Adam Jeffrey Hoffmann1, Ian W Gibson2, Julie Ho3, Peter Nickerson3,4, David Rush3, Atul Sharma5, David Wishart6, Tom David Blydt-Hansen1. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 4. Shared Health Services Manitoba, Transplant/Immunology Lab, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 5. Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 6. The Metabolomics Innovation Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early TCMR surveillance with protocol kidney biopsy is used differentially among pediatric kidney transplant centers. Little has been reported about actual center-based differences, and this variability may influence TCMR ascertainment, treatment, and monitoring more broadly. METHODS: Data from the PROBE multicenter study were used to identify patients from centers conducting ESB or LSIB. ESB was defined as >50% of patients having at least 1 surveillance biopsy in the first 9 months. Patients were compared for number of biopsies, rejection episodes, treatment, and follow-up monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 261 biopsies were performed on 97 patients over 1-2 years of follow-up. A total of 228 (87%) of biopsies were performed in ESB centers. Compared to LSIB centers, ESB centers had 7-fold more episodes of TCMR diagnosed on any biopsy [0.8 ± 1.2 vs 0.1 ± 0.4; P < .001] and a 3-fold higher rate from indication biopsies [0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0.1 ± 0.3; P = .04]. The proportion of rejection treatment varied based on severity: Banff borderline i1t1 (40%);>i1t1 and < Banff 1A (86%); and ≥ Banff 1A (100%). Biopsies for follow-up were performed after treatment in 80% of cases (n = 28) of rejection almost exclusively at ESB centers, with 17 (61%) showing persistence of TCMR (≥i1t1). CONCLUSIONS: Practice variation exists across Canadian pediatric renal transplant centers with ESB centers identifying more episodes of rejection. Additionally, treatment of Banff borderline is not universal and varies with severity regardless of center type. Lastly, follow-up biopsies are performed inconsistently and invariably show persistence of rejection.
BACKGROUND: Early TCMR surveillance with protocol kidney biopsy is used differentially among pediatric kidney transplant centers. Little has been reported about actual center-based differences, and this variability may influence TCMR ascertainment, treatment, and monitoring more broadly. METHODS: Data from the PROBE multicenter study were used to identify patients from centers conducting ESB or LSIB. ESB was defined as >50% of patients having at least 1 surveillance biopsy in the first 9 months. Patients were compared for number of biopsies, rejection episodes, treatment, and follow-up monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 261 biopsies were performed on 97 patients over 1-2 years of follow-up. A total of 228 (87%) of biopsies were performed in ESB centers. Compared to LSIB centers, ESB centers had 7-fold more episodes of TCMR diagnosed on any biopsy [0.8 ± 1.2 vs 0.1 ± 0.4; P < .001] and a 3-fold higher rate from indication biopsies [0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0.1 ± 0.3; P = .04]. The proportion of rejection treatment varied based on severity: Banff borderline i1t1 (40%);>i1t1 and < Banff 1A (86%); and ≥ Banff 1A (100%). Biopsies for follow-up were performed after treatment in 80% of cases (n = 28) of rejection almost exclusively at ESB centers, with 17 (61%) showing persistence of TCMR (≥i1t1). CONCLUSIONS: Practice variation exists across Canadian pediatric renal transplant centers with ESB centers identifying more episodes of rejection. Additionally, treatment of Banff borderline is not universal and varies with severity regardless of center type. Lastly, follow-up biopsies are performed inconsistently and invariably show persistence of rejection.
Authors: Christie Rampersad; Robert Balshaw; Ian W Gibson; Julie Ho; Jamie Shaw; Martin Karpinski; Aviva Goldberg; Patricia Birk; David N Rush; Peter W Nickerson; Chris Wiebe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Julie Ho; George N Okoli; Rasheda Rabbani; Otto L T Lam; Viraj K Reddy; Nicole Askin; Christie Rampersad; Aaron Trachtenberg; Chris Wiebe; Peter Nickerson; Ahmed M Abou-Setta Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 9.369