An application of the 2018 Banff Classification for BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in renal transplantation

The Second International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of BK Polyomavirus in Kidney Transplantation

BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) remains a significant challenge after kidney transplantation. International experts reviewed current evidence and updated recommendations according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). Risk factors for BKPyV-DNAemia and biopsy-proven BKPyV-nephropathy include recipient older age, male sex, donor BKPyV-viruria, BKPyV-seropositive donor/-seronegative recipient, tacrolimus, acute rejection, and higher steroid exposure. To facilitate early intervention with limited allograft damage, all kidney transplant recipients should be screened monthly for plasma BKPyV-DNAemia loads until month 9, then every 3 mo until 2 y posttransplant (3 y for children). In resource-limited settings, urine cytology screening at similar time points can exclude BKPyV-nephropathy, and testing for plasma BKPyV-DNAemia when decoy cells are detectable. For patients with BKPyV-DNAemia loads persisting >1000 copies/mL, or exceeding 10 000 copies/mL (or equivalent), or with biopsy-proven BKPyV-nephropathy, immunosuppression should be reduced according to predefined steps targeting antiproliferative drugs, calcineurin inhibitors, or both. In adults without graft dysfunction, kidney allograft biopsy is not required unless the immunological risk is high. For children with persisting BKPyV-DNAemia, allograft biopsy may be considered even without graft dysfunction. Allograft biopsies should be interpreted in the context of all clinical and laboratory findings, including plasma BKPyV-DNAemia. Immunohistochemistry is preferred for diagnosing biopsy-proven BKPyV-nephropathy. Routine screening using the proposed strategies is cost-effective, improves clinical outcomes and quality of life. Kidney retransplantation subsequent to BKPyV-nephropathy is feasible in otherwise eligible recipients if BKPyV-DNAemia is undetectable; routine graft nephrectomy is not recommended. Current studies do not support the usage of leflunomide, cidofovir, quinolones, or IVIGs. Patients considered for experimental treatments (antivirals, vaccines, neutralizing antibodies, and adoptive T cells) should be enrolled in clinical trials.

Clinicopathological Correlation of Polyomavirus Nephropathy in Renal Allograft Recipients According to the Banff 2018 Classification

BACKGROUND

Polyomavirus nephropathy (PVN) is a rare kidney disease caused by the BK virus, a strain of polyomavirus. The disease primarily affects transplant recipients, which is related to intensive immunosuppression protocol and can lead to kidney allograft failure.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to analyze histopathological features of PVN using the Banff 2018 PVN classification and to determine clinical features and outcomes of patients with PVN in each histologic class.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 44 patients who had been diagnosed with PVN by renal allograft biopsy in a large tertiary care hospital in Thailand from January 2011 to January 2020. The kidney biopsy slides were reviewed for Banff 2018 PVN classification and other histologic features. Patient demographic information, clinical data, and laboratory results were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

Nine (20.45%), 27 (61.36%), and eight (18.18%) cases of PVN were Class I, Class II, and Class III, respectively. The time from transplant to PVN diagnosis for Classes I, II, and III was four, 19, and 33.5 months, respectively. Class III had the worst clinical outcomes in terms of deterioration of allograft function, the lowest rate of resolution, and the highest rate of graft failure.

CONCLUSIONS

PVN classification provides prognostic information in renal allograft biopsy. Our study confirmed the validity of the three-tier histologic PVN classification put forward by the Banff Working Group in 2018.

An observational cohort study of histological screening for BK polyomavirus nephropathy following viral replication in plasma

Systematic screening for BKPyV-DNAemia has been advocated to aid prevention and treatment of polyomavirus associated nephropathy (PyVAN), an important cause of kidney graft failure. The added value of performing a biopsy at time of BKPyV-DNAemia, to distinguish presumptive PyVAN (negative SV40 immunohistochemistry) and proven PyVAN (positive SV40) has not been established. Therefore, we studied an unselected cohort of 950 transplantations, performed between 2008-2017. BKPyV-DNAemia was detected in 250 (26.3%) transplant recipients, and positive SV40 in 91 cases (9.6%). Among 209 patients with a concurrent biopsy at time of first BKPyV-DNAemia, 60 (28.7%) biopsies were SV40 positive. Plasma viral load showed high diagnostic value for concurrent SV40 positivity (ROC-AUC 0.950, 95% confidence interval 0.916-0.978) and the semiquantitatively scored percentage of tubules with evidence of polyomavirus replication (pvl score) (0.979, 0.968-0.988). SV40 positivity was highly unlikely when plasma viral load is below 4 log10 copies/ml (negative predictive value 0.989, 0.979-0.994). In SV40 positive patients, higher plasma BKPyV-DNA load and higher pvl scores were associated with slower viral clearance from the blood (hazard ratio 0.712, 95% confidence interval 0.604-0.839, and 0.327, 0.161-0.668, respectively), whereas the dichotomy positivity/negativity of SV40 immunohistochemistry did not predict viral clearance. Although the pvl score offers some prognostic value for viral clearance on top of plasma viral load, the latter provided good guidance for when a biopsy was unnecessary to exclude PyVAN. Thus, the distinction between presumptive and proven PyVAN, based on SV40 immunohistochemistry, has limited clinical value. Hence, management of BKPyV-DNAemia and immunosuppression reduction should be weighed against the risk of occurrence of rejection, or exacerbation of rejection observed concomitantly.

Pathological Approach to Kidney Allograft Infection

Infectious agents can pose a significant challenge in kidney transplantation, as they have the potential to cause direct infections in the transplanted kidney. These infections can lead to a decline in kidney function and reduce the longevity of the transplanted kidney. Common post-transplant allograft infections include bacterial pyelonephritis and the BK virus infection, while adenovirus, JC virus, and cytomegalovirus are less frequent but can also lead to significant allograft dysfunctions. The histopathological features of these infections are characterized by the infiltration of inflammatory cells in the kidney interstitial area and the presence of viral nuclear inclusions or cytopathic changes in the renal tubular epithelial cells. The confirmation of causative organisms can be achieved by immunohistochemical staining or the visualization of viral particles using electron microscopic examination. However, these methods typically require a longer turnaround time and are not readily available in developing countries, unlike standard hematoxylin-eosin staining. Notably, the differential diagnosis of interstitial inflammation in kidney allografts almost always includes T cell-mediated rejection, which has a different treatment approach than allograft infections. The aim of this review was to prompt clinicians to identify diverse pathological alterations as observed in kidney allograft biopsies, thereby facilitating further investigations and the management of suspected kidney allograft infections.

High Incidence and Early Onset of Urinary Tract Cancers in Patients with BK Polyomavirus Associated Nephropathy

Over-immunosuppressed kidney transplant recipients are susceptible to malignancies and BK polyomavirus (BKPyV)-associated nephropathy (BKPyVAN). This study aimed to verify the association between BKPyV infection and urinary tract cancers (UTC). A total of 244 kidney transplant recipients were enrolled at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from June 2000 to February 2020. Biopsy-proven BKPyVAN patients (n = 17) had worse kidney function (eGFR: 26 ± 13.7 vs. 47.8 ± 31.0 mL/min/1.73 m²). The 5-year allograft survival rates for patients with and without BKPyVAN were 67% and 93%, respectively (p = 0.0002), while the 10-year patient survival was not different between the two groups. BKPyVAN patients had a significantly higher incidence of UTC compared to the non-BKPyVAN group (29.4% vs. 6.6%). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the UTC-free survival rate was significantly lower in BKPyVAN patients, and the onset of UTC was significantly shorter in BKPyVAN patients (53.4 vs. 108.9 months). The multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age (RR = 1.062) and BKVAN (RR = 6.459) were the most significant risk factors for the development of UTC. Our study demonstrates that BKPyVAN patients have greater allograft losses, higher incidence, a lower cancer-free survival rate, and an earlier onset with a higher relative risk of developing UTC compared to non-BKPyVAN patients.