat this genotype. The aim of this study was to know the efficacy and safety of the combination SIM + SOF ± ribavirin (RBV) in a group of liver transplant patients with HCV genotype 4 infection in Spain in real life. Methods This was a multicenter retrospective study, including 28 HCV genotype 4 patients from 11 liver transplant centers who were treated with SIM + SOF ± RBV. We included in the analysis demographic, clinical, and virologic data and details of serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate 6 months after treatment. Results All patients were male, mean age 52 ± 9.43 years, and 50% were IL28B CT and 37.5% TT; 46.42% of them were pretreated and 76.9 were null responders. Fibrosis stage 4 was found in 38.7% of patients; in 67.8% of those cases the diagnosis of fibrosis was made with the use of Fibroscan, in 21.4% by liver biopsy. The average Fibroscan was 13.86 KPa. The average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of cirrhotic patients was 10.9 and the Child-Pugh score was A in 70%, B in 20%, and C in 10%. We included RBV in 75% of patients, and treatment duration was 12 weeks in all patients. The sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12) was 95.23%. There were no discontinuations due to SAEs, but the mortality rate at 6 months after treatment was 7.14%. All deceased patients were cirrhotic, Child C, and with an average MELD score of 20. Conclusions The combination SIM + SOF ± RBV to treat HCV genotype 4 in liver transplant patients is an option with high rates of SVR12 and very safe, similarly to genotype 1. There was no treatment-related mortality, but when it is administered in advanced stages of fibrosis it may not be enough to prevent mortality associated with cirrhotic hepatitis C recurrence after transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) diagnosis criteria have changed in recent consensus of Banff, with current evidence of C4d-negative AMR. Our objective was to evaluate incidence of AMR in renal transplantation according to Banff 2013 criteria and to examine the histological features and outcome. Methods This retrospective study involved all kidney transplants with histological diagnosis of acute rejection (AR) at our center between 2000 and 2014. All the biopsies with AR were re-assessed by a nephro-pathologist and classified by use of the Banff 2013 criteria. Results Of 205 kidney transplants, biopsy-proven AR was diagnosed in 25 cases (12%). Re-assessing them according to Banff 2013 criteria, AMR was diagnosed in 17 (8.3%) and represented 68% of the confirmed rejections. AMR diagnosis was performed on day 23 ± 26, with median of 11 days. From the 17 cases, 7 had concomitant T-cell–mediated rejection. All cases presented endothelial edema and acute tubular necrosis. Glomerulitis was found in 12 cases and capillaritis in 14. In 3, associated thrombotic micro-angiopathy (TMA) was found. Intimal and transmural arteritis was evidenced in 5 and 1 patient. In 2, transplant glomerulopathy was present. Seven of the 10 biopsies with C4d staining in the peri-tubular capillaries were positive. Twelve cases received plasmapheresis, 6 received gamma-globulin, and 6 received rituximab. After administration of anti-AMR therapy, 16 cases recovered renal function, reaching a serum creatinine level of 1.5 ± 0.6 mg %. Graft survival at 1 year was lower in the AMR group versus patients without AMR (81.9% vs 98.9%, log-rank test, P < .001). Risk factors for AMR were re-transplant (30% vs 7%, P = .02), HLA-DR mismatch (1.06 ± 0.65 vs 0.7 ± 0.6, P = .03), panel-reactive antibody (28% ± 33 vs 6.2 ± 13, P = .00), and delayed graft function (82% vs 30%, P = .00). Conclusions Adapting the new Banff 2013 criteria increased the sensitivity of the diagnosis of ARM. Regarding our data, despite an adequate response to the therapy, it resulted in a worse graft survival by the first year of renal transplant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: End–stage renal disease (ESRD) is a prevalent, important cause of death. Transplantation increases survival and improves the quality of life of patients with ESRD while long-term dialysis is related to poor outcomes even among patients who undergo subsequent transplantations. Objectives: To compare the advantages of preemptive procedures with kidney transplants among patients on renal replacement therapy. Methods: This retrospective study was performed in two Córdoba city transplantation centers. Patients were divided into three groups: preemptive kidney transplant (PKT), patients on hemodialysis who received living donor kidney transplants (LDT), and subjects who received grafts from deceased donors (DDT). Serum creatinine, delayed graft function (DGF), subclinical rejection, and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA) were evaluated at 6 months. Results: Eighty patients were included: PKT (n = 28), LDT (n = 27), DDT (n = 25) mean age 29, 30, and 35 years, respectively. Women predominated among PKT and men in the other groups. In all groups, cyclosporine was the calcineurin inhibitor mostly used. Creatinine at 6 months was lower in the living donor groups (1.26 mg/dL PKT and 1.32 mg/dL LDT; P = NS) in relation to the deceased donor group (1.96 mg/dL; P < .05). DDT had the highest rate of DGF: 44% DDT versus 11.5% LDT vs 0% PKT (P < .05). Subclinical rejection was significantly lower among preemptive transplantations: PKT 7.6% versus LDT 18.5% versus DDT 24% (P < .05). IF/TA was higher in transplants from deceased donors: PKT 11.1%; LDT 11.5%; DDT 32%. Conclusions: Preemptive kidney transplantation offered the advantages of a lower creatinine, no DGF, as well as a reduced incidence of subclinical rejection and chronic allograft nephropathy at 6 months posttransplantation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]