Aims: We aimed to assess humoral immune response to the influenza vaccine in adult kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) subjected to two immunosuppressive regimens containing either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine (Aza). Methods: 40 eligible KTRs (24 treated with Aza [KTRs-Aza] and 16 treated with MMF [KTRs-MMF]) and 40 matched healthy controls (HCs) were administered the trivalent 2006–2007 anti-influenza vaccine. Antibody (Ab) titers were measured before (pre-vacc) and 1 month after (post-vacc) vaccination. The proportion of protective Ab titers (i.e. ≧1:40), the serological response (i.e. ≧4-fold rise in titers) rates, and the magnitudes of change in titers were evaluated. Results: KTRs and HCs were similar in serologic responses, magnitudes of change in Ab titers, and proportions of acquired protective titers against all antigens. Whereas KTRs-MMF and KTRs-Aza were identical in magnitude of rise in titers as well as in serologic responses, KTRs-MMF did poorer in developing post-vacc-protective titers against A/H1N1 (p < 0.05). The function of the transplanted kidney has not deteriorated after vaccination. Conclusions: Anti-influenza vaccination was safe in KTRs and evoked Ab responses comparable to those of HCs. KTRs-MMF and KTRs-Aza responded almost equally to the vaccine. Annual anti-influenza vaccination can be recommended to all stable KTRs.

No abstract

To our knowledge, this is the first study that demonstrated an increase in the risk of post-transplant TB by increasing the duration of pre-transplant hemodialysis and the number of post-transplant rejection episodes as 2 immunocompromised states. Further study is needed to clarify our new findings, specifically in relation to different immunosuppressive regimens.

End-stage renal disease patients regularly need haemodialysis three times a week. Their poor access to haemodialysis facilities is significantly associated with a high mortality rate. The present cross-sectional study aimed to measure the potential spatial access to dialysis services at a small area level (census tract level) in North Khorasan Province, Iran. The patients were interviewed to obtain their travel information. The two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method was used to measure the spatial accessibility of patients to the dialysis centres. The capacity of the dialysis centre was defined as the number of active dialysis facilities in each centre and the haemodialysis patients in each area were considered as the users of dialysis services. The travel cost from each patient’s residence to the haemodialysis facilities was visualized by the Kriging interpolation algorithm in the study area. Spatial accessibility to the dialysis centre was poor in the northern part of the study area. Fortunately, there were not many haemodialysis patients in that area. Patients’ travel costs were high in the northern areas compared to the rest of study area. We observed a statistically significant reverse correlation between the self-reported travel time and computed spatial accessibility (-0.570, P value <0.01, two-tailed spearman test). This study supports the notion that the 2SFCA method could be associated with revealed access time to dialysis facilities, especially in low traffic and in flat areas such as northern Khorasan. The mapping of patients’ distribution and interpolated travel cost to the haemodialysis facilities could help policymakers to allocate health resources to the areas where the need is greater.

Poor access to haemodialysis facilities is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. This study investigated factors affecting revealed access to the haemodialysis facilities considering patients living in rural and urban areas without any haemodialysis facility (Group A) and those living urban areas with haemodialysis facilities (Group B). This study is based on selfreported Actual Access Time (AAT) to referred haemodialysis facilities and other information regarding travel to haemodialysis facilities from patients. All significant variables on univariate analysis were entered into a univariate general linear model in order to identify factors associated with AAT. Both spatial (driving time and distance) and non-spatial factors (sex, income level, caregivers, transportation mode, education level, ethnicity and personal vehicle ownership) influenced the revealed access identified in Group A. The non-spatial factors for Group B patients were the same as for Group A, but no spatial factor was identified in Group B. It was found that accessibility is strongly underestimated when driving time is chosen as accessibility measure to haemodialysis facilities. Analysis of revealed access determinants provides policymakers with an appropriate decision base for making appropriate decisions and finding solutions to decrease the access time for patients under haemodialysis therapy. Driving time alone is not a good proxy for measuring access to haemodialysis facilities as there are many other potential obstacles, such as women's special travel problems, poor other transportation possibilities, ethnicity disparities, low education levels, low caregiver status and low-income.