Underdiagnosis of diabetes mellitus in chronic dialysis patients on the renal transplant waiting list

Stratification of Kidney Transplant Recipients Into Five Subgroups Based on Temporal Disease Trajectories

Background

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. Considerable clinical research has focused on improving graft survival and an increasing number of kidney recipients die with a functioning graft. There is a need to improve patient survival and to better understand the individualized risk of comorbidities and complications. Here, we developed a method to stratify recipients into similar subgroups based on previous comorbidities and subsequently identify complications and for a subpopulation, laboratory test values associated with survival.

Methods

First, we identified significant disease patterns based on all hospital diagnoses from the Danish National Patient Registry for 5752 kidney transplant recipients from 1977 to 2018. Using hierarchical clustering, these longitudinal patterns of diseases segregate into 3 main clusters of glomerulonephritis, hypertension, and diabetes. As some recipients are diagnosed with diseases from >1 cluster, recipients are further stratified into 5 more fine-grained trajectory subgroups for which survival, stratified complication patterns as well as laboratory test values are analyzed.

Results

The study replicated known associations indicating that diabetes and low levels of albumin are associated with worse survival when investigating all recipients. However, stratification of recipients by trajectory subgroup showed additional associations. For recipients with glomerulonephritis, higher levels of basophils are significantly associated with poor survival, and these patients are more often diagnosed with bacterial infections. Additional associations were also found.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that disease trajectories can confirm known comorbidities and furthermore stratify kidney transplant recipients into clinical subgroups in which we can characterize stratified risk factors. We hope to motivate future studies to stratify recipients into more fine-grained, homogenous subgroups to better discover associations relevant for the individual patient and thereby enable more personalized disease-management and improve long-term outcomes and survival.

Efficacy and safety of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in renal transplant patients with diabetes mellitus: post hoc analyses from three clinical trials

To examine the efficacy and safety of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS, myfortic) in renal transplant patients with diabetes mellitus, six- and 12-month data from three clinical trials with EC-MPS (Studies B301, B302, and myPROMS) were analyzed post hoc. Studies B301 (de novo patients) and B302 (maintenance patients) followed a randomized double-blind design whereas myPROMS was an open-label study in de novo and maintenance renal transplant patients in which all patients received EC-MPS as part of their immunosuppressive regimen. In studies B301 and B302, diabetic patients were compared against mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, CellCept), the reference drug. For myPROMS, data from diabetic and non-diabetic patients were compared. In total, 246 diabetic patients receiving EC-MPS were analyzed. In study B301, the efficacy failure rate [biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss, death or loss to follow-up] in diabetics at 12 months was 17.6% (EC-MPS) vs. 26.2% (MMF), and of BPAR alone 14.7% vs. 19.0% (both n.s.). In de novo patients from myPROMS, the treatment failure rate was similar in diabetic (20.3%) and non-diabetic patients (27.1%), as was the incidence of BPAR (17.7% vs. 23.1%, both n.s.). The overall incidence, severity and pattern of AEs were comparable between EC-MPS and MMF in de novo patients. This was supported by the safety results assessed in maintenance patients (B302) indicating no increased safety risk with the use of EC-MPS in the diabetic patient population, if compared with MMF. Likewise, apart from a higher incidence of severe/serious infections in diabetics, the safety profile of EC-MPS was not different to non-diabetics in myPROMS. In conclusion, preliminary data suggest that EC-MPS in combination with cyclosporine (+/- steroids) can be used efficiently and safely for the prophylaxis of organ rejection in diabetic renal transplant patients. Moreover, diabetic patients can apparently be safely converted from MMF to EC-MPS. More data from prospective studies are needed to fully judge the efficacy and safety profile of EC-MPS in the diabetic transplant population.

Acute coronary syndromes in patients with renal disease: what are the issues?

Patients with chronic kidney disease and acute coronary syndromes are at high risk for both bleeding and ischemic events. This risk increases with the severity of renal insufficiency. Management for acute coronary syndromes in the setting of kidney disease is a paradox; as the benefit of current treatment is high, so is the risk for complications. Patients with chronic renal disease are frequently excluded from randomized clinical trials, and therefore, the optimal treatment strategies are often speculative in this high-risk patient population. Additional research is needed to further refine the optimal management of patients with chronic kidney disease in the setting of acute coronary syndromes.

Mycophenolate mofetil vs. azathioprine is associated with decreased acute rejection, late acute rejection, and risk for cardiovascular death in renal transplant recipients with pre-transplant diabetes

Outcomes specifically in mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-treated diabetic renal transplant patients have not been previously reported. This study compared acute rejection (AR), late acute rejection (LAR), patient survival [and specifically death from cardiovascular (CV), infectious and malignant causes], incidence of post-transplant malignancies, and graft loss in MMF- or azathioprine (AZA)-treated renal transplant patients with pre-transplant diabetes. Outcomes were compared between MMF- (n = 14 144) and AZA- (n = 3001) treated diabetic patients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on all U.S. adult renal transplants performed between 1995 and 2002. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox multivariable regression and chi-square tests. MMF patients had less AR compared with AZA-treated patients (23.5% vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001) and less risk for LAR over 4 yr [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% CI 0.44, 0.92; p = 0.02]. While time to any-cause death did not differ between the groups, MMF treatment was associated with a 20% decreased risk of CV death (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.67, 0.97; p = 0.020) compared with AZA treatment. MMF patients also had a lower incidence of malignancies than AZA patients (2.2% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). These results suggest treatment with MMF compared with treatment with AZA in diabetic transplant patients is associated with less AR, less risk of LAR, a decreased risk of CV death, and a lower incidence of malignancies.