4.6 Article

Infectious Complications in Kidney-Transplant Recipients Desensitized with Rituximab and Intravenous Immunoglobulin

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.03710411

关键词

-

资金

  1. International Society of Nephrology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives Rituximab and intravenous Ig (IVIG) are commonly used for desensitization of HLA and blood group-incompatible (ABOi) transplants. However, serious infections have been noted in association with rituximab administration. In this study, we retrospectively compared infectious outcomes in those who received rituximab plus WIG for HLA or ABOi transplants (RIT group) with a group of non-sensitized, ABO-compatible transplant recipients (non-RIT group). Design, setting, participants, & measurements Patients undergoing kidney transplantation at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center were included in the analysis. A total of 361 patients were identified. All received antimicrobial prophylaxis and viral surveillance. The primary outcome was infection. Results Overall patient survival was 97 and 96%, and graft survival was 91 and 89% in the RIT and non-RIT groups, respectively, after an average follow-up of 18 months. There were equal rates of bacterial (34.7% versus 39.1%), viral (21.8% versus 25.1%), fungal (5.9% versus 5.2%), and serious infections (22.9% versus 25.5%) in the RIT and non-RIT groups respectively. Urinary tract infection was the most common infection, accounting for 50% of all bacterial infections. Cytomegalovirus viremia was nonsignificantly more common in the nonrituximab-treated group (15.2% versus 10%), whereas BK viremia was marginally more frequent in the rituximab-treated group (10.6% versus 5.8%). There were no graft losses caused by BK-associated nephropathy. There were two deaths in each group related to infection (1%). Conclusion Rituximab does not increase infection risk when used with intravenous Ig for desensitization. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 2894-2900, 2011. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03710411

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据