Skip Navigation



NDT Advance Access published online on September 25, 2009
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp489
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Naqvi, R.
Right arrow Articles by Rizvi, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Naqvi, R.
Right arrow Articles by Rizvi, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of ERA-EDTA]. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Use of isoniazid chemoprophylaxis in renal transplant recipients

Rubina Naqvi, Anwar Naqvi, Sohail Akhtar, Ejaz Ahmed, Huma Noor, Tahir Saeed, Fazal Akhtar and Adib Rizvi

Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Karachi, Pakistan

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Rubina Naqvi; E-mail: naqvirubina{at}yahoo.com, rubinanaqvi{at}gmail.com



  Abstract

Background. The use of isoniazid (INH) as chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis (TB) in renal transplant recipients has not been widely studied or reported from a country where TB is endemic. We are reporting here the results of the largest ever-reported randomized, prospective study of the use of INH in renal transplant recipients.

Methods. Four hundred consecutive live related renal transplant recipients between April 2001 and September 2004, from this single center, were randomized to receive or not receive INH for 1 year after transplantation.

Results. There were 12 dropouts. Of the remaining 388, 181 recipients received INH for 1 year post-transplant and 207 did not. The primary disease, comorbidities, HLA (human leucocyte antigen) match, immunosuppression, episodes of rejection, the use of anti-rejection agents, a past history of TB in the donor, the recipients and in family members living in same house and a history of TB in the family were factors compared in the two groups. The only significant difference between the two groups was that there was an increased family history of TB in recipients who received INH (P = 0.01). One recipient from the INH group and 16 recipients from the non-INH group developed TB (P = 0.0003). Discontinuation of INH for hepatotoxicity was not required in any patient.

Conclusion. These results provide evidence that the use of INH following renal transplantation should be considered mandatory in geographical areas where the prevalence of TB is high. Furthermore, these results have important implication in patients from such areas who are immunosuppressed following other kinds of transplantation and for those who are immunocompromised for any other reason.

Keywords: isoniazid; kidney transplantation; prophylaxis; tuberculosis

Received for publication: 1. 3.09
Accepted in revised form: 21. 8.09


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.