Kidney Res Clin Pract > Volume 41(5); 2022 > Article
Lee, Kim, Park, Park, Lee, Yang, Kim, Kim, and the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry Study Group: Antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab induction for kidney transplantation in elderly patients: matched analysis within the Korean multicentric registry



Basiliximab (BSX) and antithymocyte globulins (ATGs), are two major immunosuppressive agents commonly used as induction therapy for kidney transplant (KT) recipients. The superiority of ATG over BSX has not been well established, especially in elderly KT recipients with low immunological risk.


A total of 847 elderly (≥60 years old), low-risk KT patients in the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry were propensity score-matched at a 1:2 ratio and compared according to ATG or BSX induction therapy. The primary outcome was patient and graft survival and biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection. The secondary outcome was graft function, BK virus nephropathy, infection, cancer, new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation (NODAT), and delayed graft function.


In total, 165 patients in the ATG group were matched with 298 patients in the BSX group with average ages of 64.3 and 64.2 years, respectively. During a follow-up of 28.5 ± 10.4 months, the cumulative probabilities of death-censored graft failure at 3 years posttransplantation were 1.3% and 1.4% in ATG and BSX groups, respectively, without a significant difference (p = 0.72). The cumulative probability of NODAT at 3 years posttransplantation was significantly higher in the BSX group (35.6% vs. 21.6%, p = 0.02). The median tacrolimus trough level was significantly lower at 6 months after KT in the ATG group (5.7 ng/mL vs. 6.4 ng/mL, p = 0.001). There were no differences in the other evaluated outcomes.


Compared with BSX, in elderly, low-risk KT patients, ATG reduced tacrolimus and steroid requirements without differences in all-cause mortality, rejection, or infection, resulting in a reduced NODAT incidence.


The number of kidney transplant (KT) procedures in older patients has been increasing [1]. Older recipients are characterized by attenuated immune function, which contributes to a less frequent rejection and a higher rate of infectious complications after KT [2]. Recent guidelines recommend age-adopted immunosuppression for KT recipients [3]; however, convincing evidence of the optimal immunosuppression in the older population is still lacking.
Induction treatment is one of the most important parts of immunosuppression. Basiliximab (BSX), which is a monoclonal interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R) antibody, and antithymocyte globulin (ATG), which is a polyclonal antibody that mainly depletes T cells, are the two most commonly used induction agents currently [4]. The superiority of ATG over BSX with respect to reducing rejection events in immunologically high-risk kidney recipients has been proven [5,6]. However, it is not clear whether ATG has advantageous effects in low-risk recipients. Several studies showed that ATG could lower the biopsy-proven rejection (BPR) or even result in better graft survival in patients with low immunologic risk [7-9]. However, there has yet to be a randomized trial to evaluate these effects in KT recipients who underwent steroid withdrawal immunosuppression [10].
ATG warrants several adverse effects, such as cytokine release syndrome [5], infection [11,12], and posttransplant malignancy [13,14], of which all were more critical in the elderly population. However, ATG minimizes the use of calcineurin inhibitors and steroids [15,16], which could result in higher long-term graft function and better glucose control. A recent French observational study showed that ATG compared with BSX was related to neither better nor poorer graft survival as well as patient outcomes, except for lowering posttransplant diabetes mellitus (DM) in elderly KT recipients [17]. They included a relatively small sample size in both groups and only included deceased donor KT (DDKT); thus more evidence is still needed. Therefore, we compared ATG and BSX as induction therapies in older KT recipients (≥60 years) using matched analysis with Korean multicentric registry data.


Ethics approval

This study was performed under the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Declaration of Istanbul. The study protocol was approved by the Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine (No. CR321365), which provided an exemption for informed consent because of the retrospective nature of the study.

Study population

A retrospective analysis was performed on 6,127 patients who received KT between May 2014 and December 2019 as registered in the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY). We excluded patients who were under the age of 60 years (n = 4,938), ABO-incompatible (ABOi) living donor KT (LDKT) (n = 176), crossmatch-positive LDKT (n = 38), pretransplant donor-specific antibody (DSA) (n = 88), received both ATG and BSX induction therapy (n = 14), no induction therapy (n = 6), and insufficient data (n = 20). Finally, 847 low immunologic risk (crossmatch-negative, ABO-compatible, and no pretransplant DSA) elderly KT recipients were included in the study (Fig. 1).

Data collection

The demographics of the recipients and donors were sourced from the KOTRY database. The number of mismatches for human leukocyte antigen regarding A, B, and DR were collected. Pretransplant peak panel-reactive antibody (PRA) was categorized as 0% to 20%, 21% to 80%, and 81% to 100%. As PRA is a critical factor for posttransplant BPR, those with missing PRA were placed in a separate category, which accounted for approximately 30% of the study population. We separately collected donor factors, such as donor age, sex, body mass index (BMI), history of hypertension (HTN), history of DM, and serum creatinine, at donation. The cause of death for deceased donors and cold ischemic time (CIT) for all donors were also collected, as well as for deceased donors apart.
According to the data collection interval of the KOTRY, serum creatinine, immunosuppressant regimens, steroid use, and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or its equivalent (360 mg of enteric-coated mycophenolate being equivalent to 500 mg of MMF) were collected at discharge, 6 months, 12 months, and annually thereafter.
Tacrolimus (TAC) trough level was collected from 6 months onward, as the KOTRY collected it from a later period of this study. Graft function was evaluated by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated by The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation [18].


Primary outcomes include BPR, death-censored graft failure, and patient death. BPR except borderline findings was separately analyzed from the entire BPR. Secondary outcomes include graft function, BK virus nephropathy (BKVN), infection, cancer, new-onset DM after transplantation (NODAT), and delayed graft function (DGF). BKVN was checked only when confirmed in renal biopsies. Infection was counted when the patient was admitted with confirmed pathogens. The most common types of infection were urinary tract infection, bacterial pneumonia, bacteremia, viral infection, viral pneumonia, fungal infection, and Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia. Each transplant institution reported DM to the KOTRY registry. Regarding early hyperglycemia, we excluded patients who were diagnosed with DM only during the early posttransplant period and reported with no DM after the follow-up period. NODAT was compared only in patients without pretransplant DM. DGF was defined as a need for dialysis within 7 days after KT.

Statistical analysis

A 2:1 propensity score-matching was performed between BSX and ATG groups with the nearest neighbor method. A caliper was set at 0.2 standard deviations (SDs). All available baseline factors were included as matching covariates, except the cause of death for donors and CIT, because our study contained a considerable LDKT population. The balance of the covariates was considered appropriate when the standard mean differences were between 0.1 of one another [19]. Cases outside of balance were discarded from both groups during matching; hence complete matching between the two groups was not achieved.
Regarding the comparison of numerical variables, the Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test was used, and the paired t test or McNemar test was used for the comparison of variables between matched groups. The results were presented as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range [IQR]) according to their normality. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the cumulative probability of posttransplant events, and statistical significance was confirmed by the log-rank test. All analyses were performed using standard software (IBM SPSS version 25.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA and R freeware version 3.6.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The p-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.


Baseline characteristics

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the BSX and ATG groups before and after matching. Before matching, 656 older recipients (≥60 years, 77.4%) received BSX as induction therapy, whereas 191 (22.6%) received ATG as induction therapy. Age, sex, BMI, and the cause of end-stage renal disease were similar between the groups. However, the ATG group showed more frequent retransplantation (2.9% vs. 9.9% in the BSX and ATG groups, respectively; p < 0.001) and longer pretransplant dialysis duration (43.5 ± 51.0 months vs. 61.4 ± 52.4 months, respectively; p < 0.001). PRA was significantly different between both groups (p = 0.003), especially the 81st to 100th percentile of PRA values was higher in the ATG group than in the BSX group (1.4% vs. 5.2%). The proportion of DDKT was higher in the ATG group than in the BSX group (50.6% vs. 82.7%, p < 0.001). Several donor risk factors, such as male sex (54.0% vs. 68.1%, p = 0.001), creatine at donation (1.0 ± 0.8 vs. 2.0 ± 1.7, p < 0.001), HTN (22.9% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.034), and DM (9.1% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.005) were higher in the ATG group than in the BSX group, so was expanded criteria donor (ECD), accordingly (25.5% vs. 41.9%, p < 0.001). CIT, which was available only in 78.5% of the study population, was longer in the ATG group than the BSX group. However, it became similar when compared considering DDKT only (298.5 ± 145.5 minutes vs. 296.9 ± 148.6 minutes, p = 0.93).
By propensity score matching, 165 patients in the ATG group were matched to 298 patients in the BSX group with adequate balance (Supplementary Fig. 1, available online). The similarity in all baseline covariates was achieved between the BSX and ATG groups after matching, as shown in Table 1. Some factors were excluded from the matching, including ECD, vascular cause of death, and CIT. The mean total dose of ATG was 4.7 ± 1.6 mg/kg in the ATG group. All patients in the BSX group received two doses of 20 mg BSX on postoperative days 0 and 4.

Maintenance immunosuppression

Fig. 2 shows the comparison of maintenance immunosuppressants between the BSX and ATG groups. Most patients of both groups used a combination of TAC, MMF, and steroids at discharge, and no differences were found among the regimen types. At 6 months, the proportion of the triple regimen declined, whereas TAC plus steroid regimen became more common (12.8% vs. 16.9% for BSX and ATG, respectively) in both groups. One year after KT, the type of immunosuppression was significantly different between groups (p = 0.03) (Fig. 2A), and the proportion of TAC plus MMF was especially higher in the ATG group than in the BSX group (2.4% vs. 12.8%, p < 0.001). The proportion of steroid use was significantly lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group from both 1 and 2 years after KT (97.2% vs. 87.2%, p < 0.001 at 1 year; 94.8% vs. 87.6%, p = 0.03 at 2 years) (Fig. 2B), although the daily steroid dose in the patients on maintenance steroid treatment was similar from discharge to 2 years after KT in both groups (Supplementary Fig. 2, available online). The cumulative incidence of pulse steroid therapy within 6 months was significantly lower in the ATG group (7.3%; one patient received pulse steroid therapy twice, and 11 patients received pulse steroid therapy once) than in the BSX group (15.4%; five patients received pulse steroid therapy twice, and 41 patients received pulse steroid therapy once) (p=0.01). The median TAC trough level was significantly lower at 6 months after KT in the ATG group than in the BSX group (6.4 [IQR, 5.1-8.1] vs. 5.7 [IQR, 4.5-7.1], p = 0.001), but they then became similar from 1 year onwards (Supplementary Fig. 3, available online). At the discharge date, the TAC dose in the ATG group was significantly lower than in the BSX group (0.63 ng/dL per 10 kg vs. 0.71 ng/dL per 10 kg, p = 0.004) (Fig. 2C). The mean equivalent maintenance dose of MMF was not different at discharge and 6 months. However, it was lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group after 1 year postoperation (984 ± 329 mg vs. 907 ± 338 mg, p = 0.049) (Fig. 2D).

Primary outcomes

During 28.5 ± 10.4 months of mean follow-up, six patients (1.3%) experienced death-censored graft failure, and 27 patients (5.8%) died with a functioning graft. The cumulative probability of death-censored graft failure was 1.4% at both years 1 and 3 of follow-up in the BSX group, and the corresponding probabilities were 0.6% and 1.3% in the ATG group (p = 0.90) (Fig. 3A). The cumulative probability of patient death was 4.7% at year 1 and 5.7% at year 3 of follow-up in the BSX group vs. 4.9% at year 1 and 7.3% at year 3 of follow-up in the ATG group (p = 0.60) (Fig. 3B). The cumulative probability of BPR was 18.1% at 1 year and 24.3% at 3 years postoperation in the BSX group, whereas the cumulative probability of BPR was 14.5% at 1 year and 16.9% at 3 years postoperation in the ATG group. BPR was numerically lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group, though without statistical significance (p = 0.08) (Fig. 3C). Furthermore, BPR probability was similar between the ATG and BSX groups, except for pathologically borderline rejection (7.5% at 1 year and 12.3% at 3 years in the BSX group compared to 8.8% at 1 year and 10.2% at 3 years postoperation in the ATG group, p = 0.70) (Fig. 3D).

Secondary outcomes

DGF occurred in 9.5% of the BSX group and 8.5% of the ATG group without a significant difference (p = 0.83). The cumulative probability of BKVN was similar between the two groups (3.9% at both years 1 and 3 in the BSX group and 3.1% at both years 1 and 3 in the ATG group, p = 0.72) (Fig. 3E). The cumulative probability of infection was 39.3% at 1 year and 44.3% at 3 years postoperation in the BSX group, whereas the corresponding values were 37.0% and 44.3% in the ATG group (p = 0.68) (Fig. 3F). Not only was the cumulative probability of infection similar between the two groups but so were the cumulative probabilities of urinary tract infection, bacterial pneumonia, bacteremia, viral infection, viral pneumonia, fungal infection, and Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (Table 2). The cumulative probability of cancer after KT was numerically lower in the ATG group (1.3% at both 1 year and 3 years postoperation) vs. the BSX group (2.1% and 5.0% at 1 year and 3 years postoperation) without any significance (p = 0.08) (Fig. 3G). Among patients without pretransplant DM, the cumulative probability of NODAT was significantly lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group (32.3% at 1 year and 35.6% at 3 years postoperation in the BSX group compared to 15.4% at 1 year and 21.6% at 3 years postoperation in the ATG group, p = 0.02) (Fig. 3H). Graft function was similar throughout the study period between the BSX and ATG groups, at approximately 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 eGFR (Fig. 4). Besides, ATG dose did not affect the rate of death-censored graft failure, death, BPR, antibody-mediated rejection, BKVN, infection, cancer, or NODAT (Supplementary Table 1, 2, available online).


From matched analysis with the Korean multicentric registry, this study comprehensively compared the outcomes between two induction therapies, BSX and ATG, in older KT recipients. ATG did not have superiority over BSX for DGF development or graft function throughout the study period. The ATG group not only showed a lower TAC trough level and cumulative proportion of pulse steroid therapy at 6 months but also lower steroid use than the BSX group from 1 year after transplantation onwards. The type of induction regimen did not affect death-censored graft failure or patient survival. BPR, BKVN, infection, and cancer were not significantly different in patients who received BSX or ATG. However, the probability of NODAT was significantly lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group among the patients without pretransplant DM.
Different from the United States’ report [20], ATG is less used in the entire KT population than BSX. Especially, the proportion of patients who received BSX induction was much higher in the elderly KT population, as shown in our supplementary data (Supplementary Fig. 4, available online). This can be attributed to LDKT predominance and the relatively short CIT for DDKT due to the geographical features of Korea, which then leads to less preference for ATG as induction therapy.
IL-2R antibody induction therapy has no significant effect on the rate of rejection or patient or graft survival in TAC-based maintenance immunotherapy in standard-risk KT recipients [21]. Perioperative antibody induction is associated with a lower risk of mortality in DDKT recipients with low immunologic risk [22]. However, several studies, including meta-analyses, have demonstrated that antibody induction is not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality or graft loss [23-26].
Before matching for baseline features, the ATG group had more frequent retransplantation, higher PRA and DDKT, and more marginal donors than the BSX group. Those features of the BSX group were similarly matched to the ATG group by matching that ended up with population. However, there was no difference in DGF development between the two groups. With an in vivo mechanism of reducing leukocyte adherence to antigen-presenting endothelial cells [27], ATG has shown a protective effect on DGF in several studies [28,29]. The discrepancy in our results could be attributed to the relatively good donor condition, including approximately 20% LDKTs and less than 6 hours of mean CIT for the DDKT population. The mean donor creatinine at donation was 1.6 to 1.7 mg/dL, and the incidence of DGF was under 10% in our matched population, which resulted in no difference in DGF development between the ATG and BSX groups.
ATG was reported to be superior to BSX in preventing rejection in not only high-risk patients but low-risk KT patients as well [5-8]. The current study revealed that the incidence of BPR may have been lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group without statistical significance. Excluding borderline BPR, the incidence of BPR, which is clinically important, is similar between the two groups. This result is consistent with prior research in France, which revealed no difference in rejection rates between the two groups, unlike preexisting large database studies [17].
The rejection prevention effect of ATG is not sufficient due to the attenuated immunity of older patients with a low risk of rejection [29]. Additionally, past studies only considered zero mismatch before transplantation, so there is a possibility that high-risk patients with acute preoperation existing DSA were included. The French study and our study excluded patients with detectable DSA as the Luminex assay base. Compared to BSX, ATG was not effective in preventing rejection since it was mainly used for low-risk patients.
Compared to BSX treatment, the incidence of leukopenia is higher following ATG treatment due to the effect of global T cell depletion; therefore, careful infection monitoring is necessary [30]. These infections could become more serious, especially in elderly patients [11]. Similarly, the previous French study revealed no increased incidence of infection in the ATG group, as in our study. A previous study of ABOi LDKT in elderly patients revealed that infection-related death in DDKT recipients is higher than that of ABOi KT recipients due to the use of ATG; thus, ATG induction therapy should be carefully monitored in the elderly [31]. According to some studies, KT recipients who received ATG are at a higher risk of infection [26,32].
In contrast to the French study and ours, the majority of study participants use steroids as maintenance therapy. Furthermore, some studies describe the use of cyclosporin-based immunosuppressive therapy rather than TAC-based immunosuppressive therapy. As a result, in addition to ATG, several other factors may have played a role in the infection-related complications described herein. Similar to the French study, this matched analysis showed that ATG induction itself did not increase the risk of infection in elderly KT recipients. This result could be important evidence to determine the induction regimen for elderly patients.
Similar to the French study [17], our study revealed that the only difference between the ATG and BSX groups was NODAT. Our study also revealed that the TAC requirement in the first 6 months of transplantation was lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group. Different from the French study, our results showed that the proportion of patients using steroids from 1 year after transplantation was significantly lower in the ATG group. No difference was found in the number of patients who required continued steroid use. No evidence suggests that ATG could be used for more effective rejection prevention in early steroid withdrawal, as shown in other randomized controlled trials [10]. Although the difference in the prevalence of BPR is not statistically significant between groups, the lower prevalence of rejection, including borderline rejection, in the ATG group affected the low incidence of pulse steroid therapy. As shown in Supplementary Fig. 2, steroid dosage (maintenance dose) did not differ between the two groups. However, the cumulative probability of pulse steroid therapy at 6 months after operation was significantly lower in the ATG group than in the BSX group. From 1 year after transplantation, a higher proportion of patients treated with steroids experienced withdrawal in the ATG group. It can be inferred that the frequency of steroid dose reduction and withdrawal was high from around 6 months after transplantation for both groups. The relationship between steroid use and NODAT has already been reported [10]. Low doses of TAC and steroids might be associated with a lower incidence of NODAT in the ATG group. In our study, the ATG group required a lower dose of steroids and TAC to maintain immunological safety, which led to a significantly decreased NODAT. The reduction of NODAT in the ATG group is thought to be greater in elderly patients with an already higher propensity for NODAT [33].
This study has several limitations. This is a retrospective study with relatively small sample size and unmeasured confounders. A discrepancy was found in the immunosuppressive treatment strategies among institutions contributing to the KOTRY. The comparison of immunosuppressive regimens and dosages relies not on consecutive data but on spot measurements due to the data collection policy of the KOTRY. We could not compare induction regimens across institutions or obtain TAC trough levels at discharge due to internal KOTRY registry regulations. There is no information provided about the institution where a specific patient may have worked. Despite these limitations, this study used a large multicenter database with matched analysis and compared ATG and BSX induction therapies among elderly low-risk patients. No difference was found in graft survival, all-cause mortality, rejection, or infection between the ATG and BSX groups. However, ATG reduced maintenance TAC and steroid requirements and NODAT incidence compared to BSX.


Conflicts of interest

All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


This research was supported by grants (2014-ER6301-00, 2014-ER6301-01, 2014-ER6301-02, 2017-ER6301-00, 2017-ER6301-01, 2017-ER6301-02, and 2020-ER7201-00) from the Research of Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization: MSK, DGK

Data curation: All authors

Formal analysis: All authors

Funding acquisition: YHP, JBP, SHL, JY, MSK, DGK

Investigation: YHP, JBP, SHL, JY, MSK, DGK

Methodology: All authors

Project administration: JYL, DGK

Visualization: SHK, DGK

Writing-original draft: JYL, DGK

Writing-review & editing: All authors

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


The authors acknowledge the support from the members of The Korean Organ Transplantation Registry Study Group (Myoung Soo Kim, Jaeseok Yang, Jin Min Kong, Oh Jung Kwon, Deok Gie Kim, Cheol Woong Jung, Yeong Hoon Kim, Joong Kyung Kim, Chan-Duck Kim, Ji Won Min, Sik Lee, Yeon Ho Park, Jae Berm Park, Jung Hwan Park, Jong-Won Park, Tae Hyun Ban, Sang Heon Song, Seung Hwan Song, Ho Sik Shin, Chul Woo Yang, Hye Eun Yoon, Kang Wook Lee, Dong Ryeol Lee, Dong Won Lee, Jieun Oh, Sang-Ho Lee, Su Hyung Lee, Yu Ho Lee, Jung Pyo Lee, Jeong-Hoon Lee, Jin Seok Jeon, Heungman Jun, Kyung Hwan Jeong, Ku Yong Chung, Jong Soo Lee, Ju Man Ki, Dong-Wan Chae, Soo Jin Na Choi, Sung Shin, Seungyeup Han, and Kyu Ha Huh).

Figure 1.

Study population.

ABOi, ABO-incompatible; ATG, antithymocyte globulin; BSX, basiliximab; DSA, donor-specific antibody; LDKT, living donor kidney transplant; KOTRY, Korean Organ Transplantation Registry; KT, kidney transplant.
Figure 2.

Comparison of maintenance immunosuppression regimen between BSX and ATG group.

(A) Immunosuppression regimens, (B) proportion of steroid use, (C) TAC dose, and (D) MMF equivalent dose.
ATG, antithymocyte globulin; BSX, basiliximab; DC, discharge; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; TAC, tacrolimus.
Figure 3.

Matched comparison of posttransplant events between ATG and BSX groups.

(A) Death-censored graft failure, (B) patient death, (C) BPR, (D) BPR except for borderline rejection, (E) BKVN, (F) infection, (G) cancer, and (H) NODAT. NODAT was compared only in patients without pretransplant diabetes mellitus.
ATG, antithymocyte globulin; BKVN, BK virus nephropathy; BPR, biopsy-proven rejection; BSX, basiliximab; NODAT, new-onset diabetes after transplantation.
Figure 4.

Matched comparison of posttransplant graft function between ATG and BSX groups.

ATG, antithymocyte globulin; BSX, basiliximab; DC, discharge; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics before and after matching
Variable Before matching
After matching
BSX BSX (n = 656) ATG (n = 191) p-value BSX (n = 298) ATG (n = 165) p-value
Age (yr) 64.3 ± 3.7 64.3 ± 3.3 0.884 64.2 ± 3.6 64.3 ± 3.4 0.41
Male sex 447 (68.1) 129 (67.5) 0.875 196 (65.8) 113 (68.5) 0.73
BMI (kg/m2) 23.6 ± 3.1 23.2 ± 2.7 0.187 23.1 ± 3.0 23.1 ± 2.8 0.55
Year of KT 0.767 0.62
 2014-2016 243 (37.0) 73 (38.2) 119 (39.9) 62 (37.6)
 2017-2019 413 (63.0) 118 (61.8) 179 (60.1) 103 (62.4)
Retransplantation 19 (2.9) 19 (9.9) <0.001 17 (5.7) 11 (6.7) 0.40
Cause of ESRD 0.466 0.455
 DM 236 (36.0) 75 (39.3) 108 (36.2) 66 (40.0)
 Hypertension 112 (17.1) 36 (18.8) 45 (15.1) 32 (19.4)
 Glomerular disease 132 (20.1) 42 (22.0) 67 (22.5) 36 (21.8)
 PCKD 34 (5.2) 10 (5.2) 17 (5.7) 9 (5.5)
 Other disease 13 (2.0) 3 (1.6) 7 (2.3) 3 (1.8)
 Unknown 129 (19.6) 25 (13.1) 54 (18.2) 19 (11.5)
Dialysis duration (mo) 43.5 ± 51.0 61.4 ± 52.4 <0.001 60.1 ± 51.7 61.2 ± 54.6 0.32
DM 317 (48.3) 92 (48.2) 0.97 145 (48.7) 80 (48.5) 0.94
CVD 161 (24.5) 40 (20.9) 0.303 64 (21.5) 33 (20.0) 0.54
HLA mismatch 3.5 ± 1.7 3.8 ± 1.7 0.107 3.8 ± 1.8 3.7 ± 1.7 0.60
PRA, percentile groups 0.003 0.94
 0-20 379 (57.8) 92 (48.2) 145 (48.7) 82 (49.7)
 21-80 87 (13.3) 25 (13.1) 43 (14.4) 22 (13.3)
 81-100 9 (1.4) 10 (5.2) 6 (2.0) 3 (1.8)
 Unknown 181 (27.5) 64 (33.5) 104 (34.9) 58 (35.2)
Donor type <0.001 <0.001
 Living donor 324 (49.4) 33 (17.3) 74 (24.8) 33 (20.0)
 Deceased donor 332 (50.6) 158 (82.7) 224 (75.2) 132 (80.0)
Donor age (yr) 51.3 ± 14.1 53.2 ± 14.2 0.094 53.6 ± 14.2 53.7 ± 14.2 0.65
Donor sex, male 354 (54.0) 130 (68.1) 0.001 188 (63.1) 112 (67.9) 0.06
Donor BMI (kg/m2) 23.9 ± 3.4 23.9 ± 3.9 0.919 23.8 ± 3.5 24.0 ± 3.7 0.57
Donor creatinine at donation (mg/dL) 1.0 ± 0.8 2.0 ± 1.7 <0.001 1.6 ± 1.0 1.7 ± 1.3 <0.001
Donor HTN 150 (22.9) 58 (30.4) 0.034 86 (28.9) 49 (29.7) 0.54
Donor DM 60 (9.1) 31 (16.2) 0.005 45 (15.1) 27 (16.4) 0.34
ECD 167 (25.5) 80 (41.9) <0.001 118 (39.6) 71 (43.0) 0.47
Vascular cause of death 128/332 (38.6) 55/158 (34.8) 0.423 87/224 (38.8) 43/132 (32.6) 0.24
CIT (min)a 170.7 ± 156.7 259.0 ± 159.8 <0.001 233.5 ± 161.3 251.2 ± 162.7 0.32
DDKT CIT (min)b 298.5 ± 145.5 296.9 ± 148.6 0.925 296.0 ± 141.9 294.1 ± 152.3 0.92

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or number (%).

ATG, antithymocyte globulin; BMI, body mass index; BSX, basiliximab; CIT, cold ischemic time; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DDKT, deceased donor kidney transplant; DM, diabetes mellitus; ECD, expanded criteria donor; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; HLA, human leukocyte antigens; HTN, hypertension; KT, kidney transplant; PCKD, polycystic kidney disease; PRA, panel-reactive antibody.

a Data available; the numbers of the BSX and ATG groups are 50 and 156 before matching and 233 and 136 after matching.

b Data available; the numbers of the BSX and ATG groups are 236 and 129 before matching and 264 and 109 after matching.

Table 2.
Infectious complications within 1 year after kidney transplant
Variable BSX (n = 298) ATG (n = 165) p-value
Urinary tract infection 30 (10.1) 17 (10.3) 0.94
Bacterial pneumonia 20 (6.7) 7 (4.2) 0.28
Bacteremia 4 (1.3) 2 (1.2) 0.91
Viral infection 42 (14.1) 34 (20.6) 0.09
Viral pneumonia 6 (2.0) 1 (0.6) 0.24
Fungal infection 6 (2.0) 2 (1.2) 0.53
Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia 3 (1.0) 0 (0) -

ATG, antithymocyte globulin; BSX, basiliximab.


1. Hart A, Smith JM, Skeans MA, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report: kidney. Am J Transplant 2018;18 Suppl 1:18-113.
crossref pmid pdf
2. Knoll GA. Kidney transplantation in the older adult. Am J Kidney Dis 2013;61:790-797.
crossref pmid
3. Krenzien F, ElKhal A, Quante M, et al. A rationale for age-adapted immunosuppression in organ transplantation. Transplantation 2015;99:2258-2268.
crossref pmid pmc
4. Wiseman AC. Induction therapy in renal transplantation: why? what agent? what dose? we may never know. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;10:923-925.
crossref pmid pmc
5. Hardinger KL, Brennan DC, Klein CL. Selection of induction therapy in kidney transplantation. Transpl Int 2013;26:662-672.
crossref pmid
6. Brennan DC, Daller JA, Lake KD, Cibrik D, Del Castillo D; Thymoglobulin Induction Study Group. Rabbit antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1967-1977.
crossref pmid
7. Koyawala N, Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, et al. Comparing outcomes between antibody induction therapies in kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;28:2188-2200.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Tanriover B, Jaikaransingh V, MacConmara MP, et al. Acute rejection rates and graft outcomes according to induction regimen among recipients of kidneys from deceased donors treated with tacrolimus and mycophenolate. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2016;11:1650-1661.
crossref pmid pmc
9. Gill J, Sampaio M, Gill JS, et al. Induction immunosuppressive therapy in the elderly kidney transplant recipient in the United States. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;6:1168-1178.
crossref pmid pmc
10. Thomusch O, Wiesener M, Opgenoorth M, et al. Rabbit-ATG or basiliximab induction for rapid steroid withdrawal after renal transplantation (Harmony): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:3006-3016.
crossref pmid
11. Hod T, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS. Clinical issues in renal transplantation in the elderly. Clin Transplant 2015;29:167-175.
crossref pmid
12. Longuet H, Sautenet B, Gatault P, et al. Risk factors for impaired CD4+ T-cell reconstitution following rabbit antithymocyte globulin treatment in kidney transplantation. Transpl Int 2014;27:271-279.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
13. Caillard S, Dharnidharka V, Agodoa L, Bohen E, Abbott K. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders after renal transplantation in the United States in era of modern immunosuppression. Transplantation 2005;80:1233-1243.
crossref pmid
14. Bustami RT, Ojo AO, Wolfe RA, et al. Immunosuppression and the risk of post-transplant malignancy among cadaveric first kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2004;4:87-93.
crossref pmid
15. Cantarovich D, Rostaing L, Kamar N, et al. Early corticosteroid avoidance in kidney transplant recipients receiving ATG-F induction: 5-year actual results of a prospective and randomized study. Am J Transplant 2014;14:2556-2564.
crossref pmid pdf
16. Sureshkumar KK, Thai NL, Hussain SM, Ko TY, Marcus RJ. Influence of induction modality on the outcome of deceased donor kidney transplant recipients discharged on steroid-free maintenance immunosuppression. Transplantation 2012;93:799-805.
crossref pmid
17. Masset C, Boucquemont J, Garandeau C, et al. Induction therapy in elderly kidney transplant recipients with low immunological risk. Transplantation 2020;104:613-622.
crossref pmid
18. Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, et al. Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:247-254.
crossref pmid
19. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009;28:3083-3107.
crossref pmid pmc
20. Hart A, Smith JM, Skeans MA, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2018 Annual Data Report: kidney. Am J Transplant 2020;20 Suppl s1:20-130.
21. Ali H, Mohiuddin A, Sharma A, et al. Implication of interleukin-2 receptor antibody induction therapy in standard risk renal transplant in the tacrolimus era: a meta-analysis. Clin Kidney J 2019;12:592-599.
crossref pmid pmc
22. Sureshkumar KK, Katragadda V, Chopra B, Sampaio M. Role of induction therapy in low immunological risk-kidney transplant recipients: a mate-kidney analysis. Clin Transplant 2018 Nov 8 [Epub]. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13442.
crossref pdf
23. Santos AH Jr, Leghrouz MA, Bueno EP, Andreoni KA. Impact of antibody induction on the outcomes of new onset diabetes after kidney transplantation: a registry analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2022;54:637-646.
crossref pmid pdf
24. Zheng J, Song W. Alemtuzumab versus antithymocyte globulin induction therapies in kidney transplantation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e7151.
pmid pmc
25. Santos AH Jr, Li Y, Alquadan K, et al. Outcomes of induction antibody therapies in the nonbroadly sensitized adult deceased donor kidney transplant recipients: a retrospective cohort registry analysis. Transpl Int 2020;33:865-877.
crossref pmid pdf
26. Hwang SD, Lee JH, Lee SW, et al. Efficacy and safety of induction therapy in kidney transplantation: a network meta-analysis. Transplant Proc 2018;50:987-992.
crossref pmid
27. Chappell D, Beiras-Fernandez A, Hammer C, Thein E. In vivo visualization of the effect of polyclonal antithymocyte globulins on the microcirculation after ischemia/reperfusion in a primate model. Transplantation 2006;81:552-558.
crossref pmid
28. Chapal M, Le Borgne F, Legendre C, et al. A useful scoring system for the prediction and management of delayed graft function following kidney transplantation from cadaveric donors. Kidney Int 2014;86:1130-1139.
crossref pmid
29. Kyllönen LE, Eklund BH, Pesonen EJ, Salmela KT. Single bolus antithymocyte globulin versus basiliximab induction in kidney transplantation with cyclosporine triple immunosuppression: efficacy and safety. Transplantation 2007;84:75-82.
crossref pmid
30. Mourad G, Morelon E, Noël C, Glotz D, Lebranchu Y. The role of thymoglobulin induction in kidney transplantation: an update. Clin Transplant 2012;26:E450-E464.
crossref pmid
31. Kim DG, Lee J, Kim MS, et al. Outcomes of ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation in older patients: a national cohort study. Transpl Int 2021;34:290-301.
crossref pmid pdf
32. Pham C, Kuten SA, Knight RJ, Nguyen DT, Graviss EA, Gaber AO. Assessment of infectious complications in elderly kidney transplant recipients receiving induction with anti-thymocyte globulin vs basiliximab. Transpl Infect Dis 2020;22:e13257.
crossref pmid pdf
33. Hjelmesaeth J, Hartmann A, Kofstad J, et al. Glucose intolerance after renal transplantation depends upon prednisolone dose and recipient age. Transplantation 1997;64:979-983.
crossref pmid

Editorial Office
#301, (Miseung Bldg.) 23, Apgujenog-ro 30-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06022, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3486-8736    Fax: +82-2-3486-8737    E-mail:                

Copyright © 2022 by The Korean Society of Nephrology.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer