Jayme E Locke1, Nathan T James, Roslyn B Mannon, Shikha G Mehta, Peter G Pappas, John W Baddley, Niraj M Desai, Robert A Montgomery, Dorry L Segev. 1. 1 Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 2 Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD. 3 Division of Transplant Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 5 Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 6 Address correspondence to: Jayme E. Locke, M.D., M.P.H., Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 701 19th Street South, LHRB 748, Birmingham, AL 35294.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KT) is the treatment for end-stage renal disease in appropriate HIV-positive individuals. However, acute rejection (AR) rates are over twice those of HIV-negative recipients. METHODS: To better understand optimal immunosuppression for HIV-positive KT recipients, we studied associations between immunosuppression regimen, AR at 1 year, and survival in 516 HIV-positive and 93,027 HIV-negative adult kidney-only recipients using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2003 to 2011. RESULTS: Consistent with previous reports, HIV-positive patients had twofold higher risk of AR (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.2; P<0.001) than their HIV-negative counterparts as well as a higher risk of graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.18-1.94; P=0.001), but these differences were not seen among patients receiving antithymocyte globulin (ATG) induction (aRR for AR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.41-3.35, P=0.77; adjusted hazard ratio for graft loss, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.73-3.25; P=0.26). Furthermore, HIV-positive patients receiving ATG induction had a 2.6-fold lower risk of AR (aRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.87; P=0.02) than those receiving no antibody induction. Conversely, HIV-positive patients receiving sirolimus-based therapy had a 2.2-fold higher risk of AR (aRR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.20-3.86; P=0.01) than those receiving calcineurin inhibitor-based regimens. CONCLUSION: These findings support a role for ATG induction, and caution against the use of sirolimus-based maintenance therapy, in HIV-positive individuals undergoing KT.
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KT) is the treatment for end-stage renal disease in appropriate HIV-positive individuals. However, acute rejection (AR) rates are over twice those of HIV-negative recipients. METHODS: To better understand optimal immunosuppression for HIV-positive KT recipients, we studied associations between immunosuppression regimen, AR at 1 year, and survival in 516 HIV-positive and 93,027 HIV-negative adult kidney-only recipients using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2003 to 2011. RESULTS: Consistent with previous reports, HIV-positive patients had twofold higher risk of AR (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.2; P<0.001) than their HIV-negative counterparts as well as a higher risk of graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.18-1.94; P=0.001), but these differences were not seen among patients receiving antithymocyte globulin (ATG) induction (aRR for AR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.41-3.35, P=0.77; adjusted hazard ratio for graft loss, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.73-3.25; P=0.26). Furthermore, HIV-positive patients receiving ATG induction had a 2.6-fold lower risk of AR (aRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.87; P=0.02) than those receiving no antibody induction. Conversely, HIV-positive patients receiving sirolimus-based therapy had a 2.2-fold higher risk of AR (aRR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.20-3.86; P=0.01) than those receiving calcineurin inhibitor-based regimens. CONCLUSION: These findings support a role for ATG induction, and caution against the use of sirolimus-based maintenance therapy, in HIV-positive individuals undergoing KT.
Authors: Juli M Bollinger; Ann Eno; Shanti Seaman; Diane Brown; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Aaron A R Tobian; Dorry L Segev; Christine M Durand; Jeremy Sugarman Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: B A Shelton; S Mehta; D Sawinski; R D Reed; P A MacLennan; S Gustafson; D L Segev; J E Locke Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: J F Suarez; R Rosa; M A Lorio; M I Morris; L M Abbo; J Simkins; G Guerra; D Roth; W L Kupin; A Mattiazzi; G Ciancio; L J Chen; G W Burke; M J Goldstein; P Ruiz; J F Camargo Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Ryan M Kern; Harish Seethamraju; Paul D Blanc; Niraj Sinha; Matthias Loebe; Jeff Golden; Jasleen Kukreja; Scott Scheinin; Steven Hays; Mary Ellen Kleinhenz; Lorri Leard; Charles Hoopes; Jonathan P Singer Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2014-07
Authors: J E Locke; B A Shelton; R D Reed; P A MacLennan; S Mehta; D Sawinski; D L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Marco A Lorio; Rossana Rosa; Jose F Suarez; Phillip Ruiz; Gaetano Ciancio; George W Burke; Jose F Camargo Journal: Transpl Immunol Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 1.708