HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.02021205v1 1/3/374    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Drachenberg, C. B. Articles by Ramos, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Drachenberg, C. B. Articles by Ramos, E.

Histologic versus Molecular Diagnosis of BK Polyomavirus–Associated Nephropathy: A Shifting Paradigm?

Departments of Medicine and Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Address correspondence to: Dr. Emilio Ramos, Department of Nephrology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S. Greene Street, Room N3W145, Baltimore, MD 21201. Phone: 410-328-8644; Fax: 410-328-5685; E-mail: eramos{at}medicine.umaryland.edu

Although discovered in 1970 the BK virus infections had no significant clinical impact until the emergence of BK virus–associated allograft nephropathy (BKPVAN). Escalating clinical challenges required better diagnostic tools and delineation of uniform criteria for diagnosis. In recent years, the widespread use of real-time PCR for measuring viral loads has confirmed that BK viruria and viremia are consistently identified before the development of overt nephritis. The identification of this viruria-viremia-nephritis sequence has provided tools for screening renal transplant patients and the possibility of earlier intervention with improved outcomes. Analysis of current clinical trends indicates that despite the fact that a positive renal biopsy is the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of BKPVAN, clinical interventions often are based on the surrogate markers of the disease rather than on tissue diagnosis. This is conceptually supported by the fact that early BKPVAN is focal and liable to tissue sampling errors. Strong arguments remain, however, in favor of retaining the requirement for tissue evaluation in patients who are suspected of having BKPVAN. BKPVAN selectively affects the graft and is likely to occur in a background of immune and/or nonimmune renal injury. A renal biopsy is necessary to exclude other pathologic processes (e.g., acute rejection) that could coexist with BKPVAN or be the main cause of allograft dysfunction. Evaluation of a renal biopsy for the purpose of staging is important for prognosis and is also of paramount importance for the rational assessment of therapeutic success.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Hilton and C. Y. W. Tong Antiviral therapy for polyomavirus-associated nephropathy after renal transplantation J. Antimicrob. Chemother., July 25, 2008; (2008) dkn305v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Costa, M. Bergallo, S. Astegiano, M. E. Terlizzi, F. Sidoti, G. P. Segoloni, and R. Cavallo Monitoring of BK virus replication in the first year following renal transplantation Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 25, 2008; (2008) gfn289v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]