Infectious Complications in Renal Transplant Recipients: Changing Epidemiology under Modern Immunosuppression

Il Min Sang; Jin Park Yang; Whando Ra; Seong-Yup Kim; Seung-Kee Min; Don Oh Myoung; Su Kim Yon; Curie Ahn; Joon Kim Sang; Jongwon Ha

doi:10.4285/jkstn.2010.24.3.187

Journal List > J Korean Soc Transplant > v.24(3) > 1034309

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Sang, Yang, Ra, Kim, Min, Myoung, Yon, Ahn, Sang, and Ha: Infectious Complications in Renal Transplant Recipients: Changing Epidemiology under Modern Immunosuppression

Original Article

J Korean Soc Transplant 2010;24(3):187-195.

Published online: 10 September 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4285/jkstn.2010.24.3.187

Infectious Complications in Renal Transplant Recipients: Changing Epidemiology under Modern Immunosuppression

Il Min Sang, M.D.¹, Jin Park Yang, M.D.¹, Whando Ra, M.D.¹, Seong-Yup Kim, M.D.¹, Seung-Kee Min, M.D.¹, Don Oh Myoung, M.D.², Su Kim Yon, M.D.^2,³, Curie Ahn, M.D.^2,³, Joon Kim Sang, M.D.^1,³, Jongwon Ha, M.D.^1,^3,⁴

¹Departments of Surgery, Seoul, Korea

²Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Seoul National University College of Medicine, Transplantation Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea

⁴Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence：Jongwon Ha, Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 28, Yongon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea Tel: 82-2-2072-2991, Fax: 82-2-766-3975 E-mail: jwhamd@snu.ac.kr

Received 3 June 2010 Revised 4 August 2010 Accepted 16 August 2010

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Immunosuppressive agents with higher potencies, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), have been introduced and widely accepted in clinical practice. This study evaluated the impact of these newer immunosuppressive drugs on the pattern and timing of post-kidney transplantation infections.

Methods

Data of kidney transplant recipients at the Seoul National University Hospital between January 1990 and November 2005 were analyzed. Recipients were divided into double immunosuppression (double group, n=198), triple immunosuppression including MMF (MMF group, n=253), and azathioprine (AZA, n=184) groups.

Results

The MMF group demonstrated higher graft survival and reduced rates of acute rejection within the fifth post-transplant year than both the AZA (P＜0.001) and the double (P＜0.001) groups. The overall incidence of infection in the first month was significantly higher in the MMF group (2.17/1,000 transplant-days) than in the AZA (0.73/1,000 transplant-days) and double (0.84/1,000 transplant-days) groups (P=0.01, ANOVA), and this was caused by viral infections that were significantly higher in the MMF (1.57/1,000 transplant-days) group than in the AZA (0.54/1,000 transplant-days) and double (0.67/1,000 transplant-days) groups. MMF was identified as a significant risk factor for viral infection (P=0.013; OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.16–3.60) in a multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Conclusions

The results suggest that viral infection rates were higher in the MMF group and should be considered the primary source of perioperative infectious complications in MMF-receiving recipients.

Keywords: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), Immunosuppressants, Infection, Virus, Graft survival, Graft rejection

References

1). Meier-Kriesche HU, Li ddS, Gruessner RW, Fung JJ, Bustami RT, Barr ML, et al. Immunosuppression: evolution in practice and trends, 1994–2004. Am J Transplant. 2006; 6:1111–31.

2). Kainz A, Heinze G, Korbély R, Schwarz C, Oberbauer R. Mycophenolate mofetil use is associated with prolonged graft survival after kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2009; 88:1095–100.

3). Chang SH, Russ GR, Chadban SJ, Campbell SB, McDonald SP. Trends in kidney transplantation in Australia and New Zealand, 1993–2004. Transplantation. 2007; 84:611–8.

4). Webster AC, Woodroffe RC, Taylor RS, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Tacrolimus versus ciclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients: metaanalysis and meta-regression of randomised trial data. BMJ. 2005; 331:810.

5). Opelz G, Döhler B. Collaborative Transplant Study. Influence of immunosuppressive regimens on graft survival and secondary outcomes after kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2009; 87:795–802.

6). Halloran P, Mathew T, Tomlanovich S, Groth C, Hooftman L, Barker C. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: a pooled efficacy analysis of three randomized, double-blind, clinical studies in prevention of rejection. The International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplant Study Groups. Transplantation. 1997; 63:39–47. Erratum in: Transplantation 1997;63: 618.

7). Srinivas TR, Kaplan B, Schold JD, Meier-Kriesche HU. The impact of mycophenolate mofetil on longterm outcomes in kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2005; 80(2 Suppl):S211–20.

8). Simon DM, Levin S. Infectious complications of solid organ transplantations. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2001; 15:521–49.

9). Fishman JA. Infection in solid-organ transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:2601–14.

10). Husain S, Singh N. The impact of novel immunosuppressive agents on infections in organ transplant recipients and the interactions of these agents with antimicrobials. Clin Infect Dis. 2002; 35:53–61.

11). Humar A, Michaels M. AST ID Working Group on Infectious Disease Monitoring. American Society of Transplantation recommendations for screening, monitoring and reporting of infectious complications in immunosuppression trials in recipients of organ transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2006; 6:262–74.

12). Patel R, Paya CV. Infections in solid-organ transplant recipients. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997; 10:86–124.

13). San Juan R, Aguado JM, Lumbreras C, Diaz-Pedroche C, Lopez-Medrano F, Lizasoain M, et al. Incidence, clinical characteristics and risk factors of late infection in solid organ transplant recipients: data from the RESITRA study group. Am J Transplant. 2007; 7:964–71.

14). Parasuraman R, Yee J, Karthikeyan V, del Busto R. Infectious complications in renal transplant recipients. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2006; 13:280–94.

15). Fishman JA, Rubin RH. Infection in organ-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338:1741–51.

16). Pourfarziani V, Panahi Y, Assari S, Moghani-Lankarani M, Saadat SH. Changing treatment protocol from azathioprine to mycophenolate mofetil: decrease in renal dysfunction, increase in infections. Transplant Proc. 2007; 39:1237–40.

17). Browne BJ. The tricontinental mycophenolate mofetil trial. Transplantation. 1996; 62:1697.

18). Knight SR, Russell NK, Barcena L, Morris PJ. Mycophenolate mofetil decreases acute rejection and may improve graft survival in renal transplant recipients when compared with azathioprine: a systematic review. Transplantation. 2009; 87:785–94.

19). Hanvesakul R, Kubal C, Jham S, Sarkar E, Eardley K, Adu D, et al. Increased incidence of infections following the late introduction of mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008; 23:4049–53.

20). Zafrani L, Truffaut L, Kreis H, Etienne D, Rafat C, Lechaton S, et al. Incidence, risk factors and clinical consequences of neutropenia following kidney transplantation: a retrospective study. Am J Transplant. 2009; 9:1816–25.

21). Rubin RH, Wolfson JS, Cosimi AB, Tolkoff-Rubin NE. Infection in the renal transplant recipient. Am J Med. 1981; 70:405–11.

22). Kim YK, Kim DW. Seroepidemiology of human cytomegalovirus in healthy adults measured by means of the anti-complement immunofluorescence technique. Korean J Infect Dis. 1992; 24:87–92. (김유겸, 유대원. Anticomplement Immunofluorescence 검사법을 이용한 건강한 성인의 Human Cytomegalovirus에 대한 항체가의 조사 연구. 감염 1992;24: 87–92.).

23). Kidney Disease. Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2009; 9(Suppl 3):S1–155.

24). Alangaden GJ, Thyagarajan R, Gruber SA, Morawski K, Garnick J, El-Amm JM, et al. Infectious complications after kidney transplantation: current epidemiology and associated risk factors. Clin Transplant. 2006; 20:401–9.

25). Jorge S, Guerra J, Santana A, Mil-Homens C, Prata MM. Mycophenolate mofetil: ten years' experience of a renal transplant unit. Transplant Proc. 2008; 40:700–4.

26). Moreso F, Seron D, Morales JM, Cruzado JM, Gil-Vernet S, Perez JL, et al. Incidence of leukopenia and cytomegalovirus disease in kidney transplants treated with mycophenolate mofetil combined with low cyclosporine and steroid doses. Clin Transplant. 1998; 12:198–205.

Fig. 1.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of graft survival (A) and death-censored graft survival (B) up to year 15 after kidney transplantation according to the type of immunosuppression. A significant beneficial effect of MMF on graft survival and death-censored graft survival was identified. Abbreviations: MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; AZA, azathioprine.

Fig. 2.

True incidence rates of overall infections stratified by time periods. Incidence rates were calculated as infection episodes per 1,000 transplantation-days using the number of days at risk as the denominator. The MMF group demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of overall infections in the perioperative period compared to the double or AZA groups. ^a P＜0.05, ^b P＜0.05, compared to other groups during the same period. compared to other periods in the same transplant group. See Fig. 1.

Fig. 3.

True incidence rates of different categories of infectious complications: (A) bacterial, (B) viral, (C) fungal, and (D) mycobacterial infections. Higher incidence of perioperative infection in the MMF group was largely attributed to an increased rate of viral infection. ^a P＜0.05, compared to other groups during the same period. See Fig. 1.

Fig. 4.

Risk factors identified by multivariate analysis for (A) global, (B) bacterial, and (C) viral infections in perioperative period in renal transplant recipients. Abbrevations: CMV D^＋/R⁻, cytomegalovirus donor seropositive/recipient seronegative; AR, acute rejection; NODAT, new-onset diabetes after transplantation; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; AZA, azathioprine; HSV D^＋/R⁻, Herpes simplex virus donor seropositive/recipient seronegative.

Table 1.

Demographic and baseline characteristics

	Double (n= 98)	AZA group (n=184)	MMF group (n=253)	P-value
Male (%)	130 (65.7)	131 (71.2)	153 (60.5)	0.02
Recipient age (years)	27.8 ± 12.5	28.8 ± 16.3	37.4 ± 14.7	＜0.001
Body Mass Index (Kg/m²)	21.2 ± 2.5	21.2 ± 2.8	21.9 ± 3.5	0.09
Donor age (years)	38.8 ± 12.5	36.1 ± 14.7	36.5 ± 11.5	0.80
Waiting time (months)	10.8 ± 14.9	16.3 ± 21.3	19.3 ± 31.1	0.30
Transplant duration (months)	117.4 ± 63.6	101.7 ± 40.6	52.4 ±24.1	＜0.001
2nd transplantation (%)	2 (1.0)	6 (3.3)	8 (3.2)	0.95
Number of HLA mismatches	2.02 ± 1.2	2.70 ± 1.3	2.75 ± 1.6	＜0.001
Cause of ESRD (%)				＜0.001
Diabetes mellitus	6 (3.0)	5 (2.7)	22 (8.7)
Hypertension	9 (4.6)	8 (4.4)	34 (13.4)
Glomerulonephritis	39 (19.7)	34 (18.5)	44 (17.4)
IgA nephropathy	23 (11.6)	21 (11.4)	43 (17.0)
ADPKD	3 (1.5)	12 (6.5)	10 (4.0)
Deceased donor (%)	13 (6.6)	51 (27.7)	38 (15.0)	＜0.001
AR episode (＋) (%)	50 (28.4)	59 (32.1)	37 (14.6)	＜0.001
Immunosuppressants				＜0.001
Basiliximab (%)	2 (1.0)	3 (1.6)	91 (36.0)
Calcineurin inhibitor (%)
CsA (%)	198 (100.0)	181 (98.4)	110 (43.5)
TAC (%)	0 (0.0)	3 (1.6)	143 (56.5)
CMV D^＋/R⁻ (%)	0 (0.0)	2 (1.1)	11 (4.4)	＜0.001

Abbreviations: AZA, azathioprine; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; ESRD, end stage renal disease; ADPKD, autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease; AR, acute rejection; CsA, Cyclosporine A; TAC, Tacrolimus; CMV D＋/R−, cytomegalovirus donor seropositive/recipient seronegative.

TOOLS

Similar articles