Posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder in kidney and heart transplant recipients receiving thymoglobulin: A systematic review

W. H. Marks, J. N. Ilsley, V. R. Dharnidharka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

36 Scopus citations

Abstract

Posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is an important complication of transplantation. Risk factors include increased overall immunosuppression exposure and inadequate antiviral prophylaxis; however, the effects of T-cell-depleting agents on PTLD are unclear. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess PTLD in clinical studies published 1999-2009 in transplant patients with <3 years follow-up who received Thymoglobulin for induction. Twenty studies were identified (12 kidney, 7 heart, and 1 liver), of which 3 were excluded for insufficient PTLD reporting. The final study group comprised 2,246 kidney and heart transplant recipients (liver study excluded) who received Thymoglobulin. At a median follow-up of 5 years, the incidence of PTLD was 0.98% (kidney, 0.93%; heart, 1.05%) among Thymoglobulin-treated patients. The cumulative Thymoglobulin dose reported in these studies was not associated with the development of PTLD (P = NS). However, incidence of PTLD was significantly lower with antiviral prophylaxis (0.63%) than without (1.87%; P = .013). Heart transplant recipients not receiving antiviral prophylaxis had the highest PTLD incidence, possibly attributable to a greater overall immunosuppressive burden. This analysis revealed that PTLD incidences in kidney and heart transplant recipients receiving Thymoglobulin were low overall and perhaps related more to concomitant anti-viral prophylaxis use.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1395-1404
Number of pages10
JournalTransplantation Proceedings
Volume43
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder in kidney and heart transplant recipients receiving thymoglobulin: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this