MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615874620 · doi:10.1111/ajt.14358

BK Virus Nephropathy Revisited

2017· letter· en· W2615874620 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Mengel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPolyomavirus and related diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBK virusNephropathyVirologyKidney transplantationKidneyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This editorial comments on two studies that independently describe the complex interdependency between immunosuppression-induced BK polyomavirus nephropathy and rejection after reduction in immunosuppression, both equally leading to inflammation, progressive fibrosis and allograft failure. See the articles from Nankivell et al (page 2065) and Drachenberg et al (page 2078). This editorial comments on two studies that independently describe the complex interdependency between immunosuppression-induced BK polyomavirus nephropathy and rejection after reduction in immunosuppression, both equally leading to inflammation, progressive fibrosis and allograft failure. See the articles from Nankivell et al (page 2065) and Drachenberg et al (page 2078). More than 20 years after its first description and increased morbidity under powerful immunosuppression, the understanding of the pathogenesis of BK polyomavirus induced–allograft nephropathy (BKVN) has changed clinical practice in renal transplantation. Screening programs were introduced at most transplant centers, causing the prevalence of BKVN to decrease. However, BK viremia is still found in 10–30% of renal allograft recipients, with 1–10% developing BKVN. Once manifested, BKVN represents a serious disease of the renal transplant, causing allograft failure in 15–50% (1Hirsch HH Randhawa P AST infectious diseases community of practice. BK polyomavirus in solid organ transplantation.Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 179-188Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (393) Google Scholar). In this issue of AJT, two transplant centers describe results from their comprehensively phenotyped cohorts of renal allograft recipients. The authors were well positioned to independently revisit the natural histologic and clinical evolution of BKVN under contemporary clinical screening protocols, maintenance immunosuppression, and immunosuppression reduction approaches in cases with viremia and BKVN (2Drachenberg CB Papadimitriou JC Chaudhry MR et al.Histological evolution of BK virus associated nephropathy: Importance of integrating clinical and pathological findings.Am J Transplant. 2017; (https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14314.)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (55) Google Scholar,3Nankivell BJ Renthawa J Sharma RN Kable K O’Connell PJ Chapman JR BK virus nephropathy: Histological evolution by sequential pathology.Am J Transplant. 2017; (https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14292.)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (63) Google Scholar). Both articles study kidney transplants with BKVN. Drachenberg et al (n = 71) and Nankivell et al (n = 63) discuss patients undergoing sequential biopsies (total number of BKVN biopsies analyzed from both studies, n = 660) and viral load measurements with available long-term follow-up. In the Nankivell study, the BKVN cohort was compared to an equally well-annotated and followed time-matched cohort of renal transplants (n = 490) without BKVN (975 protocol biopsies). Interesting and reassuring is the fact that both studies independently reveal almost identical major findings, discussed below. Early-stage disease (i.e. BKVN without inflammation) was very uncommon at initial clinical presentation, while early prodromal borderline-like interstitial inflammation in SV40-negative biopsies predated a later diagnosis of BKVN in up to 23% of cases with BK viremia. Also, resolving BKVN often featured SV40-negative interstitial inflammation. It is quite likely that in such scenarios the SV40 stain is false negative due to sampling error and/or limited staining sensitivity (4Adam B Randhawa P Chan S et al.Banff Initiative for Quality Assurance in Transplantation (BIFQUIT): Reproducibility of polyomavirus immunohistochemistry in kidney allografts.Am J Transplant. 2014; 14: 2137-2147Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar). Accordingly, an inadequate, SV40-negative biopsy in a patient with viremia should trigger early but modest reduction in immunosuppression and close follow-up, since presumptive (SV40-negative; 30% of cases) and definite (SV40-positive; 70% of cases) BKVN presented with an identical clinical course. However, these studies did not further clarify the complex relationship between various common features of BK infection including viral reactivation and viremia, interstitial inflammation, graft rejection, the progression of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA), and allograft failure. Viral infection induces tubular injury first manifested by acute tubular necrosis and cytopathic effects in the biopsy. In both studies, at clinical presentation viral injury was frequently (73–75% of cases) associated with inflammation, and in the Nankivell study with significantly more inflammation than in control cases with rejection. The extent of tubulointerstitial inflammation frequently remained stable over sequential biopsies, likely reflecting in part transition to increasing rejection after reducing immunosuppression. This was supported by the observation that a decrease in viremia correlated with increasing Banff t-scores (i.e. rejection in the Drachenberg study). As previously described by Menter et al (5Menter T Mayr M Schaub S Mihatsch MJ Hirsch HH Hopfer H Pathology of resolving polyomavirus-associated nephropathy.Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 1474-1483Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (91) Google Scholar), inflammation was increased in patients who eventually cleared the virus with reduced tubular destruction, compared to patients who had persistent viremia. Failure of viral clearance, but also persisting inflammation (and increasing tubulitis) was associated with progressing of IFTA and allograft failure. Despite the richness of available data and comprehensive multivariate analysis, it was not possible to distinguish between inflammation due to viral infection or rejection; both eventually produced IFTA. Persisting and high-level viremia (i.e. failure of viral clearance) was the most significant risk factor for destructive chronic infection and eventual allograft loss, but no single clinical or pathological feature was identified that could predict the clinical course of BKVN in the individual patient. Over the course of sequential biopsies, the range of clinico-pathological phenotypes continuously diversified, likely reflecting the empirical attempts by physicians to manage the imbalance between immunosuppression and immune competence. Almost all (>85%) of BKVN kidneys evolved to IFTA, even in those that successfully cleared the virus. Again the degree of inflammation, peak viral load, and persistence of viremia were associated with more severe and progressive IFTA. While pulse steroid treatment of BKVN inflammation often stabilized creatinine, progression of IFTA was not prevented. Simultaneously, reduction of immunosuppression in BKVN patients was complicated by late rejection (and persisting inflammation) in 62% of cases, representing a significant and probably still underestimated issue. While approximately half of BKVN grafts that failed were the consequence of BK, the other 50% of failed grafts were due to rejection resulting from attempts to treat BKVN. Half of the cases of rejection presented with an antibody-mediated component. Both studies are limited by not having available standardized donor-specific antibody (DSA) screening data despite observing an association between BKVN and antibody-mediated rejection pathology. This further corroborates the previously described unfortunate relationship between BKVN, reduction in immunosuppression, and development of de novo DSA (6Dieplinger G Everly MJ Briley KP et al.Onset and progression of de novo donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies after BK polyomavirus and preemptive immunosuppression reduction.Transpl Infect Dis. 2015; 17: 848-858Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar). The studies also did not assess the impacts of cellular or humoral immunity to BK polyomavirus and clinical outcomes. No scoring of i-IFTA (inflammation in areas of IFTA) was done for the included biopsies, leaving unanswered the question of whether i-IFTA is a feature of ongoing disease, either chronic rejection or chronic BKVN. Despite state-of-the-art screening and clinical management efforts, these two scientifically robust studies confirm that effective antiviral treatment, like that now available for hepatitis C, remains the most pressing unmet clinical need for patients with BKVN. Until then, prevention of BKVN remains the priority for renal transplant recipients with the goal to avoid widespread BKVN manifestation in the allograft while facing the challenge of simultaneously avoiding allo-sensitization (1Hirsch HH Randhawa P AST infectious diseases community of practice. BK polyomavirus in solid organ transplantation.Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 179-188Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (393) Google Scholar). The author of this manuscript has no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicPolyomavirus and related diseasesFrench-language works237,207