Background and objectives
Immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with decreased graft function and histological vascular changes can be particularly challenging. The impact of a late rescue conversion to belatacept on kidney graft survival in this context has never been studied.
Methods
We report a bicentric retrospective cohort study comparing CNI to belatacept switch versus CNI continuation in 139 kidney transplant recipients with histological kidney vascular damage (cv ≥ 2, g + cpt ≤ 1, i + t ≤ 1) and low eGFR (≤ 40 mL/min/1.73 m²). Primary outcome was death censored graft survival.
Results
During the study follow up, 10 graft losses (14.5%) occurred in the belatacept group (n = 69) versus 26 (37.1%) in the matched CNI group (n = 70) (p = 0.005). Death-censored graft survival was significantly higher in the belatacept group (p = 0.001): at 3 years, graft survival was 84.0% in the belatacept group compared to 65.1% in the control group. Continuing CNI was an independent risk factor for graft loss (HR: 3.46; p < 0.005). The incidence of cellular rejection after the conversion was low (4.3% in both groups) and not significantly different between groups (p = 0.84). Patients switched to belatacept developed significantly less DSA de novo. Belatacept was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of opportunistic infections (HR 4.84, p < 0.005).
Conclusion
The replacement of CNI with belatacept in patients with decreased allograft function and vascular lesions is associated with an improvement in graft survival, and represents a valuable option in a context of organ shortage. Caution should be made about the increased risk of opportunistic infection.