Graft loss among renal-transplant recipients with early reduction of immunosuppression for BK viremia

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.

Acute Kidney Injury and BK Polyomavirus in Urine Sediment Cells

Polyomaviruses are widespread, with BK viruses being most common in humans who require immunosuppression due to allotransplantation. Infection with BK polyomavirus (BKV) may manifest as BK virus-associated nephropathy and hemorrhagic cystitis. Established diagnostic methods include the detection of polyomavirus in urine and blood by PCR and in tissue biopsies via immunohistochemistry. In this study, 79 patients with pathological renal retention parameters and acute kidney injury (AKI) were screened for BK polyomavirus replication by RNA extraction, reverse transcription, and virus-specific qPCR in urine sediment cells. A short fragment of the VP2 coding region was the target of qPCR amplification; patients with (n = 31) and without (n = 48) a history of renal transplantation were included. Urine sediment cell immunofluorescence staining for VP1 BK polyomavirus protein was performed using confocal microscopy. In 22 patients with acute renal injury, urinary sediment cells from 11 participants with kidney transplantation (KTX) and from 11 non-kidney transplanted patients (nonKTX) were positive for BK virus replication. BK virus copies were found more frequently in patients with AKI stage III (n = 14). Higher copy numbers were detected in KTX patients having experienced BK polyoma-nephropathy (BKPyVAN) in the past or diagnosed recently by histology (5.6 × 109-3.1 × 1010). One patient developed BK viremia following delayed graft function (DGF) with BK virus-positive urine sediment. In nonKTX patients with BK copies, decoy cells were absent; however, positive staining of cells was found with epithelial morphology. Decoy cells were only found in KTX patients with BKPyVAN. In AKI, damage to the tubular epithelium itself may render the epithelial cells more permissive for polyoma replication. This non-invasive diagnostic approach to assess BK polyomavirus replication in urine sediment cells has the potential to identify KTX patients at risk for viremia and BKPyVAN during AKI. This method might serve as a valuable screening tool for close monitoring and tailored immunosuppression decisions.

Polyoma BK Virus in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Screening, Monitoring, and Management

Polyomavirus BK virus (BKPyV) infection is an important complication of kidney transplantation and allograft failure. The prevalence of viremia is 10%-15%, compared with BK-associated nephropathy (BKPyVAN) at 3%-5%. Given that there are no effective antiviral prophylaxis or treatment strategies for BKPyVAN, active screening to detect BKPyV viremia is recommended, particularly during the early posttransplant period. Immunosuppression reduction to allow viral clearance may avoid progression to severe and irreversible allograft damage. The frequency and duration of screening are highly variable between transplant centers because the evidence is reliant largely on observational data. While the primary treatment goals center on achieving viral clearance through immunosuppression reduction, prevention of subsequent acute rejection, premature graft loss, and return to dialysis remain as major challenges. Treatment strategies for BKPyV infection should be individualized to the recipient's underlying immunological risk and severity of the allograft infection. Efficacy data for adjuvant therapies including intravenous immunoglobulin and cidofovir are sparse. Future well-powered and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to inform evidence-based clinical practice for the management of BKPy infection.

Immunosuppressive Agents and Infectious Risk in Transplantation: Managing the "Net State of Immunosuppression"

Successful solid organ transplantation reflects meticulous attention to the details of immunosuppression, balancing risks for graft rejection against risks for infection. The 'net state of immune suppression' is a conceptual framework of all factors contributing to infectious risk. Assays which measure immune function in the immunosuppressed transplant recipient relative to infectious risk and allograft function are lacking. The best measures of integrated immune function may be quantitative viral loads to assess the individual's ability to control latent viral infections. Few studies address adjustment of immunosuppression during active infections. Thus, confronted with infection in solid organ recipients, the management of immunosuppression is based largely on clinical experience. This review examines known measures of immune function and the immunologic effects of common immunosuppressive drugs and available studies reporting modification of drug regimens for specific infections. These data provide a conceptual framework for the management of immunosuppression during infection in organ recipients.