Search

BACKGROUND Despite substantial improvements in short-term kidney allograft survival, median long-term survival remains at a standstill. It is unclear whether and to what extent a transplant centre's post-transplant care influences long-term outcomes. METHODS We retrospectively analysed 501 single kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who underwent transplantation between 2009 and 2018 and did not develop rejection or de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) within the first post-transplant year. After that, KTRs were either followed exclusively every 3 months by the transplant centre (n = 197) or every 3 months by local nephrologists (n = 304) with only yearly follow-up by the transplant centre. We analysed kidney allograft outcomes regarding estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, proteinuria, development of dnDSA and rejection. RESULTS No differences between the two groups were observed in the baseline characteristics and the characteristics at the end of the first post-transplant year (P > .05). KTRs followed by local nephrologists were comparable to KTRs followed by the transplant centre concerning patient survival (P = .541), kidney allograft survival (P = .385), eGFR decline (P = .488), progression of proteinuria (P > .05), the development of dnDSA (P = .335) and T-cell-mediated rejection (P = .480). KTRs followed by the transplant centre were more likely to undergo indication biopsies in case of allograft dysfunction and dnDSA (P < .001). Antibody-mediated rejection was diagnosed earlier and more frequently (P = .059), recurrent glomerulonephritis was diagnosed earlier and more frequently (P = .026) and immunosuppression was modified earlier and more frequently in response to histological findings (P = .038). CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that close collaboration between local nephrologists and the transplant centre ensures good allograft outcomes independent of the caregiver. Greater biopsy activity in the transplant centre allows for earlier

BackgroundIndication biopsies for deterioration of kidney allograft function often require follow-up biopsies to assess treatment response or lack of improvement. Immune-mediated injury, namely borderline rejection (BLR), T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR), or antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), results from preformed or de novo alloreactivity due to donor and recipient HLA-mismatches. The impact of HLA-mismatches on alloreactivity is determined by highly immunogenic HLA-epitopes.MethodsWe analyzed 123 kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) from 2009 to 2019 who underwent a first indication and a follow-up biopsy. KTRs were divided into three groups according to the first biopsy: No rejection (NR)/BLR (n=68); TCMR (n=21); ABMR (n=34). The HLA-derived epitope-mismatches were calculated using the Predicted Indirectly Recognizable HLA-Epitopes (PIRCHE-II) algorithm.ResultsGroup NR/BLR: KTRs with higher total PIRCHE-II scores were more likely to develop TCMR in the follow-up biopsy (p=0.031). Interestingly, these differences were significant for both HLA-class I- (p=0.017) and HLA-class II-derived (p=0.017) PIRCHE-II scores. Group TCMR: KTRs with ongoing TCMR in the follow-up biopsy were more likely to show higher total PIRCHE-II scores (median 101.50 vs. 74.00). Group ABMR: KTRs with higher total PIRCHE-II scores were more likely to show an increase in the microvascular inflammation score in the follow-up biopsy. This difference was more pronounced for the HLA-class II-derived PIRCHE-II scores (median 70.00 vs. 31.76; p=0.086).ConclusionsPIRCHE-II scores may prove useful as a biomarker to predict the histopathological changes of immune-related injury from a first indication to a follow-up biopsy. This immunological risk stratification may contribute to individualized treatment strategies.