data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bbed1/bbed1ca955ba999e675d1063ef803f75f3896d0a" alt=""
New poll question to jump-start 2010.
As acute rejection rates continue to fall, causes of late allograft loss, such as transplant glomerulopathy (TG), become increasingly important. TG should spring to mind when you encounter a renal transplant recipient who develops heavy proteinuria and progressive allograft failure, usually late post-transplant. The clinical presentation overlaps with that of chronic allograft nephropathy, although proteinuria tends to be greater in TG and patients are likely to have a history of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies. The pathogenesis is believed to relate to the presence of these donor-specific antibodies, which are often often anti-HLA Class II. These may wax and wane in concentration and, as a result, may not be detected on a single assay but repeat testing is usually successful. C4d staining is typically negative.
Various immunosupressive regimens have been tried, but none are known to be effective. Progressive graft failure and return to dialysis is the usual outcome. Finally, the increasing use of protocol biopsy informs us that ultrastructural changes that predate the TG lesion develop within the first months post-transplant and in apparently well-functioning kidneys.
The authors examined all transplant recipients who returned to dialysis over a ten-year period, using the US Renal Data System. This amounted to approx 11,000 people, a third of whom underwent allograft nephrectomy. They found allograft nephrectomy to be independently associated with improved survival; specifically, there was a 32% lower relative risk for all-cause death after adjusting for many factors, including socioeconomic status, comorbidity, donor characteristics and identifiable conditions associated with requirement for allograft nephrectomy. The authors also excluded patients whose transplant lasted less than 3 months, as they would been likely to have an absolute indication for nephrectomy.
Being a retrospective, observational study, one needs to take the results with a pinch of salt, given the possibility of residual confounding and treatment selection bias. Also, there were some important differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups, e.g. patients who received nephrectomy were more likely to be younger, have a higher serum creatinine concentration and a higher serum albumin, suggesting they were better nourished.
This topic strikes me as a relatively straightforward subject for a randomized controlled trial. As it stands, these observations would embolden me to push a little harder for a transplant nephrectomy in someone with a ‘soft’ indication, in the knowledge that it does not appear harmful, and may in fact reduce mortality. And in the dialysis population, that’s no mean feat.
Another day, another negative study… this is getting painful! The large, randomized ASTRAL trial comparing renal revascularization to medical therapy found no benefit, and substantial increased risk, in the interventional arm.
806 patients with atherosclerotic reno-vascular disease were randomized to undergo revascularization in addition to receiving medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. After 34 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of renal events, major cardiovascular events, or death. There were some marginal positive outcomes in the intervention group, including better renal function (p = 0.06) and statistically significant reduction in blood pressure medications. However, 23 patients in the revascularization arm experienced serious complications, including 2 deaths and 3 amputations.
ASTRAL has been criticized on a few fronts. First, the trial design is based on the “principle of equipoise”. Essentially, the investigators only enrolled patients in whom they were uncertain as to whether they would derive clinical benefit from revascularization. As such, many patients enrolled in the trial had lesions of dubious clinical significance, as more high-risk patients would not have been randomized. As an example, 40% of those enrolled had less than 70% stenosis, and some patients with stenoses as low as 60% were included.
Personally, I feel a bit sorry for the authors here. They set out to answer the specific question of what to do with the incidentally discovered, moderate-grade renal artery lesion in a CKD patient, and are then criticized for designing a trial that excludes patients in whom intervention is very likely to benefit. Critics of the trial claim that many of the lesions chosen for intervention were of unclear clinical significance, but I believe that was exactly the point. It’s not as if the management approach to such lesions has been firmly established. The bottom line with intervention in renal arterial disease is that we are doing a poor job in identifying the right kidney in the right patient, and there is a lot more work to do. ASTRAL is step in the right direction.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.