While a great number of studies examined risk factors for BKV infection, the only meta-analysis published which systematically studied risk factors identified 8 risk factors associated with increased risk for BK viremia (maintenance therapy regimen including tacrolimus, allograft from a deceased donor, recipient of male sex, history of previous transplant, age at transplantation, ureteral stent use, delayed graft function and acute rejection episodes) and two associated with increased risk for BKVAN (maintenance therapy regimen including tacrolimus and acute rejection episodes) [
19]. Another meta-analysis specifically examined the risk of therapeutic regimens including mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors vs. calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) did not find any association of drug regimen with risk of BKV infection [
20]. When examining data from individual studies, risk factors for BKVAN can be divided into recipient-, donor- and allograft specific and include: male sex, older age of donor and recipient, cold ischemia time, delayed graft function, episodes of rejection, ureteral stent, use of anti-thymocyte globulin in induction, use of tacrolimus in maintenance therapy, ABO blood group system incompatibility, ischemia/reperfusion injury and recipient or donor seropositivity. Conversely, mTOR inhibitor use has been shown to be a protective factor [
9,
21,
22,
23,
24].
The current BKVAN therapy protocol consists mainly of immunosuppressive therapy reduction [
21]. Moreover, an important point is distinguishing BKVAN from allograft rejection, since the two may present similarly, but are treated in completely opposite ways, i.e., treatment of misdiagnosed rejection in the presence of BKVAN might lead to allograft loss [
25,
26]. Furthermore, histological surveillance of BKVAN is also problematic from a clinical point of view, which has been thoroughly studied. Menter et al. explored the histopathology of resolving BKVAN which found that this stage is morphologically indistinguishable from interstitial rejection [
27]., For an accurate diagnosis it is imperative to obtain adequate and deep samples as BKV has a tropism for renal medulla [
28]. Aside from reduction of immunosuppression, which is the only viable treatment strategy, other therapies have been tested and occasionally used. Intravenous immunoglobulins have been shown to be useful in patients who do not respond to the initial reduction of immunosuppression [
29] and might lead to additional BKV clearance [
30]. A recent study possibly partially elucidated the mechanism behind this, demonstrating that intravenous immunoglobulin administration increases the titer of neutralizing antibodies specific for BKV [
30]. On this basis, a very recent proof-of-concept study has stated that intravenous immunoglobulins might be useful in clinical practice and potentially reduce the risk of allograft loss [
30]. Some studies showed good results using leflunomide, a prodrug to an antimetabolite A77 1726, usually by replacing mycophenolate mofetil, however, other studies demonstrated conflicting results and their use is controversial [
31,
32,
33]. Cidofovir is an antiviral agent, used also for BKV infection, [
34], but its usage is limited due to low efficacy and potential nephrotoxicity [
35]. While initial studies showed an effect of quinolone antibiotics [
36,
37], this was disproven in further, better-designed randomized controlled studies [
38,
39]. Immunosuppression with everolimus after switching from CNIs were shown to be promising in one retrospective study [
40]. Given the limited options of therapy and the established viruria-viremia-nephropathy sequential course, screening aimed at early detection of BK viruria and viremia is of paramount importance. It has been shown that screening for BKV DNAemia enables identification of at least 90% of patients at risk before significant repercussions for the allograft. However, quantitative nucleic acid testing (NAT) is still underutilized [
41,
42]. It has been demonstrated that most cases of BKVAN occur in the first 6 months or 1-year post-transplant and recent research showed that only around 20% to 30% of BKV DNAemia events occur later than 6 months post-transplant, which strongly points to the need for strict early surveillance [
43,
44,
45]. Several screening and intervention strategies have been developed, based on testing frequency and detection method. Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines for kidney transplant recipients suggest screening all recipients of BKV using quantitative plasma NAT at least monthly for the first 3 to 6 months after transplantation, then every 3 months until the end of the first post-transplant year, and subsequently whenever there is an unexplained rise in serum creatinine and after treatment for acute rejection [
46]. American Society of Transplantation (AST) guidelines recommend quantitative NAT as the main testing method to be performed monthly up to month 9 post-transplant followed by testing every 3 months up to 2 years post-transplant or at the time of surveillance and indication of an allograft biopsy. Stepwise reduction of immunosuppressive medications is recommended when BKV plasma NAT is persistently (for 3 weeks and longer) greater than 1000 copies per milliliter (mL) [
47]. Complementary to quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) DNA testing, several institutions also use other methods, such as urine cytology (decoy cells) and virus RNA [
46]. Nankivell et al. found that, although decoy cells detection have a high specificity and negative predictive value for BKVAN, quantitative viremia determination by qPCR was superior having high sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value [
48]. However, urine cytology, especially quantification of decoy cells, might be a useful additional tool in experienced centers especially in situations when kidney biopsy cannot be performed. Given a recent study on the need for deep sampling during kidney biopsy for obtaining an adequate tissue sample, urine cytology might be useful in cases where no or scarce medulla was obtained [
28]. Looking for an integrated method of surveillance, a review by Comoli et al. summarized the current knowledge on BKV-specific cellular immunity, found that it is associated with viral clearance and that prospective monitoring for viremia coupled with specific immunity and B-cell alloimmune surveillance might lead to prevention and better outcomes in BKVAN [
49].