PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Standardized, risk-adapted induction therapy in kidney transplantation.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Eisinger, F. ; Mühlbacher, T.* ; Na, A.* ; Althaus, K.* ; Nadalin, S.* ; Birkenfeld, A.L. ; Heyne, N. ; Guthoff, M.

Standardized, risk-adapted induction therapy in kidney transplantation.

J. Nephrol. 36, 2133-2138 (2023)

Publ. Version/Full Text

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Hybrid

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

Background: The choice of induction therapy in kidney transplantation is often non-standardized and centre-specific. Clinicians can choose between depleting and non-depleting antibodies, which differ in their immunosuppressive capacity and the concomitant risk of infection. We herein present a standardized risk-stratified algorithm for induction therapy that might help to balance the risk of rejection and/or serious infection. Methods: Prior to kidney transplantation, patients were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk or high-risk according to our protocol based on immunologic risk factors. Depending on their individual immunologic risk, patients received basiliximab (low risk), antithymocyte globulin (intermediate risk) or low-dose alemtuzumab (high risk) for induction therapy. We analysed the results after 3 years of implementation of our risk-stratified induction therapy protocol at our kidney transplant centre. Results: Between 01/2017 and 05/2020, 126 patients were stratified in accordance with our protocol (low risk/intermediate risk/high risk: 69 vs. 42 vs. 15 patients). The median follow-up time was 1.9 [1.0–2.5] years. No significant difference was observed in rejection rate and allograft survival (low risk/intermediate risk/high risk: 90.07% vs. 80.81% vs. 100% after 3 years (p > 0.05)) among the groups. The median eGFR at follow-up was (low risk/intermediate risk/high risk) 47 [33–58] vs 58 [46–76] vs 44 [22–55] ml/min/1.73 m2. Although the rate of viral and bacterial infections did not differ significantly, we observed a higher rate of opportunistic fungal infections with alemtuzumab induction. Conclusions: Our strategy offers facilitated and individualized choice of induction therapy in kidney transplantation. We propose further evaluation of our algorithm in prospective trials.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

3.400

1.179