5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Risk of Acute Rejection Following Kidney Transplant by 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D Status: A Prospective Cohort Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Prediction of acute kidney transplant rejection remains imperfect despite several known risk factors. There is an increasing appreciation of the potential importance of the vitamin D pathway in immunological disease and transplantation.

          Objective:

          The purpose of this study was to determine the association of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D with acute rejection.

          Design:

          This was a prospective cohort study.

          Setting:

          Three academic adult kidney transplant programs in Ontario, Canada, were chosen.

          Patients:

          All consecutive adult patients at the 3 institutions who received a solitary kidney transplant, were able to provide written informed consent, and planned to be followed at the same center post-operatively were included.

          Measurements:

          Serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were measured at baseline, 3, and 6 months post-transplantation. Acute rejection was classified using Banff criteria.

          Methods:

          The co-primary outcome was the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D and time to first occurrence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) within the first year after kidney transplantation. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted taking into account the time-varying nature of serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D.

          Results:

          From 556 screened patients, data on 327 kidney transplant recipients are included. First BPAR occurred in 54 (16.5%) patients. In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, the serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D was not associated with acute renal transplant rejection (hazard ratio 1.00; 95% [confidence interval] CI, 0.87-1.14, per 10 nmol/L increase, and hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84-1.12, per 10 pmol/L increase, respectively).

          Limitations:

          Given the observational design, we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding that limited our ability to detect a clinically significant effect of vitamin D metabolites on acute rejection.

          Conclusions:

          A low serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D is not associated with an increased risk of acute kidney transplant rejection following kidney transplantation.

          Abrégé

          Contexte:

          La prévision du rejet aigu d’une greffe de rein demeure imparfaite en dépit des connaissances au sujet de plusieurs facteurs de risque. On remarque cependant un intérêt croissant en regard de l’importance potentielle que pourrait jouer la voie métabolique de la vitamine D dans la maladie immunologique et la transplantation.

          Objectif:

          Le but de cette étude était d’établir si les concentrations sériques de 25-dihydroxyvitamine D et de 1,25-hydroxyvitamine D sont associées au phénomène de rejet aigu du greffon.

          Modèle d’étude:

          Il s’agit d’une étude de cohorte prospective.

          Cadre de l’étude:

          L’étude s’est tenue au sein de trois programmes universitaires de greffe de rein chez des adultes en Ontario, au Canada.

          Patients:

          L’étude a inclus tous les patients adultes ayant reçu une greffe solitaire de rein dans les trois établissements concernés, qui pouvaient fournir un consentement écrit et qui avaient prévu être suivis au même centre à la suite de l’intervention.

          Mesures:

          Les concentrations sériques de 25-hydroxyvitamine D et de 1,25-dihydroxyvitamine D ont été mesurées tout juste après l’intervention et à nouveau après 3 mois et 6 mois. Le rejet aigu a été déterminé en utilisant la classification de Banff.

          Méthodologie:

          Le principal critère attendu était une corrélation entre un faible taux de 25-hydroxyvitamine D et de 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamine D et le moment où survient le premier cas avéré par biopsie d’un rejet aigu au cours de l’année suivant la transplantation. Pour l’analyse, des modèles de risques proportionnels de Cox ont été adaptés en tenant compte du fait que les concentrations sériques de 25-dihydroxyvitamine D et de 1,25-hydroxyvitamine D varient au fil du temps.

          Résultats:

          Parmi les 556 patients sélectionnés, on a retenu les données de 327 receveurs d’une transplantation rénale. Les cas avérés par biopsie d’un premier rejet aigu sont survenus chez 54 de ces patients (16,5 %). Dans les modèles de risques proportionnels de Cox adaptés, les concentrations sériques de 25-hydroxyvitamine D et de 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamine D n’ont pas été associées à un rejet aigu de greffe rénale (risque relatif à 1,00 [IC à 95 %: 0,87, 1,14] par augmentation de 10 nmol/L et à 0,97 [IC95: 0,84, 1,12] par augmentation de 10 pmol/L, respectivement).

          Limites de l’étude:

          Compte tenu du modèle observationnel de l’étude, nous ne pouvons exclure la possibilité que des variables résiduelles confondantes aient limité notre capacité à détecter un effet clinique significatif des métabolites de la vitamine D sur le rejet aigu.

          Conclusions:

          Une faible concentration sérique de 25-hydroxyvitamine D et 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamine D n’est pas associée à un risque accru de rejet aigu du greffon consécutif à une transplantation rénale.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation.

          The objective of this study was to assess the cost-utility of renal transplantation compared with dialysis. To accomplish this, a prospective cohort of pre-transplant patients were followed for up to two years after renal transplantation at three University-based Canadian hospitals. A total of 168 patients were followed for an average of 19.5 months after transplantation. Health-related quality of life was assessed using a hemodialysis questionnaire, a transplant questionnaire, the Sickness Impact Profile, and the Time Trade-Off Technique. Fully allocated costs were determined by prospectively recording resource use in all patients. A societal perspective was taken. By six months after transplantation, the mean health-related quality of life scores of almost all measures had improved compared to pre-transplantation, and they stayed improved throughout the two years of follow up. The mean time trade-off score was 0.57 pre-transplant and 0.70 two years after transplantation. The proportion of individuals employed increased from 30% before transplantation to 45% two years after transplantation. Employment prior to transplantation [relative risk (RR) = 23], graft function (RR 10) and age (RR 1.6 for every decrease in age by one decade), independently predicted employment status after transplantation. The cost of pre-transplant care ($66,782 Can 1994) and the cost of the first year after transplantation ($66,290) were similar. Transplantation was considerably less expensive during the second year after transplantation ($27,875). Over the two years, transplantation was both more effective and less costly than dialysis. This was true for all subgroups of patients examined, including patients older than 60 and diabetics. We conclude that renal transplantation was more effective and less costly than dialysis in all subgroups of patients examined.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Vitamin D Insufficiency and Deficiency in Chronic Kidney Disease

            Background: Kidney disease has been identified as a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency in hospitalized patients, and low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D have been suggested to be a risk factor for hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, little is known about the magnitude of vitamin D deficiency in patients with CKD living in the United States. Methods: In this regard, we examined the levels of 25(OH)D in 43 patients with CKD and serum creatinine between 1 and 5 mg/dl (calculated glomerular filtration rate 111–11 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ) as well as in 103 patients undergoing hemodialysis. Results: In the predialysis patients, we found that 37 of the 43 patients (86%) had suboptimal levels of vitamin D (<30 ng/ml). Regression analysis indicated that there was a negative correlation between 25(OH)D and intact parathyroid hormone (PTH). Alkaline phosphatase showed a similar but less sensitive relationship. Serum albumin levels correlated with 25(OH)D levels. In contrast to findings reported in normal individuals, the levels of calcitriol correlated with those of 25(OH)D in the patients with CKD. In the group undergoing maintenance hemodialyis, we found that 97% of the patients had vitamin D levels in the suboptimal range, and there was no correlation of 25(OH)D levels with either PTH or serum albumin values. These data indicate that vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are highly prevalent in patients with CKD and may play a role in the development of hyperparathyroidism. The functional significance of low levels of 25(OH)D in patients with stage 5 CKD remains to be determined.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assay variation confounds the diagnosis of hypovitaminosis D: a call for standardization.

              Endemic hypovitaminosis D contributes to osteoporosis development. However, variation in 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) measurement is reported and confounds the diagnosis of vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency. This report emphasizes the marked variability observed in serum 25OHD measurements between laboratories.Initially, postmenopausal women had serum 25OHD determinations: 42 in laboratory A, 20 in laboratory B. Their mean (sem) serum 25OHD concentrations were 46 (2.1) and 21 (2.3) ng/ml in laboratories A and B, respectively. Furthermore, there was little overlap in serum 25OHD among these clinically similar individuals. Specifically, 17% of those measured in laboratory A but 90% in laboratory B were below an arbitrary threshold value of 32 ng/ml.Subsequently, serum was obtained from 10 healthy adults. Two aliquots from each individual, one of which was spiked with 20 ng/ml 25OHD, were sent to six laboratories. Substantial variability was noted between these six laboratories. The mean serum 25OHD concentration ranged from 17.1-35.6 ng/ml. Similarly, the mean increase produced by spiking with 20 ng/ml ranged from 7.7-18.0 ng/ml.In conclusion, 25OHD assays yield markedly differing results; whether an individual is found to have low or normal vitamin D status is a function of the laboratory used. If the medical community is to make progress in correcting widespread hypovitaminosis D, 25OHD measurement must be standardized.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Can J Kidney Health Dis
                Can J Kidney Health Dis
                CJK
                spcjk
                Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                2054-3581
                10 April 2017
                2017
                : 4
                : 2054358117699822
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Kidney Research Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London Health Sciences Centre, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Division of Biochemistry, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                [*]Deborah Zimmerman, Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Kidney Research Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 1967 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIH 7W9. Email: dzimmerman@ 123456toh.on.ca
                Article
                10.1177_2054358117699822
                10.1177/2054358117699822
                5406125
                cb80ef6b-ad0b-4dbd-9b4d-0de9bfa8500e
                © The Author(s) 2017

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 25 July 2016
                : 12 January 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Physician Services Incorporated, ;
                Award ID: #07=34
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024;
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2017

                1,25-dihydroxyvitamin d,25-hydroxyvitamin d,acute rejection,renal transplant

                Comments

                Comment on this article