Background and objectives: Nearly 30% of renal transplant recipients develops BK viremia, a prerequisite for BK nephropathy. Case reports have evaluated treatment options for BK virus, but no controlled studies have assessed prophylactic therapies. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics were studied for prevention of BK viremia after renal transplantation.Design, setting, participants, & measurements: This retrospective analysis evaluated adult renal transplant recipients with at least one BK viral load (blood) between 90 and 400 days after transplantation. Six to 12 months of co-trimoxazole was used for Pneumocystis prophylaxis. In sulfa-allergic/-intolerant patients, 6 to 12 months of atovaquone with 1 month of a fluoroquinolone was used. Fluoroquinolones can inhibit BK DNA topoisomerase. The two groups studied were those that received 30 days of levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin after transplantation and those that did not. The primary endpoint was BK viremia rates at 1 year. Of note, of the 160 patients not receiving fluoroquinolone prophylaxis, 40 received a fluoroquinolone for treatment of a bacterial infection within 3 months after transplantation. Subgroup analysis evaluating these 40 patients against the 120 who had no exposure to fluoroquinolones was completed.Results: A 1-month fluoroquinolone course after transplantation was associated with significantly lower rates of BK viremia at 1 year compared with those with no fluoroquinolone. In the subgroup analysis, exposure to fluoroquinolone for treatment of bacterial infections within 3 months after transplantation was associated with significantly lower 1-year rates of BK viremia.Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that fluoroquinolones are effective at preventing BK viremia after renal transplantation.

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), also known as B-cell-mediated or humoral rejection, is a significant complication after kidney transplantation that carries a poor prognosis. Although fewer than 10% of kidney transplant patients experience AMR, as many as 30% of these patients experience graft loss as a consequence. Although AMR is mediated by antibodies against an allograft and results in histologic changes in allograft vasculature that differ from cellular rejection, it has not been recognized as a separate disease process until recently. With an improved understanding about the importance of the development of antibodies against allografts as well as complement activation, significant advances have occurred in the treatment of AMR. The standard of care for AMR includes plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulin that remove and neutralize antibodies, respectively. Agents targeting B cells (rituximab and alemtuzumab), plasma cells (bortezomib), and the complement system (eculizumab) have also been used successfully to treat AMR in kidney transplant recipients. However, the high cost of these medications, their use for unlabeled indications, and a lack of prospective studies evaluating their efficacy and safety limit the routine use of these agents in the treatment of AMR in kidney transplant recipients.

No standard induction immunosuppressive regimen exists for patients undergoing renal transplantation. Antithymocyte globulin (rabbit) is the most commonly used agent, whereas basiliximab appears safer. The choice of regimen depends on the preferences of clinicians and institutions.

For more than 60 years, warfarin was the only oral anticoagulation agent available for use in the United States. In many recent clinical trials, several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) demonstrated similar efficacy with an equal or superior safety profile, with some other notable benefits. The DOACs have lower inter- and intrapatient variability, much shorter half-lives, and less known drug-drug and drug-food interactions as compared to warfarin. Despite these demonstrated benefits, the use of DOACs has not gained uniform acceptance because of lack of supportive data in special patient populations, including recipients of solid organ transplants maintained on immunosuppression. This review describes the properties of several novel DOACs including their pharmacology and mechanisms of action as they relate to use among solid organ transplant recipients. We have particularly focused on (i) dosing in patients with impaired renal and hepatic function; (ii) considerations for drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressive medications; and (iii) management of the anticoagulated patients at the time of unplanned surgery. The risks and benefits of the use of DOACs in solid organ transplant recipients should be carefully evaluated prior to the introduction of these agents in this highly distinct patient population.

Careful antimicrobial selection and assurance of optimal treatment duration in the kidney and pancreas transplant population is prudent. Clinicians should have a heightened awareness of CDI risk particularly during periods of leukopenia and in the setting of gastrointestinal procedures.