Background and Objectives: In the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the management of immunosuppressive (IS) therapy in kidney transplant (KT) recipients affected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) requires attention. It is not yet understood whether IS therapy may protect from the cytokine storm induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection or a temporary adjustment/withdrawal of IS therapy to restore the immune system may be necessary. We performed a systematic literature review to investigate the current management of IS therapy in KT recipients with COVID-1. Materials and Methods: Out of 71 articles published from 1 February 2020 until 30 October 2020, 554 KT recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. Results: Modifications of IS therapy were based on the clinical conditions. For asymptomatic patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms, a “wait and see approach” was mostly used; a suspension of antimetabolites drugs (347/461, 75.27%) or mTOR inhibitors (38/48, 79.2%) was adopted in the majority of patients with symptomatic COVID-19 infections. For CNIs, the most frequent attitude was their maintenance (243/502, 48.4%) or dose-reduction (99/502, 19.72%) in patients asymptomatic or with mild COVID-19 symptoms, while drug withdrawal was the preferred choice in severely symptomatic patients (160/450, 31.87%). A discontinuation of all IS drugs was used only in severely symptomatic COVID-19 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation. Renal function remained stable in 422(76.17%) recipients, while 49(8.84%) patients experienced graft loss. Eight (1.44%) patients experienced a worsening of renal function. The overall mortality was 21.84%, and 53(9.56%) patients died with functioning grafts. Conclusion: A tailored approach to the patient has been the preferred strategy for the management of IS therapy in KT recipients, taking into account the clinical conditions of patients and the potential interactions between IS and antiviral drugs, in the attempt to balance the risks of COVID-19-related complications and those due to rejection or graft loss.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are still underused in kidney transplantation (KT) due to recipients’ “frailty” and risk of postoperative complications. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of ERAS in KT during the “extended-criteria donor” era, and to identify the predictive factors of prolonged hospitalization. In 2010–2019, all patients receiving KT were included in ERAS program targeting a discharge home within 5 days of surgery. Recipient, transplant, and outcomes data were analyzed. Of 454 KT [male: 280, 63.9%; age: 57 (19–77) years], 212 (46.7%) recipients were discharged within the ERAS target (≤5 days), while 242 (53.3%) were discharged later. Patients within the ERAS target (≤5 days) had comparable recipient and transplant characteristics to those with longer hospital stays, and they had similar post-operative complications, readmission rates, and 5 year graft/patient survival. In the multivariate analysis, DGF (HR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.08–4.34, p < 0.030) and in-hospital dialysis (HR: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.73–7.85, p < 0.001) were the only predictive factors for late discharge. The ERAS approach is feasible and safe in all KT candidates, and its failure is primarily related to the postoperative graft function, rather than the recipient’s clinical status. ERAS pathways, integrated with strict collaboration with local nephrologists, allow early discharge after KT, with clinical benefits.

Kidney transplantation (KT) is recognized as the gold-standard of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that receiving a pre-emptive KT ensures the best recipient and graft survivals. However, due to an overwhelming discrepancy between the organs available and the patients on the transplant waiting list, the vast majority of transplant candidates require prolonged periods of dialysis before being transplanted. For many years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered competitive renal replacement therapies (RRT). This dualistic vision has recently been questioned by evidence suggesting that an individualized and flexible approach may be more appropriate. In fact, tailored and cleverly planned changes between different RRT modalities, according to the patient’s needs and characteristics, are often needed in order to achieve the best results. While home HD is still under scrutiny in this particular setting, current data seems to favor the use of PD over in-center HD in patients awaiting a KT. In this specific population, the demonstrated advantages of PD are superior quality of life, longer preservation of residual renal function, lower incidence of delayed graft function, better recipient survival, and reduced cost.

Current knowledge on Leishmania infection after kidney transplantation (KT) is limited. In order to offer a comprehensive guide for the management of post-transplant Leishmaniasis, we performed a systematic review following the latest PRISMA Checklist and using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase as databases. No time restrictions were applied, including all English-edited articles on Leishmaniasis in KT recipients. Selected items were assessed for methodological quality using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Given the nature and quality of the studies (case reports and retrospective uncontrolled case series), data could not be meta-analyzed. A descriptive summary was therefore provided. Eventually, we selected 70 studies, describing a total of 159 cases of Leishmaniasis. Most of the patients were adult, male, and Caucasian. Furthermore, they were frequently living or travelling to endemic regions. The onset of the disease was variable, but more often in the late transplant course. The clinical features were basically similar to those reported in the general population. However, a generalized delay in diagnosis and treatment could be detected. Bone marrow aspiration was the preferred diagnostic modality. The main treatment options included pentavalent antimonial and liposomal amphotericin B, both showing mixed results. Overall, the outcomes appeared as concerning, with several patients dying or losing their transplant.

The outbreak of COVID‐19 led to a reduction in the number of organ transplant interventions in most Countries. In April 2020, at the Tor Vergata University in Rome, Italy, two patients on the waiting list for kidney transplantation (KT) declined a deceased donor's kidney offer. Therefore, between April 20 and 25, 2020, we conducted a telephone survey among our 247 KT waitlist patients. Our aim was to explore: (a) the COVID‐19 diffusion among them and (b) their current willingness to be transplanted in case of a kidney offer from a deceased donor. Two hundred and forty‐three patients participated in a phone interview. One patient had died from COVID‐19. Eighty‐five (35%) KT candidates would decline any kidney offer, in most cases until the end of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Upon a multivariate analysis, female gender (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.26‐4.03,P = .006), high cardiovascular risk (OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.06‐5.08,P = .034), a waiting list time <3 years (OR = 0.375, 95% CI = 0.15‐0.95,P = .04), and the need to be transferred to another hospital for HD (OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.10‐5.9,P = .03) were associated with such refusal. The COVID‐19 pandemic led to a fear of transplantation in a third of the KT candidates. Proactive educational webinars could be a useful tool to remove, or at least lessen, any doubts on the part of KT candidates and to avoid losing the opportunity to quit dialysis.