Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation: Analysis of the Brazilian Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cohort.

BACKGROUND: Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (aHUS) is an ultra-rare disease that potentially leads to kidney graft failure due to ongoing Thrombotic Microangiopathy (TMA). The aim was evaluating the frequency of TMA after kidney transplantation in patients with aHUS in a Brazilian cohort stratified by the use of the specific complement-inhibitor eculizumab.
METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including kidney transplant patients diagnosed with aHUS. We collected data from 118 transplant centers in Brazil concerning aHUS transplanted patients between 01/01/2007 and 12/31/2019. Patients were stratified into three groups: no use of eculizumab (No Eculizumab Group), use of eculizumab for treatment of after transplantation TMA (Therapeutic Group), and use of eculizumab for prophylaxis of aHUS recurrence (Prophylactic Group).
RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with aHUS who received kidney transplantation were enrolled in the study. Patients' mean age was 30 years (24-40), and the majority of participants was women (63% of cases). In the No Eculizumab Group (n = 11), there was a 91% graft loss due to the TMA. The hazard ratio of TMA graft loss was 0.07 [0.01-0.55], p = 0.012 in the eculizumab Prophylactic Group and 0.04 [0.00-0.28], p = 0.002 in the eculizumab Therapeutic Group.
CONCLUSION: The TMA graft loss in the absence of a specific complement-inhibitor was higher among the Brazilian cohort of kidney transplant patients. This finding reinforces the need of eculizumab use for treatment of aHUS kidney transplant patients. Cost optimization analysis and the early access to C5 inhibitors are suggested, especially in low-medium income countries.

Introduction

The atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (aHUS) is an ultra-rare disease with an incidence of approximately 0.5 cases per million inhabitants per year, and more than half of patients affected by this disease have an intrinsic or acquired abnormality related to the complement system [1]. The aHUS is a consequence of the dysregulation of the alternative complement pathway due to genetic factors, such as autoantibodies and mutations in the proteins of the complement system in approximately 60% of cases [2]. The use of plasmapheresis is the primary supportive treatment in suspected aHUS, however, almost 70% of cases progress to renal replacement therapy and death within 3 years after diagnosis [3]. Currently, the treatment of choice [2, 4] for aHUS is the administration of eculizumab, which showed lower rates of relapses and better renal function compared with plasmapheresis [5-7]. The eculizumab is a long-acting humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits the cleavage of C5 into C5a and C5b and, hence it inhibits deployment of the terminal complement system including the formation of membrane attack complex (C5b-9). The blockade of the terminal complement pathway performed by the drug quickly and sustainably reduces the process of uncontrolled C5 activation [8].

In the scenario of kidney transplantation, prophylaxis of Thrombotic Microangiopathy (TMA) recurrence with plasmapheresis has shown unsatisfactory results with a negative impact on graft and patient survival [9, 10]. The prophylaxis of recurrence with eculizumab was considered more effective and this has been recommended as the first line prevention strategy [11, 12]. However, due to the high cost of this medication, especially in middle-income countries, the evaluation of its effectiveness is extremely important. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the recurrence of TMA after kidney transplantation in patients with aHUS in a cohort of Brazilian patients who were stratified by the use of the specific complement-inhibitor eculizumab.

Methods

Population

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including kidney transplant recipients diagnosed with aHUS. We contacted the 118 transplant centers in Brazil through the Brazilian Transplant Association (ABTO) and invited them to report data on the aHUS transplanted patients. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of Botucatu-UNESP (CAE#: 2,810,751). All data were collected from previously anonymized and de-identified databases. Since it did not involve identifiable private information, a waiver of informed consent was granted.

Inclusion criteria

All patients diagnosed with aHUS either as primary disease or after relapsing in a kidney transplantation between January 1st, 2007 and December 31st, 2019. The last follow-up was December 31st, 2020.

Exclusion criteria

Patients who did not fulfill the aHUS diagnostic criteria described below.

Diagnosis of aHUS

The diagnosis of aHUS was performed using the clinical history and laboratory exams compatible with TMA (microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, increased lactate dehydrogenase > 1.5 upper normal limit, thrombocytopenia, and kidney injury), and by excluding drug use, infections, and secondary causes [13, 14]. All cases were submitted to a post-transplant renal biopsy which had to be compatible with TMA, characterized by deposition of platelet-rich fibrin or occluding thrombi in at least one glomerulus and/or renal artery or arteriole [15, 16]. In all cases, a diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection was ruled out by histology and by a negative result of the anti-donor antibody (DSA). The ADAMTS 13 (disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif) activity assay was done in all cases after the year 2011, and values above 5% excluding severe deficiency, i.e., Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. At the time of diagnosis, autoimmune diseases were also ruled out and the viral serology was performed (cytomegalovirus, BK virus, and HIV). The diagnosis of all aHUS was reviewed following the steps suggested by de Andrade et al. [17].

Genetic analysis

Genetic analysis was performed according to the indication of each center and this was not required for diagnostic confirmation. The most common test was the aHUS panel which comprised the amplification and sequencing of complete regions of genes encoding ADAMTS13, C3, CD46, CFB, CFHR1, CFHR2, CFHR3, CFHR5, CFI, DGKE, PIGA, THBD, and including 10 bases pairs next to exons. The analyses were performed according to the protocol described by Richards et al. [18].

Donor Specific Antibody (DSA)

Detection of DSA from January 2000 until the end of the study period was conducted for class I in loci A, B, and C, and for class II loci DP, DQ, and DR using the single antigen by the Luminex technique. A positive result was considered when mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) was greater than 1500 pre-transplant and greater than 300 post-transplant. Before January 2000, the panel was performed using the complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) technique without quantification of specific antibodies.

Immunosuppression

The immunosuppression protocol and choice of induction therapy were defined at each center according to local protocols. The immunosuppression switch after the aHUS diagnosis was managed by each center according to its protocol as part of the aHUS differential diagnosis process.

Treatment of microangiopathy

For the treatment of TMA, plasmapheresis, plasma infusion, and treatment with specific complement inhibitors (Eculizumab, eculizumab—Soliris®, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Cheshire, CT, USA) were used according to the availability.

Administration of eculizumab

Patients were stratified into three groups according to the use of eculizumab:

No eculizumab use: Patients who did not receive any dose of complement inhibitor before or after transplantation.

Therapeutic Group: patients who received eculizumab at the time of diagnosis of post-transplantation TMA, comprising a loading dose of 900 mg per week for a total of 4 weeks, followed by 1200 mg at week 5 and then 1200mg every 15 days.

Prophylactic Group: Patients who received a 900 mg dose on the day of the surgery before organ transplant reperfusion followed by a 900mg dose after 24 hours, and then 1200mg every 15 days.

No patient was discontinued eculizumab after starting treatment.

Predictor variables

All data was collected through an unidentified form. Demographics and epidemiological data, transplant characteristics and immunosuppression.

Demographics and epidemiological data, i.e, gender, age at diagnosis, ethnicity, panel reactivity antibody (PRA), underlying kidney disease, presence of comorbidities, dialysis method (peritoneal, hemodialysis or preemptive), time on dialysis, living or deceased donor transplantation, number of HLA mismatches, donor’s age and cause of deceased donor death.

Immunosuppression data: induction therapy (basiliximab, thymoglobulin or no induction) and maintenance therapy (combination of calcineurin inhibitor with mycophenolate or azathioprine or the combination of calcineurin inhibitor with mTOR inhibitor).

Acute rejection was clinically presumed (elevation of serum creatinine of at least 20% compared to baseline) or was biopsy-proven within the first year of transplantation. Time lapse between aHUS relapse and acute rejection was calculated. All biopsy-proven rejections were described according to Banff 2017 criteria [19].

TMA recurrence

TMA recurrence was defined as the presence of two or more of the following presentations: 1—thrombi in renal graft biopsy; 2—acute kidney injury (> 50% increase in baseline creatinine); 3—thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150,000/μL); 4 –microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (Hb <10 g/dL, lactate dehydrogenase more than 1.5 times reference upper limit value, consumed haptoglobin, presence of schistocytes in the peripheral blood).

Groups

Three groups were analyzed. Patients with aHUS with the absence of specific treatment, those with aHUS with eculizumab prophylactic treatment, and those with aHUS with eculizumab treatment after transplantation.

No eculizumab use

Patients who did not receive any dose of specific complement-inhibitor.

Prophylactic eculizumab

Patients with a pre-transplant aHUS diagnosis who underwent kidney transplantation during eculizumab treatment or who started the medication before graft reperfusion.

Eculizumab treatment

Patients who presented TMA in the post-transplant period and received eculizumab for the treatment of recurrence.

Outcome

The primary outcome analyzed was the recurrence of TMA leading to graft loss. Secondary outcomes analyzed were the number of rejection episodes and death.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were presented as medians and percentiles (25 and 75%) and categorical variables were expressed as numbers and percentages. Comparisons between groups for continuous variables were made using the Kruskal-Wallis test and for categorical ones, we used the chi-square test. Adjustment test was used for multiple comparisons: False discovery rate correction for multiple testing according to Benjamini & Hochberg (1995) [20].

Kaplan-Meier analysis was constructed to estimate the effect of treatment on the incidence of the outcome (TMA graft loss). Hazard ratio estimates were performed using Cox regression. The validity of the Cox model was assessed by the Schoenfeld residue analysis. The analyzes were made with the software R version 4.0.2 and the survival and gtsummary packages.

Results

Of the 118 kidney transplant centers in Brazil, 6 centers agreed to participate and completed the regulatory procedures and provided data from 45 patients with a presumed diagnosis of aHUS. Of the 45 patients, 7 cases were excluded because they did not fulfill the aHUS criteria (, that is, presence of antibody-mediated rejection (n = 3), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (n = 1), and absence of TMA findings at baseline kidney biopsy (n = 3). Thus, our final sample included 38 patients (.

The median age was 30 (24–40) years, with a predominance of females (63%), the most frequent kidney disease was undetermined, and the majority of aHUS patients were transplanted with a deceased donor (68%). The majority were induced with thymoglobulin (61%) and the maintenance immunosuppression was the combination of tacrolimus associated with mycophenolate and prednisone (75%). The median year of aHUS presentation was the year 2015 (2013, 2017) (.

Of the total, 42% underwent plasmapheresis treatment and 71% received eculizumab (26% received plasmapheresis and eculizumab). According to eculizumab stratification, 11 patients were in the No Eculizumab use, 10 were in the Prophylactic Group and 17 were in the Therapeutic Group. The TMA graft loss occurred in 32% (n = 12/38) of the cases, and 17% (n = 6/38) of patients died during the study period (.

The analysis of genetic variants was performed in 19 patients (50% of the sample). Negative results were found in 26% of the patients. Among the positive findings, the most frequent variant was detected in Factor H (26%). The variants related to factor H proteins (CFHR5 and CFHR1-CFHR3), Factor I and Thrombomodulin had a frequency of 10.5% each (). Detailed analyses of the variants are described in the (. The frequency of variants divided by groups was provided in the (.

When analyzing the groups, 91% (n = 10/11) of patients in the group that did not receive eculizumab lost the graft due to the aHUS recurrence. In contrast, both groups that received the eculizumab had lower rates of graft loss, 10% (n = 1/10) in the Prophylactic Group and 5.9% (n = 1/17) in the Therapeutic Group (p <0.001) ( In the prophylactic group one patient evolved to graft loss due to TMA after hospitalization due to arteriovenous fistula thrombosis and had a delay of eculizumab infusion at that time. In the treatment group one patient lost the graft, probably due to a delay in starting eculizumab treatment, which was performed more than 120 days after diagnosis.

The acute rejection occurred in 67% of the patients who did not use the eculizumab compared with 0 and 35% in the Prophylactic and Therapeutic groups, respectively (p = 0.021) (. The use of eculizumab occurred more recently (2015 for the therapeutic group and 2017 for the prophylactic group) compared with the group that did not receive the drug (2013, p = 0.07) (.

The incidence of TMA graft loss at 1000 days was respectively in the therapeutic, prophylaxis and no eculizumab groups: 7.6%, 10%, and 86.4%, p <0.0001 ( The hazard ratio graft loss was 0.07 [0.01–0.55], p = 0.012 in the eculizumab Prophylactic group and 0.04 [0.00–0.28], p = 0.002 in Therapeutic group, much lower compared with the eculizumab non-use group.

The cumulative survival at 1000 days was 100% in the Prophylaxis, 70% in Therapeutic group, and 40% in the no eculizumab group (p = 0.13) (. The cause of death in the eculizumab treatment were: hemorrhagic shock (n = 1) and septic shock (n = 3). The cause of death in no eculizumab treatment was TMA recurrence (n = 2) (

Time of aHUS diagnosis

Regarding the year of aHUS diagnosis, two patients in the no eculizumab group were diagnosed before the year of 2010. Patients in the eculizumab groups (prophylactic or therapeutic) were diagnosed after the year 2010 and the majority of the cases evolved without TMA recurrence (.

Outcomes of the Brazilian aHUS cohort patients divided by year of the aHUS diagnosis.

Colors: not received eculizumab (red), prophylactic eculizumab (green) and eculizumab treatment (blue).

Discussion

The present study evaluated TMA recurrence in a large cohort including aHUS patients after kidney transplantation in Brazil. The Brazilian aHUS cohort was composed predominantly of women (63%) and young adults (30 years), which is a similar finding reported by other studies [6, 21, 22]. Before the advent of complement inhibitors, the treatment of these patients was limited to plasmapheresis and/or plasma infusion that had shown unsatisfactory results [23]. Confirming these observations, in another Brazilian cohort of TMA patients after transplantation, the graft survival was greatly reduced without the use of specific complement-inhibitors [24]. However, the inclusion of eculizumab as a therapeutic or prophylactic option after transplantation has been significantly improving graft survival [7, 8] by preventing the recurrence of TMA [17, 22]. We demonstrated that the use of the eculizumab in prophylaxis or treatment was associated with a significant reduction in TMA graft loss.

In our cohort, 42% of the patients underwent plasmapheresis, but the use of the eculizumab was the best predictor associated with a lower risk of TMA recurrence. A French cohort conducted by Zuber et al. had demonstrated that eculizumab had revolutionized clinical outcomes after kidney transplantation, practically abolishing graft losses due to the TMA recurrence [25]. Similarly, Siedlecki et al. [26] from the Global aHUS Registry, showed that a delay in eculizumab treatment is associated with an increased risk of dialysis after transplantation and reduced allograft function. Thus, according to KDIGO [1], patients diagnosed with aHUS should be treated primarily with eculizumab aiming to prevent TMA recurrence. Despite these recommendations, the use of eculizumab in middle-income countries is still a challenge.

In Brazil, the first use of prophylactic eculizumab reported in our cohort occurred in 2011 through compassionate use [27]. Almost all cases in this cohort had initial access to medication by compassionate access program (92% of cases) followed by the access to judicialization. The eculizumab was registered by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) in March 2017 [28]. In 2018, a specialized evaluation was requested from the Brazilian Institute of Health (CONITEC) to incorporate the medication into the public health system. However, in 2019 CONITEC concluded that eculizumab was not suitable to be incorporated into the public health system due to the high cost of this therapy [29]. For this reason, currently, in Brazil, the only way to access eculizumab is through judicialization, which in this country is a lengthy process and that delays the beginning of the treatment in months [30]. Despite these difficulties, the higher rates of eculizumab use in the present cohort (71%) possibly reflect on the structure of the transplant services in Brazil that is linked to university centers, which could accelerate the investigation of rare diseases. Another contributing factor to eculizumab availability was the access by a compassionate access program that was available until the year 2019.

The impact of this information is relevant to Brazil, which is ranked at the first position in the number of transplants performed by the Brazilian public health system (SUS) [31] and reserves for this purpose an annual budget around R$1 billion [31]. In this context, the use of a high-cost medication such as eculizumab, which acquisition expenditure by the Brazilian government in the year 2016 was R$624,621,376.84 (60% of the annual budget destined for transplantation) may jeopardize the sustainability of the health program [29]. Thus, an ethical dilemma is imposed on the use of a high-cost medication, but that shows great efficacy. Cost-effectiveness studies have shown that the long-term use of eculizumab was not cost-effective in transplantation. In contrast, short-term use of eculizumab upon recurrence has proven to be cost-effective and has resulted in an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 9.55 [32]. Despite the uncertainty regarding the safety of eculizumab interruption after transplantation [33] it seems rational to propose its use for a short-time period compared to providing no access to the treatment with eculizumab. This strategy may benefit the access of eculizumab without resulting in an excessive cost to the public health system, especially in low-income countries. However, to date, the best strategy to definided eculizumab interruption was based on genetic analysis [25, 34]. The cost-effectiveness of accessing eculizumab for kidney transplant patients should be based on genetic analysis, thus, it is necessary to include the genetic profile for patients with suspicion for aHUS. In those classified at high to moderate risk according to KDIGO 2017 [1] we strongly consider prophylaxis. As the opposite, we consider discontinuing the use in those without identified genetic variants, as well as the saving of 32 million euros realized by the STOPECU study [34] after the discontinuation of 55 patients with an average of 24 months of follow-up.

The mortality observed in the no eculizumab group was higher and earlier after transplantation, this is possibly related to the uncontrolled activity of the complement system. Intermediate mortality was observed in the therapeutic group that may be justified by the delay between diagnosis and medication availability, a similar finding to what was reported in the aHUS registry [26]. The best survival (100%) was observed in the prophylaxis group that received the medication in a planned way. There were no infections secondary to encapsulated organisms as a result of eculizumab treatment.

Another point of this study was the high rate of acute rejection in the first year of transplantation, reaching up to 67% in the group that did not receive eculizumab and 35% in the eculizumab treatment group. This fact can be attributed to the conversion or reduction of immunosuppression at the time of the clinical presentation of TMA, such as the suspension of the calcineurin inhibitor [17]. Corroborating with this fact, in the prophylaxis group, where changes in immunosuppression were not performed, there were no episodes of rejection. Regarding the severity of the rejection episodes, although there is no biopsy-proven of all cases, the response to treatment with corticosteroids, and the absence of anti-donor antibodies reinforce the fact that they were probably T-cell-mediated rejections.

Another important piece of information was the genetic analysis that can be used to determine the genetic profile of the Brazilian population recognized by high rates of miscegenation [35]. The difficulty to prescribe genetic tests in a middle-income country as Brazil is reflected in this series in which 50% of the sample did not have access to genetics. Of the cases that underwent genetic analysis tests, in 26% no variant was found, similar to the literature that reports rates of 30–40% [36]. Of those cases that had variants, the most frequent was in Factor H, a similar result reported by other authors [11, 37]. We found a higher frequency of variants related to the complement system such as CFHR1-CFHR3 and CFHR5 in this cohort, similarly to other Brazilian cohorts such as Palma et al. [21], Andrade et al. e Ernandes-Neto [33]. Additionally, two cases were found with variants related to the coagulation system (thrombomodulin) related to the aHUS [38].

Study limitations

This is an observational study that has design limitations of a retrospective analysis. The optimal design for comparing different treatments would be a randomized study. However, we were unable to adopt such a design given the rare characteristic of aHUS. The access to complement inhibitor medication was not homogeneous in each center, varying according to the local protocol and availability of the compassionate access program. The group that did not receive the eculizumab was different from the other two groups. These patients received a kidney transplant in older time and had higher rates of acute rejection and lower use of induction therapy. These may compromise the results of the graft survival analysis. Additionally, we could not confirm the episodes of acute rejection with a biopsy proven.

As we evaluated a retrospective cohort, cases from different timelines were included. Despite the large period considered in this study, the majority of the cases (95%) was contemporarily occurring after the year of 2011. There were only two patients (5% of the sample) diagnosed before 2010, where there was no possibility of treatment with complement inhibitors. In genetic analysis, despite the presence of variants related to Factor H (CFHR1-CFHR3 and CFHR5), there was no possibility of dosing the anti-factor H antibody because these tests are not available in Brazil. Due to the sample size, it was not possible to add other confounding variables in the Cox analysis or to perform stratifications by the type of genetic variant.

Despite these limitations, to our knowledge, this is the first study of the Brazilian aHUS cohort in kidney transplantation. In a country with limited resources such as Brazil and with a huge public transplant program, analyzing the eculizumab treatment is fundamental to define public health policies.

Conclusion

The TMA graft loss in the absence of a specific complement-inhibitor was high in the Brazilian cohort of kidney transplant patients. This reinforces the need for eculizumab use in kidney transplant patients diagnosed with aHUS as a prophylactic or therapeutic approach. There was a tendency of better results due to the use of eculizumab prophylactic, which resulted in better patient survival rate. Further cost-effectiveness and discontinuity studies are warranted to assess the financial impact on the eculizumab use in kidney transplantation, especially in low-medium income countries.

Results of genetic analysis in cases submitted to genetic analysis (n = 19) in the Brazilian aHUS cohort in kidney transplantation.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

The demographic data and complete genetic analysis in the Brazilian aHUS cohort in kidney transplantation.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The frequency of variants divided by groups: No eculizumab use, eculizumab treatment, and prophylactic eculizumab in the Brazilian aHUS cohort in kidney transplantation.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Cause of mortality in the Brazilian aHUS cohort in kidney transplantation.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-24463

Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation: analysis of the Brazilian Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cohort

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Andrade,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript focuses on a topic of potential interest. However, the study has several drawbacks that should be addressed before reaching sound conclusion. To mention some of them, i) concern about the fact that there are 118 kidney transplant centers across Brazil, but only 6 accepted to include their patients in this retrospective study; ii) unclear how many patients were  kidney transplanted across Brazil and how many in the 6 centers enrolled during the period of 12 years of this retrospective study; iii) need to provide donor-specific alloantibodies (DSAs) at the time of TMA recurrence; iv) need to provide the cause of allograft loss across the 3 groups; v) concern about the fact that the results are confirmatory in nature; vi) unclear how many patients lost their graft in the Prophylactic and Treatment groups; vii) need to provide detail of the genetic analysis for the group treated with eculizumab versus the group that was untreated; viii) concern about the fact that the cause of end-stage renal disease is undetermined in almost half of patients; ix) concern about the fact that the complement genetic data are available only in half of included patients and the distribution of complement gene variants within the three groups of patients is unknown; x) concern about the high incidence of acute rejection in the group of patients who did not receive eculizumab, which is a confounding factor for the analysis of graft loss; xi) need to provide the causes of death in patients who did not receive prophylactic eculizumab; xii) need to focus the discussion more on the results; xiii) need to clarify that only prophylactic eculizumab prevents recurrence; xiv) need to underline that the differences in the survival probabilities between groups are not statistically significant probably due to the small sample size.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Remuzzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"L.M.P.P., S.M.C.M, and L.G.M.A. have receive fees as lectures for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Brazil. All the other authors declared no competing interests. "

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: "Alexion Pharmaceuticals".

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors report on their experience with renal transplantation in patients with a presumed or confirmed diagnosis of aHUS in 6 Brazilian transplant centres. They included 38 patients, a significant number of patients in regard of the rarity of the disease. For the purpose of the analysis, the patients were divided into three groups: no treatment with eculizumab, curative or prophylactic treatment with eculizumab.

The authors conclude that eculizumab use (particularly as prophylaxis) significantly improved graft but also patients’ survival. The novelty of the data is rather limited, and previous larger studies have shown similar trends for graft loss due to aHUS recurrence.

I have the following major comments:

a) The cause of end-stage renal disease is undetermined in a large proportion (almost half) of patients.

b) The complement genetic data are available in only 19/38 included patients and the distribution of complement gene variants within the three groups of patients is unknown. This is a crucial point as complement variants are a major predictor for aHUS relapse after renal transplantation. The detected variants should also be classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic or variants of unknown significance.

c) The high incidence of acute rejection (67%) in the group of patients who did not receive eculizumab is clearly a confounding factor for the analysis of graft loss. Besides, this group included the highest rate of living donors (55%) and no induction therapy in 44% of cases. It is in sharp contrast with the Dutch experience with living donation without prophylactic eculizumab in aHUS pateunts.

d) What were the causes of death in patients who did not receive prophylactic eculizumab? A rate of 20-27% of death in two groups of pateints is unusually high and hardly explained by a potential aHUS recurrence.

d) The discussion is more focused on the accessibility to eculizumab in Brazil rather than on the results of the study. A cost-effective use of eculizumab in renal transplantation is based in good part on genetic analysis, and this point needs to be more developed (see reference Zuber et al. JASN).

Reviewer #2: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study on 38 patients with ESKD due to aHUS who underwent kidney transplant. Patients were stratified into three groups: no use of eculizumab (No Eculizumab Group), use of eculizumab for treatment of after transplantation TMA (Therapeutic Group), and use of eculizumab for prophylaxis of aHUS recurrence (Prophylatic Group). In the No Eculizumab Group (n=11), there was a 91% graft loss due to the TMA. The hazard ratio of TMA graft loss was 0.07 [0.01-0.55], p = 0.012 in the eculizumab Prophylatic Group and 0.04 [0.00 - 0.28], p =0.002 in the eculizumab Therapeutic Group. The authors conclude that TMA graft loss in the absence of a specific complement-inhibitor was higher among the Brazilian cohort of kidney transplant patients. This finding reinforces the need of eculizumab use for treatment of aHUS kidney transplant patients.

This is a nice retrospective study in a group of patients with an ultrarare disease.

Comments:

1. How many patients lost their graph in the Prophylactic and Treatment group? The manuscript just gives %

2. Please clarify: “42% underwent plasmapheresis and 79% received eculizumab”. This is not clear for total number of patients that received eculizumab was 27/38 = 71%

3. “TMA graft loss occurred in 32% of cases and 17% died” please give actual numbers.

4. Please provide detail of the genetic analysis for the group treated with Eculizumab versus the group that was untreated.

5. Table 2. 18 + 19 = 37. There is 1 patient missing.

6. Please provide details of the Eculizumab regime used. Was Eculizumab ever discontinued post-transplant? What was the criteria used? What was the outcome in patients that discontinued Eculizumab?

7. There are a few typos/grammar mistakes that need to be fixed.

Reviewer #3: This interesting article highlights the efficacy of complement blockage in preventing and treating the aHUS recurrence after kidney transplantation. The results are consistent with those previously published by Zuber and Siedlecky, as you mentioned in the paper. It would had been very interesting if the genetic study of all patients was available. In spite of that, is important to remark that the patients with CFI mutations had TMA recurrence only if they have combined mutations

- P26 line 8:

"However, the inclusion of the eculizumab as a therapeutic option after transplantation has been significantly improving graft surviva by preventing the recurrence of TMA"

In this line, only prophylactic eculizumab prevents recurrence. Please, clarify.

- In the discussion section, you have mentioned the probable causes associated to the high rate of acute rejection.However, you haven't showed data related to this assumption in the results section. Could you give more information?

- The differences in the survival probabilities between groups are not statistically significant, probably due to the small sample size. Please, remark this finding

Reviewer #4: I reviewed the manuscript PONE-D-21-24463 titled "Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation: analysis of the Brazilian Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cohort". This is a retrospective multicentris small cohort study that included only 38 aHUS KTx.

Because the results are confirmatory in nature the papzr deserves not more than a Letter to the Editor.

There are 118 kidney transplant centers across Brazil but only ..... 6 accepted to include their patients in this retrospective study that took place between January 2007 and December 2019. during that period of 12 years how many patients were kidney transplanted across Brazil and how many in these 6 centers?

Were donor-specific alloantibodies (DSAs) looked for at the time of TMA recurrence, i.e., in many patients the cause of ESRD was not aHUS?

Across the 3 groups what were the causes of allograft loss?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Fernando C Fervenza

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Sep 2021

Reviewer #1: The authors report on their experience with renal transplantation in patients with a presumed or confirmed diagnosis of aHUS in 6 Brazilian transplant centres. They included 38 patients, a significant number of patients in regard of the rarity of the disease. For the purpose of the analysis, the patients were divided into three groups: no treatment with eculizumab, curative or prophylactic treatment with eculizumab.

The authors conclude that eculizumab use (particularly as prophylaxis) significantly improved graft but also patients’ survival. The novelty of the data is rather limited, and previous larger studies have shown similar trends for graft loss due to aHUS recurrence.

I have the following major comments:

a) The cause of end-stage renal disease is undetermined in a large proportion (almost half) of patients.

In the initial pre-transplant evaluation, the diagnosis of kidney disease was undetermined. However, at this time, the aHUS evaluation was not carried out because they had no diagnostic suspicion. These patients evolved with aHUS after transplantation and after that were treated with eculizumab (eculizumab treatment group). In fact, these groups of patients were probably aHUS undiagnosed prior kidney transplant.

b) The complement genetic data are available in only 19/38 included patients and the distribution of complement gene variants within the three groups of patients is unknown. This is a crucial point as complement variants are a major predictor for aHUS relapse after renal transplantation. The detected variants should also be classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic or variants of unknown significance.

Thank you for the very important comment. We adjusted the table with this requested information – (supplementary S2 Table and S3 Table).

c) The high incidence of acute rejection (67%) in the group of patients who did not receive eculizumab is clearly a confounding factor for the analysis of graft loss. Besides, this group included the highest rate of living donors (55%) and no induction therapy in 44% of cases. It is in sharp contrast with the Dutch experience with living donation without prophylactic eculizumab in aHUS patients.

We agree with the reviewer. The group that did not receive the eculizumab was different from the other two groups. These patients received a kidney transplant in older time and had higher rates of acute rejection and lower use of induction therapy. These may compromise the results of the graft survival analysis. We included these in the limitations. However, we believe that this limitation did not compromise the primary study aim that was the TMA recurrence.

d) What were the causes of death in patients who did not receive prophylactic eculizumab? A rate of 20-27% of death in two groups of patients is unusually high and hardly explained by a potential aHUS recurrence.

We considered a broad range of follow-up, and it is possible that the mortality was not exclusively related to aHUS recurrence. We included a one-year death in addition to the all-time follow-up death.

One-year death rate was respectively in no eculizumab treatment, prophylactic and eculizumab treatment: 9%, 0% and 12%. We also included a supplementary Table with all causes and time of death (S4 Table)

Group Mortality Cause Time Post-transplant

Eculizumab treatment Hemorrhagic shock in the postoperative period 9 months

Eculizumab treatment Septic shock after hysterectomy and enterectomy 32 months

Eculizumab treatment Septic shock secondary to an infected foot ulcer 10 months

Eculizumab treatment Septic shock to urinary infection. 21 months

No Eculizumab use TMA recurrence 21 months

No Eculizumab use TMA recurrence 6 months

d) The discussion is more focused on the accessibility to eculizumab in Brazil rather than on the results of the study. A cost-effective use of eculizumab in renal transplantation is based in good part on genetic analysis, and this point needs to be more developed (see reference Zuber et al. JASN).

We agree and discuss the cost-effective use of eculizumab in renal transplantation based on genetic analysis:

The cost-effectiveness of accessing eculizumab for kidney transplant patients should be based on genetic analysis, thus, it is necessary to include the genetic profile for patients with suspicion for aHUS. In those classified at high to moderate risk according to KDIGO 2017 we strongly consider prophylaxis. As the opposite, we consider discontinuing the use in those without identified genetic variants, as well as the saving of 32 million euros realized by the STOPECU study (Fakhouri et al, 2021) after the discontinuation of 55 patients with an average of 24 months of follow-up.

Reviewer #2: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study on 38 patients with ESKD due to aHUS who underwent kidney transplant. Patients were stratified into three groups: no use of eculizumab (No Eculizumab Group), use of eculizumab for treatment of after transplantation TMA (Therapeutic Group), and use of eculizumab for prophylaxis of aHUS recurrence (Prophylatic Group). In the No Eculizumab Group (n=11), there was a 91% graft loss due to the TMA. The hazard ratio of TMA graft loss was 0.07 [0.01-0.55], p = 0.012 in the eculizumab Prophylatic Group and 0.04 [0.00 - 0.28], p =0.002 in the eculizumab Therapeutic Group. The authors conclude that TMA graft loss in the absence of a specific complement-inhibitor was higher among the Brazilian cohort of kidney transplant patients. This finding reinforces the need of eculizumab use for treatment of aHUS kidney transplant patients.

This is a nice retrospective study in a group of patients with an ultra-rare disease.

Comments:

1. How many patients lost their graph in the Prophylactic and Treatment group? The manuscript just gives %

We provided the number in the text and Table 03.

Group Lost-Graft

Eculizumab treatment (n=17) TMA recurrence (n=1)

Prophylactic eculizumab (n=10) TMA recurrence (n=1)

No Eculizumab use (n=11) TMA recurrence (n=10)

2. Please clarify: “42% underwent plasmapheresis and 79% received eculizumab”. This is not clear for total number of patients that received eculizumab was 27/38 = 71%

That's correct, 71% received eculizumab. We will adjust it.

3. “TMA graft loss occurred in 32% of cases and 17% died” please give actual numbers.

We provided the numbers through the text

4. Please provide details of the genetic analysis for the group treated with Eculizumab versus the group that was untreated.

We will send it in supplementary (S3 Table)

5. Table 2. 18 + 19 = 37. There is 1 patient missing.

Sorry, it was a mistake. There are 19 without testing and 19 with genetic variant analysis

6. Please provide details of the Eculizumab regime used. Was Eculizumab ever discontinued post-transplant? What was the criteria used? What was the outcome in patients that discontinued Eculizumab?

No patient was discontinued eculizumab after starting treatment. In the prophylactic group one patient evolved to graft loss due to TMA after hospitalization due to arteriovenous fistula thrombosis and had a delay of eculizumab infusion at that time. In the treatment group one patient lost the graft, probably due to a delay in starting eculizumab treatment, which was performed more than 120 days after diagnosis.

We provided these informations in the text

7. There are a few typos/grammar mistakes that need to be fixed.

We are sorry, we revised the manuscript for grammar mistakes

Reviewer #3: This interesting article highlights the efficacy of complement blockage in preventing and treating the aHUS recurrence after kidney transplantation. The results are consistent with those previously published by Zuber and Siedlecky, as you mentioned in the paper. It would had been very interesting if the genetic study of all patients was available. In spite of that, is important to remark that the patients with CFI mutations had TMA recurrence only if they have combined mutations

- P26 line 8:

"However, the inclusion of the eculizumab as a therapeutic option after transplantation has been significantly improving graft survival by preventing the recurrence of TMA"

In this line, only prophylactic eculizumab prevents recurrence. Please, clarify.

We modified to:

"However, the inclusion of the eculizumab as a therapeutic or prophylactic option after transplantation has been significantly improving graft survival by preventing the recurrence of TMA"

- In the discussion section, you have mentioned the probable causes associated to the high rate of acute rejection. However, you haven't showed data related to this assumption in the results section. Could you give more information?

Unfortunately, we could not retrieve more information about the episodes of acute rejection especially in the cases related to the untreated group (the majority were not biopsy proven). We add this information in the limitations section.

- The differences in the survival probabilities between groups are not statistically significant, probably due to the small sample size. Please, remark this finding

We highlight these finding

Reviewer #4: I reviewed the manuscript PONE-D-21-24463 titled "Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation: analysis of the Brazilian Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cohort". This is a retrospective multicentris small cohort study that included only 38 aHUS KTx.

Because the results are confirmatory in nature the paper deserves not more than a Letter to the Editor.

There are 118 kidney transplant centers across Brazil but only ..... 6 accepted to include their patients in this retrospective study that took place between January 2007 and December 2019. during that period of 12 years how many patients were kidney transplanted across Brazil and how many in these 6 centers?

According to data from the Brazilian Transplant Association (ABTO) we had about 118 kidney transplant centers in Brazil. However, the majority of these transplant centers did not perform transplants in patients with aHUS or did not use eculizumab treatment. The access to eculizumab in Brazil was through compassionate use or judicialization that may be restricted to a small number of transplant centers. These reduced number of centers (n=6) received aHUS patients referred to other transplant programs to perform these special cases of transplants.

Were donor-specific alloantibodies (DSAs) looked for at the time of TMA recurrence, i.e., in many patients the cause of ESRD was not aHUS?

All patients had negative donor-specific alloantibodies (DSAs) at the time of TMA diagnosis as part of the aHUS work-up. The undetermined end-stage renal disease is likely to be attributed to patients who probably already have aHUS, but no initial diagnosis was made.

Across the 3 groups what were the causes of allograft loss?

The patients lost the grafts by TMA recurrence.

Group Lost-Graft

Eculizumab treatment (n=17) TMA recurrence (n=1)

Prophylactic eculizumab (n=10) TMA recurrence (n=1)

No Eculizumab use (n=11) TMA recurrence (n=10)

Submitted filename: reviewrs_response.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Sep 2021

Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation: analysis of the Brazilian Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cohort

PONE-D-21-24463R1

Dear Dr. de Andrade,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

The revised manuscript is definitely improved. The authors have appropriately addressed all the reviewers critiques/comments.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Remuzzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed my comments appropriately. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #3: The authors have commented and corrected all the comments made by this reviewer.

Eventhough the results of the study are in line with the previously published, as aHUS is an ultra-rare disease I think it is convenient to publish this article in order to increase the knowledge of this entity

Reviewer #4: The authors have responded to my questions/concerns. I have no additional comment. However, I think that the paper could be condensed as a Letter to the Editor.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Fernando C Fervenza, MD

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ana Ávila

Reviewer #4: No

21 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-24463R1

Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation: analysis of the Brazilian Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome cohort

Dear Dr. de Andrade:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Giuseppe Remuzzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Demographic data of Brazilian aHUS cohort patients in renal transplantation.

Features	N = 38
Age (years)	30(24.40)
Sex (n,%)
Female	24 (63%)
Male	14 (37%)
Ethnicity (n,%)
White	22(61%)
Black/Pardo	14(39%)
Missing	2
Year at aHUS diagnosis	2,015(2,013, 2,017)
Panel Reactive Antibody (%)	0 (0.20)
Missing	4
Underlying kidney disease (n,%)
Glomerulonephritis	5 (14%)
Indeterminate	17 (46%)
C3 Nephropathy	2 (5.4%)
aHUS	11 (30%)
Other	2 (5.4%)
Missing	1
Dialysis method (n, %)
Preemptive	1 (2.6%)
Peritoneal	5 (13%)
Hemodialysis	32 (84%)
Time on Dialysis (months)	22 (11.35)
Missing	1
Transplant Donor (n,%)
Deceased	26 (68%)
Living	12(32%)
Donor Age (years)	42 (28.50)
Missing	3
Cause of death donor (n, %)
Cerebrovascular/Stroke	12 (48%)
Head Trauma	10 (40%)
Other	3 (12%)
Missing	13
Induction Therapy (n, %)
Thymoglobulin	22 (61%)
Basiliximab	8 (22%)
Without induction	6 (17%)
Missing	2
Eculizumab Induction (n, %)	7 (19%)
Missing	1
Immunosuppression (n, %)
Tac + MFS + P	27 (75%)
Tac + imTOR + P	7 (19%)
Outher	2 (5.6%)
Missing	2
TREATMENT
Plasmapheresis (n, %)	16 (42%)
No plasmapheresis and no eculizumab	5 (13%)
Only Eculizumab	17 (45%)
Only plasmapheresis	6 (15%)
Plasmapheresis and eculizumab	10 (26%)
Eculizumab (n, %)
No	11 (19%)
Prophylactic	10 (26%)
Treatment	17 (45%)
Initial accesss to Eculizumab
No access to medication	11 (29%)
Compassionate access program	24 (63%)
Brazilian judicial system	3 (7,9%)
OUTCOME
Acute Rejection (n, %)	12 (32%)
TMA graft loss (n, %)	12 (32%)
One-year Death	3 (8%)
All-Time Death (n, %)	6 (17%)

Continuous variables expressed as the median and interquartile range (25 and 75%)

aHUS: atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome; Tac: Tacrolimus; MFS: Mycophenolate sodium; P: Prednisone; imTOR: mTOR inhibitors; TMA: thrombotic microangiopathy.

Table 2

Genetic variants of Brazilian aHUS cohort patients in renal transplantation.

		n = 38	N = 19
		Total cases	Genetic analysis performed
		(% total)	(% cases performed)
Genetic Test Not Performed		19 (50%)
Genetic Test	No variants found	5 (13%)	5 (26.3%)
	CFH&	5 (13%)	5 (26.3%)
	CFHR5	2 (5.3%)	2 (10.5%)
	CFHR1-CFHR3	2 (5.3%)	2 (10.5%)
	CFI*	2 (5.3%)	2 (10.5%)
	TBHD+	2 (5.3%)	2 (10.5%)
	C3	1 (2.6%)	1 (5.2%)

& one case of the CFH variant was associated with CFI

* in one case of the CFI variant it was associated with the CFB variant and in another case the CFI was associated with CFHR1-CFHR5; + one case of the TBHD variant was associated with CFHR5 and another case associated with PLG.

Table 3

Comparison of demographic and outcome in the Brazilian aHUS cohort patients according to the treatment (without the use of Eculizumab, prophylactic Eculizumab, and Eculizumab treatment).

Features	Eculizumab	Eculizumab	Eculizumab	P adjusted *
	No	Prophylactic	Treatment
	(N = 11)	(N = 10)	(N = 17)
Age (years)	29(28,45)	26(19,32)	31(26,38)	0.3
Sex (n,%)				0.6
Female	6(55%)	8(80%)	10(59%)
Male	5(54%)	2(20%)	7(41%)
Ethnicity (n,%)				0.3
White	6(55%)	8(89%)	8(50%)
Black/Pardo	5(54%)	1(11%)	8(50%)
Missing	0	1	1
Panel Reactive Antibody (%)	0(0.4)	0(0.0)	0(0.22)	0.7
Missing	2	1	1
Year at aHUS diagnosis	2,013 (2,011, 2,014)	2,017 (2,015, 2,017)	2,015 (2,014, 2,016)	0.072
Underlying kidney disease (n,%)				0.007
Glomerulonephritis	2(18%)	0(0%)	3(19%)
Indeterminate	6(55%)	1(10%)	10(62%)
C3 Nephropathy	2(18%)	0(0%)	0(0%)
Others	0(0%)	1(10%)	1(6.2%)
aHUS	1(9.1%)	8(80%)	2(12%)
Missing	0	0	1
Dialysis method (n,%)				0.8
Preemptive	1(9.1%)	0(0%)	0(0%)
Peritoneal	1(9.1%)	2(20%)	2(12%)
Hemodialysis	9(82%)	8(80%)	15(88%)
Time on Dialysis (months) (n,%)	11(9.21)	26(18.56)	22(19.35)	0.2
Missing	1	0	0
Transplant Donor (n,%)				0.13
Deceased	5(45%)	7(70%)	14(82%)
Living	6(55%)	3(30%)	3(18%)
Donor Age (years)	50(43.54)	34(18.45)	39(33.47)	0.3
Missing	3	0	0
Cause of death donor (n,%)				0.3
Cerebrovascular/Stroke	3(75%)	1(14%)	8(57%)
Head Trauma	1(25%)	5(71%)	4(29%)
Others	0(0%)	1(14%)	2(14%)
Missing	7	3	3
Induction Therapy (n,%)				0.10
Thymoglobulin	2(22%)	8(80%)	12(71%)
Basiliximab	3(33%)	2(20%)	3(18%)
Without induction	4(44%)	0(0%)	2(12%)
Missing	2	0	0
Immunosuppression (n,%)				0.021
Tac + MFS + P	9(100%)	10(100%)	8(47%)
Tac + imTOR + P	0(0%)	0(0%)	7(41%)
Othres	0(0%)	0(0%)	2(12%)
Missing	2	0	0
Plasmapheresis (n,%)	5(56%)	3(30%)	5(38%)	0.7
Missing	2	0	4
Acute Rejection	6(67%)	0(0%)	6(35%)	0.021
TMA graft loss (n,%)	10(91%)	1(10%)	1(5.9%)	<0.001
One-Year Death (n,%)	1(9%)	0(0%)	2(12%)	0.55
All-Time Death (n,%)	2(20%)	0(0%)	4(27%)	0.4

Continuous variables expressed as the median and interquartile range (25 and 75%)

aHUS: atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome; Tac: Tacrolimus; MFS: Mycophenolate sodium; P: Prednisone; imTOR: mTOR inhibitors; TMA: thrombotic microangiopathy.

* p adjusted for multiple comparisons.