Differential Effect of CMV Prophylaxis in Relation to Anti-Rejection Induction Therapy on Graft Outcomes in High-Risk Kidney Transplant Patients in the United States

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (10S) ◽  
pp. 329
Author(s):  
M. Loveless ◽  
W. Irish ◽  
D. Levy ◽  
C. Gahlemann
2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1587-1597 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. P. Bouvy ◽  
M. Klepper ◽  
M. M. L. Kho ◽  
K. Boer ◽  
M. G. H. Betjes ◽  
...  

JAMIA Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark B Lockwood ◽  
Karen Dunn-Lopez ◽  
Heather Pauls ◽  
Larisa Burke ◽  
Sachin D Shah ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patient access to health information using electronic patient portals is increasingly common. Portal use has the potential to improve patients’ engagement with their health and is particularly important for patients with chronic illness; however, patients’ abilities, attitudes, and use of portals are poorly understood. Methods A single-center, cross-sectional survey was conducted of 240 consecutive pre- and post-kidney transplant patients of all levels of technological proficiency who presented to an urban transplant center in the United States. The investigator-developed Patient Information and Technology Assessment-Patient Portal was used to assess patients’ attitudes towards the use of patient portals. Results Most patients surveyed did not use the patient portal (n = 176, 73%). Patients were more likely to use the patient portal if they were White, highly educated, in the post-transplant period, more comfortable with technology, and reported being a frequent internet user (P < .05). The most common reasons for not using the patient portal included: (1) preference for traditional communication, (2) not being aware of the portal, (3) low technological proficiency, and (4) poor interoperability between the portal at the transplant center and the patient’s primary care center. Conclusions We identified several modifiable barriers to patient portal use. Some barriers can be addressed by patient education and training on portal use, and federal initiatives are underway to improve interoperability; however, a preference for traditional communications represents the most prominent barrier. Additional strategies are needed to improve portal adoption by encouraging acceptance of technologies as a way of clinical communication.


2013 ◽  
Vol 96 (10) ◽  
pp. 904-913 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne P. Bouvy ◽  
Marcia M.L. Kho ◽  
Mariska Klepper ◽  
Nicolle H.R. Litjens ◽  
Michiel G.H. Betjes ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farida Abadja ◽  
Eric Alamartine ◽  
François Berthoux ◽  
Christophe Mariat ◽  
Christian Genin ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 951
Author(s):  
S. J. Patel ◽  
K. L. Dawson ◽  
R. J. Knight ◽  
K. Achkar ◽  
A. Abdellatif ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S775-S775
Author(s):  
Amit D Raval ◽  
Michael Ganz ◽  
Priya Saravanan ◽  
Yuexin Tang ◽  
Carlos Santos

Abstract Background Guidelines recommends cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis by CMV serostatus/risk status, as the currently available antiviral agents may lead to myelosuppressive events in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Limited data exist for the United States (US) on the such clinical outcomes with CMV prophylaxis KTRs especially stratified by CMV risk strata. We examined the associations between clinical outcomes and CMV prophylaxis among adult KTRs stratified by CMV risk strata. Methods We employed a retrospective cohort design using the US Renal Data System registry-linked Medicare data (2011-2017). The cohort included 22,918 adult KTRs with continuous Medicare Part A & B coverage for ≥ 6-month pre and ≥ 12-month post KT and Part D coverage for ≥ 12-month post- KT. CMV prophylaxis was defined as ≥ 1 prescription fill or medical claim for valacyclovir or valganciclovir at prophylaxis doses within 28 days post-KT. Results CMV prophylaxis was utilized by 75% of the cohort. In no CMV prophylaxis group, 52.2% and 34.2% of high and intermediate risk KTRs received valganciclovir (as either pre-emptive or deferred therapy), respectively. Among high risk KTRs, CMV prophylaxis group had significantly lower proportions of KTRs with CMV infection, opportunistic infections (OIs) including bacterial, and fungal infections, and new onset of diabetes mellitus (NODAT) compared to no prophylaxis group. There were no differences in the rates of acute rejection or death; however, a trend towards lower rate of graft-failure at 12-month post-KT. Nearly 40% of high-risk KTRs had myelosuppressive events (leukopenia: 18%; neutropenia:15% thrombocytopenia :19%); however, their differences were non-significant except for thrombocytopenia by CMV prophylaxis status (Table 1). CMV infection and myelosuppressive event rates were higher in high-risk than intermediate/low risk KTRs irrespective of CMV prophylaxis status. Conclusion CMV prophylaxis was associated with lower rates of CMV infection, OIs, NODAT and graft failure compared to no prophylaxis, however, the burden of CMV infection, OIs and myelosuppression was greater in high-risk KTRs indicating further research is needed on factors associated with greater disease burden in high-risk KTRs. Table 1 Disclosures Amit D. Raval, PhD, Merck and Co., Inc. (Employee) Yuexin Tang, PhD, JnJ (Other Financial or Material Support, Spouse’s employment)Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document