MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2837955450 · doi:10.1111/ajt.15003

Belatacept rescue for delayed kidney allograft function in a patient with previous combined heart-liver transplant

2018· letter· en· W2837955450 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Dhiren Kumar, Idris Yakubu, Richard H. Cooke, Philip F. Halloran, Gaurav Gupta

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2018
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Établissements canadiensThe Metabolomics Innovation Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineImmunosuppressionSurgeryTacrolimusUrologyKidneyKidney diseaseBelataceptTransplantationKidney transplantationGastroenterologyInternal medicineKidney transplant

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: There is scant literature on the use of belatacept for maintenance immunosuppression in patients with nonkidney solid organ transplants.1Kumar D LeCorchick S Gupta G Belatacept as an alternative to calcineurin inhibitors in patients with solid organ transplants.Frontiers Med. 2017; 4: 60Crossref Scopus (18) Google Scholar We report the case of a 61-year-old woman with transthyretin amyloidosis, chronic kidney disease stage 3B, and amyloid polyneuropathy with chronic hypotension, who initially underwent a simultaneous heart-liver transplant (SHLT). Her posttransplant course was complicated by hypotension, requiring prolonged vasopressors and then chronic use of midodrine. Her renal function deteriorated and she became hemodialysis dependent. Three years after her SHLT, she underwent a deceased donor kidney transplant. She was nonsensitized and had no donor-specific antibody at the time of this transplant. The donor was 60 years old, deceased after cardiac death with a kidney donor profile index of 90%, and a cold ischemia time of 22 hours and 54 minutes. Her preimplant biopsy showed no significant abnormalities. Induction therapy consisted of rabbit antithymocyte globulin 6 mg/kg followed by triple-drug immunosuppression including tacrolimus (target level 8-10 ng/mL), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisone (tapered to 5 mg/d by 1-month posttransplant). Her postoperative course was again complicated by hypotension and delayed kidney graft function (DGF). A 3-week posttransplant kidney biopsy demonstrated severe acute tubular injury without rejection. These results were corroborated by the molecular microscope diagnostic system (MMDx, Alberta, Canada).2Halloran PF de Freitas DG Einecke G et al.The molecular phenotype of kidney transplants.Am J Transplant. 2010; 10: 2215-2222Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar Despite tacrolimus target trough reduction (6-8 ng/mL), she had oliguric DGF for 2 months. Belatacept treatment was initiated as per our previous published protocol.3Gupta G Regmi A Kumar D et al.Safe conversion from tacrolimus to belatacept in high immunologic risk kidney transplant recipients with allograft dysfunction.Am J Transplant. 2015; 15: 2726-2731Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar Given the presumed risk of early rejection, tacrolimus taper protocol was extended to 3 months (100% on Day 0, 75% on Day 14, 66% on Day 28, 50% on Day 42, and then off at Month 3). MMF was maintained at 1.5 g/d. Dialysis was discontinued at 6 weeks of postbelatacept conversion (Figure 1). Postconversion surveillance biopsies of all 3 allografts at differing time points including while completely off tacrolimus showed no evidence of rejection histologically and on MMDx. At 1-year post–kidney transplant, the patient continues to have adequate function of all 3 allografts, with no change in liver or cardiac function on serial testing since conversion. Here we describe the safe use of belatacept in a patient with a combined heart, liver, and kidney transplant. We hypothesized that the combined effect of chronic hypotension related to amyloid polyneuropathy and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) use was the driving force behind our patient’s delayed graft function and thus planned to eliminate the CNI. We chose to avoid CNI minimization or switching to sirolimus due to the presumed higher risk of rejection with these approaches.4Karpe KM Talaulikar GS Walters GD Calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal or tapering for kidney transplant recipients.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 7: Cd006750PubMed Google Scholar There are several possibilities about why we did not see acute rejection in our patient: (1) induction immunosuppression with a T cell–depleting agent5Ferguson R Grinyo J Vincenti F et al.Immunosuppression with belatacept-based, corticosteroid-avoiding regimens in de novo kidney transplant recipients.Am J Transplant. 2011; 11: 66-76Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (143) Google Scholar; (2) slow CNI taper. This approach has been shown to be associated with a low risk of rejection in kidney transplant patients3Gupta G Regmi A Kumar D et al.Safe conversion from tacrolimus to belatacept in high immunologic risk kidney transplant recipients with allograft dysfunction.Am J Transplant. 2015; 15: 2726-2731Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar; and (3) our patient was converted relatively late after SHLT. It is widely accepted that the risk of late rejection in adherent nonsensitized patients is low. This first case report, although limited in scope in terms of wide applicability, suggests cautious optimism favoring further studies examining the use of belatacept in non–kidney transplant patients. We thank and acknowledge the help of Mary Baldecchi, RN and Sarah Bersik, RN in coordinating care, testing, and shipping biopsy samples for analysis. The authors of this manuscript have conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation. Dr Gaurav Gupta has served on the Scientific Advisory Board of Bristol-Myers Squibb. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: Étude de cas
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,254
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Journal of TransplantationMême sujetRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207