The 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Infection: Renal Histopathology Findings in Two Infected Patients

Background: Acute kidney injury in the pandemic swine origin influenza A virus (H1N1) infection has been reported as coursing with severe illness, although renal pathogenic mechanisms and histologic features are still being characterised. Case Report: We present two patients admitted with H1N1 pneumonia, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome and need for invasive mechanical ventilation who developed acute kidney injury and became dialysis-dependent. In both cases a kidney biopsy was performed to establish a definitive diagnosis. Severe acute tubular necrosis was identified, with no further abnormalities. Conclusion: This report seems to confirm that the acute kidney injury in H1N1 infection is focused on the tubular cells. Our cases corroborate the renal histopathologic findings of other studies, highlighting the central role of the tubular cell. We bring new evidence of the histopathology of AKI in H1N1 infection since our data were collected in living patients and not via post-mortem studies.

Leflunomide and Polyomavirus-Associated Nephropathy in Renal Transplant

Polyomavirus nephropathy is a major complication in renal transplantation, associated with renal allograft loss in 14 to 80% of cases. There is no established treatment, although improvement has been reported with a variety of approaches. The authors report two cases of polyomavirus infection in renal allograft recipients. In the first case, a stable patient presented with deterioration of renal function, worsening hypertension and weight gain following removal of ureteral stent placed routinely at the time of surgery. Ultrasound examination and radiology studies revealed hydronephrosis due to ureteral stenosis. A new ureteral stent was placed, but renal function did not improve. Urinary cytology revealed the presence of decoy cells and polyomavirus was detected in blood and urine by qualitative polymerase chain reaction. Renal biopsy findings were consistent with polyomavirus -associated nephropathy. In the second case, leucopaenia was detected in an asymptomatic patient 6 months after transplantation. Mycophenolate mophetil dosage was reduced but renal allograft function deteriorated, and a kidney biopsy revealed polyomavirus -associated nephropathy, also with SV40 positive cells. In both patients immunosuppression with tacrolimus was reduced, mycophenolate mophetil stopped and intravenous immune globulin plus ciprofloxacin started. As renal function continued to deteriorate, therapy with leflunomide (40 mg/day) was associated and maintained during 5 and 3 months respectively. In the first patient, renal function stabilised within one month of starting leflunomide and polymerase chain reaction was negative for polyomavirus after 5 months. A repeated allograft biopsy 6 months later showed no evidence of polyomavirus nephropathy. In the second patient, polyomavirus was undetectable in blood and urine by polymerase chain reaction after 3 months of leflunomide treatment, with no evidence of polyomavirus infection in a repeated biopsy 6 months after beginning treatment.

C4d Detection in Renal Allograft Biopsies: Immunohistochemistry vs. Immunofluorescence

Introduction. Peritubular capillary complement 4d staining is one of the criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection, and research into this is essential to kidney allograft evaluation. The immunofluorescence technique applied to frozen sections is the present gold-standard method for complement 4d staining and is used routinely in our laboratory. The immunohistochemistry technique applied to paraffin-embedded tissue may be used when no frozen tissue is available. Material and Methods. The aim of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry compared with immunofluorescence. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the immunohistochemistry vs. the immunofluorescence technique. For this purpose complement 4d staining was performed retrospectively by the two methods in indication biopsies (n=143) and graded using the Banff 07 classification. Results. There was total classification agreement between methods in 87.4% (125/143) of cases. However, immunohistochemistry staining caused more difficulties in interpretation, due to nonspecific staining in tubular cells and surrounding interstitium. All cases negative by immunofluorescence were also negative by immunohistochemistry. The biopsies were classified as positive in 44.7% (64/143) of cases performed by immunofluorescence vs. 36.4% (52/143) performed by immunohistochemistry. Fewer biopsies were classified as positive diffuse in the immunohistochemistry group(25.1% vs. 31.4%) and more as positive focal (13.2% vs. 11.1%). More cases were classified as negative by immunohistochemistry (63.6% vs. 55.2%). Study by ROC curve showed immunohistochemistry has a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 81.2% in relation to immunofluorescence (AUC: 0.906; 95% confidence interval: 0.846-0.949; p=0.0001). Conclusions. The immunohistochemistry method presents an excellent specificity but lower sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring a more experienced observer than the immunofluorescence method. Based on these results, we conclude that the immunohistochemistry technique can safely be used when immunofluorescence is not available.

Renal Transplantation in HIV-Infected Patients: The First Portuguese Review

INTRODUCTION: With the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), prognosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has been improved and kidney transplantation (KT) in HIV-positive patients became possible. METHODS: We reviewed the demographic, clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic data of all the HIV-infected patients who underwent KT between 2009 (first KT in Portugal in a HIV-infected patient) and May 2014. Case accrual was through all Portuguese KT centers where a KT in an HIV-infected patient was performed. Patients were transplanted following the American and Spanish guideline recommendations that included maintenance on cART, undetectable plasma HIV RNA copies, and absolute CD4 counts of ≥ 200 cells/μL in the last 6 months. RESULTS: Fourteen KT were performed on men and 3 on women. The mean age of patients at the time of transplantation was 49.9 ± 11.7 years. HIV status was known for 12 ± 5 years. Eight patients had AIDS in the past and all patients received grafts from deceased donors. Twelve patients (64.7%) underwent induction therapy with basiliximab and 2 patients experienced early graft loss. In 2 patients, humoral rejection was diagnosed and in 3 patients, cellular rejection. Two patients died and an additional patient had early graft loss. CONCLUSION: KT is a possible, but challenging, renal replacement therapy in selected HIV-positive patients. Even in those with AIDS criteria in the past, when the disease is controlled, and after the reconstitution of the immune system with cART, KT can be performed. Nevertheless, the risk-benefit ratio for each patient needs to be taken in consideration.