Keywords
HIV, kidney transplant, protease inhibitor, antiretroviral therapy, infection
HIV, kidney transplant, protease inhibitor, antiretroviral therapy, infection
More than 500 kidney transplants in human immunodeficiency virus–infected (HIV+) recipients have been performed in the United States with acceptable outcomes1–5. HIV infection is associated with a two- to three-fold increase in the risk of rejection3. Reduced exposure to immunosuppressive agents is considered the main mechanism for increased predisposition to rejection3,6,7.
Drug-drug interactions between antiretroviral therapy (ART) and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), such as tacrolimus, pose a significant clinical challenge. Protease inhibitors (PI) and cobicistat increase the levels of CNI, whereas nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) reduce the levels of these agents. In contrast to PI and NNRTI, integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI), which are not a substrate of CYP450, have become the preferred antiretroviral in many centers to overcome the problematic pharmacokinetic interactions6–9.
Although tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) has a good safety profile and is recommended as a first-line agent10, it can cause renal tubular dysfunction in HIV+ individuals11 and tenofovir-related nephrotoxicity is always a concern in kidney transplant recipients.
Data on the impact of specific ART regimens on the clinical outcomes of HIV+ kidney transplant recipients is scarce. In the present study, we compared post-transplant outcomes by ART regimens in a group of 58 HIV+ kidney recipients transplanted at our institution over a 9-year period.
A single-center, retrospective cohort study of 58 consecutive HIV- to HIV+ adult, first-time kidney transplants performed in the Miami Transplant Institute affiliated to Jackson Memorial Hospital, a 1,550-bed academic medical center, between October 2006 and October 2015. All HIV+ recipients had an undetectable viral load, and all but one (a kidney-liver recipient) had a CD4 count > 200 cells/mm3 at the time of the transplant. The study was approved by the University of Miami institutional review board (#20150614). Written consent was waived by the institutional review board due to the retrospective observational nature of the study.
Immunosuppression and antimicrobial prophylaxis protocols at our center have been previously described4,5.
The one- and three-year outcomes assessed were: patient survival, death-censored graft survival, and biopsy-proven acute rejection; we also assessed serious infections within the first six months post-transplant, defined as infections requiring admission to the intensive care unit during initial transplant hospitalization or re-admission to the hospital after discharge4.
The Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney U test were used where appropriate. Univariate analyses were performed using logistic regression with penalized likelihood estimation. Multivariable models were not pursued due to small number of events. Log-rank test was used to assess differences in time-to-event. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS University Edition (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
A total of 58 HIV+ adult kidney allograft recipients were studied (Table 1). In total, 51 subjects had at least one HIV viral load during the first year post-transplant, and except for six patients who had transient “blips” in viremia (median peak viremia, 130 copies/mL [IQR, 114–193]), all the patients had sustained ART-induced HIV viral load suppression (<50 copies/mL) post-transplant.
Variable | All patients n=58 (%) | Protease inhibitor | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
PI-sparing regimen n=25 (%) | PI-containing regimen n=33 (%) | |||
Demographics | ||||
Age, median (IQR) | 48 (43-54) | 49 (43-55) | 47 (42-49) | 0.13 |
Age, older than 40 | 45 (78) | 20 (80) | 25 (76) | 0.70 |
Male gender | 38 (66) | 15 (60) | 23 (70) | 0.44 |
African-American | 43 (74) | 20 (80) | 23 (70) | 0.37 |
HIV infection | ||||
Pre-transplant CD4 count <350 cells/mm3 | 16 (28) | 7 (28) | 9 (27) | 0.95 |
Pre-transplant CD4 count, cells/mm3, median (IQR) | 504 (351-666) | 441 (362-648) | 579 (346-666) | 0.54 |
Pre-transplant CD4/CD8 ratio, median (IQR) | 0.7 (0.6-1) | 0.7 (0.6-0.8) | 0.7 (0.5-1.1) | 0.67 |
Time from HIV diagnosis, years, median (IQR) | 10 (5-16) | 12 (7-17) | 10 (5-15) | 0.24 |
Comorbidities | ||||
Hepatitis C | 7 (12) | 1 (4) | 6 (18) | 0.13 |
Diabetes mellitus | 11 (19) | 8 (33) | 3 (9) | 0.04 |
Hypertension | 38 (66) | 19 (58) | 19 (76) | 0.14 |
HIVAN | 41 (72) | 17 (71) | 24 (73) | 0.87 |
Overweight (BMI >25) | 28 (48) | 13 (52) | 15 (45) | 0.79 |
Immunosuppression† | ||||
Prednisone | 52 (90) | 24 (96) | 28 (85) | 0.22 |
IVIG | 5 (9) | 0 | 5 (15) | 0.06 |
Rituximab | 4 (7) | 1 (4) | 3 (9) | 0.63 |
Tacrolimus | 57 (98) | 25 (100) | 32 (97) | >0.99 |
MMF | 57 (98) | 25 (100) | 32 (97) | >0.99 |
Sirolimus | 3 (5) | 0 | 3 (9) | 0.25 |
Cyclosporine | 2 (3) | 2 (8) | 0 | 0.18 |
Kidney allograft | ||||
Post-transplant follow-up, years, median (IQR) | 1.8 (0.9-4.2) | 1.7 (1-4.8) | 1.9 (0.9-3.5) | 0.40 |
Transplant year 2006–2010 | 34 (59) | 16 (64) | 18 (55) | 0.59 |
Living donor | 14 (24) | 6 (24) | 8 (24) | 0.98 |
Donor age, median (IQR) | 39 (28-47) | 45 (29-47) | 37 (21-47) | 0.42 |
Delayed graft function | 6 (11) | 1 (4) | 5 (15) | 0.38 |
Cold ischemia time, >36hϮ | 9 (19) | 3 (13) | 6 (24) | 0.47 |
HLA-ABDR mismatches, >5Ϯ | 21 (39) | 8 (38) | 13 (39) | >0.99 |
ABC-PRA, <5% | 48 (92) | 20 (91) | 28 (93) | >0.99 |
DR-PRA, <5% | 49 (92) | 19 (86) | 30 (97) | 0.30 |
CMV viremiaϮ, >500 copies/mL | 2 (4) | 0 | 2 (6) | 0.51 |
BK viremia˄, >10,000 copies/mL | 5 (10) | 3 (14) | 2 (7) | 0.65 |
BMI, body mass index; CMV, cytomegalovirus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; HIVAN, HIV-associated nephropathy; IQR, interquartile range; IVIG, Intravenous immunoglobulin; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; PRA, panel reactive antibody. PI, protease inhibitor.
*Data presented as absolute number (percentage), unless specified otherwise. The p-value corresponds to comparison of PI-containing and PI-sparing groups by using the Fisher exact test. Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test was used for variables presented as median and IQR.
†All of the patients received anti–thymocyte globulin, basiliximab and methylprednisolone for induction.
ϮCold ischemia time and HLA-mismatch data available for 47 and 54 patients, respectively.
ϮDuring first year post-transplant.
There were no ART restrictions in transplant eligibility for HIV+ candidates during the study period. The three most common regimens post-transplant were nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) plus PI, NRTI plus INSTI, and NRTI plus NNRTI (Table 2).
ART regimen | Pre-transplant | Post-transplant† | Post-transplant (12 months) |
---|---|---|---|
n (%) | n (%)* | n (%)º | |
Single drug class combination | |||
NRTI | 1 (2) | 1 (2) | 1 (2) |
Two drug class combination | |||
NRTI + PI | 30 (52) | 23 (40) | 11 (27) |
NRTI + INSTI | 2 (3) | 12 (21) | 8 (20) |
NRTI + NNRTI | 15 (26) | 9 (16) | 7 (17) |
PI + INSTI | 4 (7) | 2 (3) | 2 (5) |
NNRTI + INSTI | 1 (2) | 1 (2) | 0 |
NNRTI + PI | 0 | 0 | 1 (2) |
Three drug class combination | |||
NRTI + PI + INSTI | 2 (3) | 6 (10) | 4 (10) |
NRTI + PI + NNRTI | 2 (3) | 1 (2) | 0 |
NRTI + INSTI + NNRTI | 1 (2) | 2 (3) | 4 (10) |
NNRTI + INSTI + PI | 0 | 1 (2) | 2 (5) |
Four drug combination | |||
NRTI + INSTI + NNRTI + PI | 0 | 0 | 1 (2) |
ART, antiretroviral therapy; INSTI, integrase strand transfer inhibitors; NRTI, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; NNRTI, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; PI, protease inhibitors.
†Refers to the ART regimen the patient was discharged home with after the initial transplant hospitalization.
ºData only available for 41 patients (due to death, loss of follow up, or insufficient documentation in medical record).
*Individual percentage values are rounded and might not total 100%.
A total of 30 (52%) patients underwent ART modifications after transplant; 22 (38%) of them prior to discharge, and an additional 8 (14%) during the first year post-transplant. Adjustments in ART were primarily done to avoid drug-drug interactions or added nephrotoxicity. There was a significant increase in the proportion of patients receiving INSTI at time of discharge and at 12 months post-transplant compared to pre-transplant period: 41% (p<0.01) and 51% (p<0.0005) vs. 17%, respectively (Table 2 and Figure 1).
The patient and graft survival at three years were both 90% for the entire cohort. Transplant outcomes varied by ART regimen at the time of discharge after the initial transplant hospitalization. Patients receiving PI-containing regimens had lower patient survival at one and three years than patients receiving PI-sparing regimens: 85% vs. 100% (p=0.06) and 82% vs. 100% (p=0.03), respectively (Table 3 and Figure 2). Patients who received PI-containing regimens had twelve times higher odds of death at three years compared to patients who were not exposed to PIs (odds ratio [OR] 12.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1602; p=0.02). Hepatitis C and delayed graft function also increased the odds of death, but this finding did not reach statistical significance (Table 4). Three-year death-censored graft survival was lower in patients receiving PI vs. patients on PI-sparing regimens (82 vs 100%, p=0.03; Table 3 and Figure 2). On the contrary, patients receiving INSTI-containing regimens had higher three-year graft survival rates (100 vs. 82%, p=0.04; Table 3).
N (%) | Patient survival | Death-censored graft survival† | Biopsy-proven acute rejection | Severe infection† | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1y | p | 3y | p | 1y | p | 3y | p | 1y | p | 3y | p | 6m | p | ||
Overall | 58 | 91.4 | 89.7 | 93.1 | 89.7 | 13.8 | 17.2 | 26.3 | |||||||
TDF | |||||||||||||||
Yes | 19 | 89.5 | 89.5 | 94.7 | 94.7 | 15.8 | 10.5 | 31.6 | |||||||
No* | 35 | 94.3 | 0.6 | 91.4 | >0.99 | 91.4 | >0.99 | 85.7 | 0.4 | 14.3 | >0.99 | 22.9 | 0.4 | 23.5 | 0.52 |
NRTI | |||||||||||||||
Yes | 54 | 92.6 | 90.7 | 92.6 | 88.9 | 14.8 | 18.52 | 26.4 | |||||||
No | 4 | 75 | 0.3 | 75 | 0.36 | 100 | >0.99 | 100 | >0.99 | 0 | >0.99 | 0 | >0.99 | 25 | |
NNRTI | |||||||||||||||
Yes | 14 | 100 | 100 | 92.9 | 92.9 | 7.14 | 21.4 | 7.14 | |||||||
No | 44 | 88.6 | 0.32 | 86.4 | 0.32 | 93.2 | >0.99 | 88.6 | >0.99 | 15.9 | 0.66 | 15.9 | 0.69 | 32.6 | 0.08 |
PI | |||||||||||||||
Yes | 33 | 84.5 | 81.8 | 87.9 | 81.8 | 21.2 | 18.2 | 39.4 | |||||||
No | 25 | 100 | 0.06 | 100 | 0.03 | 100 | 0.12 | 100 | 0.03 | 4 | 0.12 | 16 | >0.99 | 8.33 | 0.01 |
INSTI | |||||||||||||||
Yes | 24 | 95.8 | 95.8 | 100 | 100 | 8.33 | 8.33 | 21.7 | |||||||
No | 34 | 88.2 | 0.39 | 85.3 | 0.38 | 88.2 | 0.13 | 82.4 | 0.04 | 17.7 | 0.45 | 23.5 | 0.17 | 29.4 | 0.5 |
Two drug regimensˆ | |||||||||||||||
NRTI + INSTI | 12 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 18.1 | |||||||
NRTI + NNRTI | 9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 11.1 | 0 | |||||||
NRTI + PI | 23 | 82.6 | 0.16 | 78.3 | 0.1 | 86.9 | 0.41 | 78.3 | 0.1 | 21.7 | 0.36 | 21.7 | 0.65 | 39.1 | 0.07 |
NRTI + other* | 21 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 4.8 | 9.5 | 10 | |||||||
NRTI + PI | 23 | 82.6 | 0.11 | 78.3 | 0.05 | 86.9 | 0.23 | 78.3 | 0.05 | 21.7 | 0.19 | 21.7 | 0.42 | 39.1 | 0.04 |
ART, antiretroviral therapy; INSTI, integrase strand transfer inhibitors; NRTI, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; NNRTI, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; PI, protease inhibitors; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
ºRefers to the ART regimen the patient was discharged home with after the initial transplant hospitalization.
P values correspond to Fisher 's exact test. Numbers in bold represent statistical significance.
†As defined previously4. See main text for details.
ˆRegimens listed here were three most common ART regimens post-transplant in this cohort.
*Includes NRTI + INSTI and NRTI + NNRTI.
VariableϮ | Alive at 3-years n=52 (%) | Death at 3-years n=6 (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P-value* |
---|---|---|---|---|
Protease inhibitor use | 27 (51.9) | 6 (100) | 12.1 (1.31-1602) | 0.02 |
HCV co-infection | 5 (9.62) | 2 (33.3) | 4.80 (0.70-28.3) | 0.10 |
Tacrolimus levels at 4 weeks, median (IQR) | 6 (4.1-8.5) | 8.7 (5.9-11.9) | 1.06 (0.91-1.20) | 0.38 |
Recipient age, years, median (IQR) | 48 (42-54) | 48 (46-49) | 1 (0.92-1.10) | 0.91 |
Baseline CD4 <350 cells/mm3 | 15 (28.9) | 1 (16.67) | 0.66 (0.06-3.70) | 0.66 |
Delayed graft function | 4 (7.84) | 2 (33.3) | 5.86 (0.84-36.70) | 0.07 |
Type 2 diabetes | 11 (21.6) | 6 (100) | 0.27 (0.002-2.60) | 0.31 |
Donor age, years, median (IQR) | 40 (29-47) | 24 (18-48) | 0.95 (0.88-1.02) | 0.16 |
Living donor | 14 (26.9) | 0 | 0.20 (0.002-1.92) | 0.19 |
Time from HIV diagnosis, years, median (IQR) | 10 (5-16) | 12 (5-13) | 0.98 (0.86-1.09) | 0.72 |
Morbid obesity | 9 (17.3) | 0 | 0.35 (0.003-3.45) | 0.43 |
We next assessed transplant outcomes in patients receiving NRTI “backbone” combined with either NNRTI, PI or INSTI as a second drug class. Compared to a group of patients receiving NRTI plus INSTI or NRTI plus NNRTI, the 3-year patient and graft survival were lower in patients receiving NRTI plus PI (78 vs. 100%; p=0.05, Table 3 and Figure 3).
Causes of graft loss among patients on PI-containing regimens were acute rejection in two (33%), thrombosis/hemorrhagic complications in two (33%), CNI toxicity in one (17%), and unidentified in another patient. The cumulative incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection was 14 and 17% at one and three years post-transplant, respectively. There were no significant differences in rejection rates by ART (Figure 2 and Figure 3; Table 3).
Serious non-opportunistic infections within six months post-transplant occurred in 15 (26%) patients. The etiology of such infections, mainly bacterial and fungal in nature, has been reported previously4. In total, 13 (87%) of these patients were on PI-containing regimens. Individuals receiving PI had a higher incidence of serious infections compared to those on PI-sparing regimens (39 vs. 8%, p=0.01; Figure 2). This association remained significant in analyses restricted to patients on NRTI “backbone”: 39 vs. 10% for patients receiving NRTI + PI compared to those receiving NRTI + INSTI or NNRTI, respectively (p=0.04; Table 3 and Figure 3).
Tacrolimus levels at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks post-transplant were within therapeutic range for most patient groups (Table 5). Although we did not observe differences in tacrolimus levels by ART at these specific time points, out of 11 patients with tacrolimus levels available at the time of infection, six (54%) had supra-therapeutic levels (median, IQR: 9.2, 5.5-10.1).
n | Tacrolimus levels | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 weeks | p | 12 weeks | p | 26 weeks | p | 52 weeks | p | |||
Overall | 58 | 6.1 (4.1-8.5) | - | 6.3 (5.3-7.9) | - | 6.2 (4.8-8.3) | - | 6.2 (5.1-7.8) | - | |
TDF | ||||||||||
Yes | 19 | 6.3 (5-8.5) | 0.88 | 6.7 (5.9-7.8) | 0.25 | 6.1 (4.5-8.1) | 0.74 | 6.1 (5.8-7.8) | 0.44 | |
No* | 35 | 6.1 (4-9) | 6.2 (4.8-7.9) | 6.2 (5.1-8.3) | 6.2 (4.4-7.6) | |||||
NRTI | ||||||||||
Yes | 54 | 6.3 (4.4-8.5) | 0.23 | 6.3 (5.3-7.8) | 0.51 | 6.1 (4.7-7.6) | 0.03 | 6.2 (5.2-7.7) | 0.82 | |
No | 4 | 2.2 (0-17.2) | 8 (2.1-15) | 9.3 (8.3-19.1) | 10.9 (3.9-17.9) | |||||
NNRTI | ||||||||||
Yes | 14 | 5.9 (4.5-8.3) | 0.81 | 5.8 (4.8-7.1) | 0.08 | 6.2 (5.5-6.5) | 0.88 | 6.3 (5-7.6) | 0.99 | |
No | 44 | 6.2 (4.1-8.7) | 6.4 (5.6-8.2) | 6.4 (4.7-8.7) | 6.1 (5.3-7.8) | |||||
PI | ||||||||||
Yes | 33 | 6.6 (4.4-9) | 0.41 | 6.1 (5.3-8.4) | 0.42 | 6.2 (4-9.3) | 0.81 | 6.4 (4.8-8.3) | 0.64 | |
No | 25 | 5.6 (4-8.4) | 6.3 (5-7.4) | 6.2 (5.1-7.5) | 6.1 (5.6-7.5) | |||||
INSTI | ||||||||||
Yes | 24 | 4.6 (3.6-7.2) | 0.01 | 7.8 (6.8-9.2) | 0.62 | 7.5 (5.4-9.3) | 0.07 | 6.2 (5.8-7.6) | 0.73 | |
No | 34 | 5.7 (4.1-7.1) | 5.9 (5.1-7.9) | 6 (4.4-7.2) | 6.1 (4.7-8.3) | |||||
NRTI + INSTI | 12 | 4.4 (3.5-7.5) | 0.08 | 6.8 (5.3-7.8) | 0.41 | 6.7 (5.5-7.6) | 0.53 | 6.1 (5.9-7) | 0.84 | |
NRTI + NNRTI | 9 | 7.7 (5.6-9.7) | 5.9 (4.8-7.1) | 6.1 (5-6.4) | 5.8 (5-7.6) | |||||
NRTI + PI | 23 | 7.6 (5.7-10.9) | 6.1 (5.7-8.4) | 5.9 (3.5-7.5) | 6.6 (5.3-8.3) | |||||
NRTI + other | 21 | 5.6 (4-8.7) | 0.17 | 6.5 (5-8.1) | 0.35 | 6.3 (5.5-7.5) | 0.49 | 6 (5.6-7.6) | 0.60 | |
NRTI + PI | 23 | 7.6 (5.7-10.9) | 6.1 (5.7-8.4) | 5.9 (3.5-7.5) | 6.6 (5.3-8.3) |
ART, antiretroviral therapy; INSTI, integrase strand transfer inhibitors; NRTI, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; NNRTI, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; PI, protease inhibitors. TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
*Only includes patients on NRTI other than TDF.
The p-value corresponds to comparison of PI-containing and PI-sparing groups by using the Fisher exact test.
Tacrolimus target levels at our center are 6–8 ng/mL during the first three months and 5–7 ng/mL after three months post-transplant. Higher levels are targeted for highly sensitized patients.
Consistent with previous studies of kidney transplantation in HIV1–5, we observed excellent transplant outcomes without evidence of HIV disease progression. The most important finding of the present study is the association between PI use and adverse outcomes, namely reduced three-year patient and graft survival, and increased risk of serious non-opportunistic infections. These observations remained true in analyses restricted to patients receiving NRTI “backbone”; thus, even after excluding the potential influence of other agents included in the ART regimen, PI continued to be associated with poor outcomes. The immunosuppression protocol at our institution remained constant during the study period, and the proportion of patients transplanted in the 2006–2010 (and consequently the 2011–2015) eras was similar between PI and non-PI groups, suggesting that this observation was also independent of variation in transplant practices over time that might have impacted outcomes.
Biopsy-proven acute rejection and CNI toxicity accounted for half of the cases of graft loss in patients taking PI in the present study. Increased risk of allograft rejection in HIV+ individuals has been largely attributed to reduced exposure to immunosuppressive agents, due to drug-drug interactions with ART3,6,7. However, in this small cohort, we did not observe an association between ART regimens and the incidence of rejection. CNI levels at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks were comparable across ART groups. Other factors, such as infection of the allograft, previous alloimmunization and immune activation, might also play a role in predisposition to rejection3,5,6.
Non-opportunistic infections within six months post-transplant are common in HIV+ kidney recipients3, especially those with marginal pre-transplant CD4 counts4. Notably, the occurrence of serious infections in this cohort was almost five-fold higher in patients receiving PI.
This might be due to the effects of PI on tacrolimus levels, considering that the overwhelming majority of these patients were on PI-containing regimen and more-than-half had tacrolimus levels above target at the time of infection. PI could also influence the net state of immunosuppression by increasing the level or effect of other immunosuppressants, such as prednisone and mycophenolate.
Contrary to our expectations, the use of NNRTI or TDF did not influence kidney allograft survival. Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a new formulation of tenofovir associated with less kidney (and bone) toxicity12. Whether there is added clinical benefit of TAF over TDF in kidney transplant recipients remains to be established.
Consistent with recent reports7–9, patients receiving INSTI-containing regimens had excellent patient survival (96%) and graft survival (100%) at three years, and the lowest rejection rates in this cohort (8%). Current guidelines recommend the use of NRTI plus INSTI as a first-line therapy for HIV10. INSTI pose no interactions with CNI or mTOR inhibitors. In addition, INSTIs have no interactions with direct-acting antivirals, which is important in the setting of hepatitis C co-infection, as that has been associated with poor outcomes2,3. Thus, it has become our practice to preemptively switch HIV+ candidates pre-transplant or in the immediate post-transplant period to PI-sparing, preferably INSTI-based, ART regimens.
Although none of the patients studied here was on cobicistat, it is important to highlight that this pharmacokinetic enhancer, contained in several combination pills, can increase the levels of CNI13. HIV+ recipients and their community HIV providers should be educated about what ART medications to avoid, and when not possible, how to adjust CNI doses and monitor levels accordingly.
Our study is limited by the small number of patients and retrospective design; serum levels for other immunosuppressants, such as mycophenolate were not available. The association found in the present study between PI-containing ART regimens and adverse outcomes needs to be confirmed in larger studies. Until more data becomes available, the use of PI-sparing regimens in HIV+ kidney recipients seems to be the most prudent approach.
Dataset 1: Rosa et al. Impact of ART in KT outcomes in HIV recipients: Raw data. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.10414.d14671714.
JFC conceived the study; JFC and RR designed the study; JFS, MAL, MIM, LMA, JS, GG, DR, WLK, AM, GC, LJC, GWB, JMF, and PR acquired the data; JFC and RR analyzed the data; JFC and JFS prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All authors were involved in the revision of the draft manuscript and have agreed to the final content.
This work was supported in part by a Miami Center for AIDS research (CFAR) pilot award to JFC, funded by a grant (P30AI073961) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
We thank Analucía Schneégans for technical assistance. We are indebted to all the patients that participated in the present study.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
References
1. Azar MM, Malinis MF, Moss J, Formica RN, et al.: Integrase strand transferase inhibitors: the preferred antiretroviral regimen in HIV-positive renal transplantation.Int J STD AIDS. 2016. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 21 Dec 16 |
read | read |
Click here to access the data.
Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly.
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)