Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Liver transplant (LT) evaluation is a complex process for patients involving multi-step and parallel medical, surgical, and psychosocial assessments of a patient's appropriateness for transplant. Patients may experience difficulties in navigating the evaluation process, potentially leading to disengagement and resulting in further health decline or death prior to completing evaluation. We aimed to identify and characterize patients' perceptions of undergoing LT evaluation. METHODS:We performed fourteen 30-45 min, semi-structured interviews between 3/2021-5/2021 with patients at a large LT center. Using the constant comparison method, we individually noted themes within and across interviews and codes. RESULTS:Our analysis generated 5 thematic dimensions related to patient engagement (i.e., patient involvement/activation): (1) psychological impact of evaluation on patients' lives; (2) information received during evaluation; (3) prior medical experience of the patient; 4) communication between patients and transplant providers; and (5) support system of the patients. Among these dimensions, we identified 8 themes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:LT patient engagement is a multi-dimensional component of LT evaluation that incorporates the psychological impact, information received, prior medical experience, communication, and support systems of patients. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This work can inform targeted interventions for increasing patient engagement during the LT evaluation process.

Immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination are attenuated in adult solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) and additional vaccine doses are recommended for this population. However, whether COVID-19 mRNA vaccine responses are limited in pediatric SOTRs (pSOTRs) compared to immunocompetent children is unknown. Due to SARS-CoV-2 evolution and mutations that evade neutralizing antibodies, T cells may provide important defense in SOTRs who mount poor humoral responses. Therefore, we assessed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers, surrogate neutralization, and spike (S)-specific T-cell responses to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pSOTRs and their healthy siblings (pHCs) before and after the bivalent vaccine dose. Despite immunosuppression, pSOTRs demonstrated humoral responses to both ancestral strain and Omicron subvariants following the primary ancestral strain monovalent mRNA COVID-19 series and multiple booster doses. These responses were not significantly different from those observed in pHCs and significantly higher six months after vaccination than responses in adult SOTRs two weeks post-vaccination. However, pSOTRs mounted limited S-specific CD8⁺ T-cell responses and qualitatively distinct CD4⁺ T-cell responses, primarily producing IL-2 and TNF with less IFN-γ production compared to pHCs. Bivalent vaccination enhanced humoral responses in some pSOTRs but did not shift the CD4⁺ T-cell responses toward increased IFN-γ production. Our findings indicate that S-specific CD4⁺ T cells in pSOTRs have distinct qualities with unknown protective capacity, yet vaccination produces cross-reactive antibodies not significantly different from responses in pHCs. Given altered T-cell responses, additional vaccine doses in pSOTRs to maintain high titer cross-reactive antibodies may be important in ensuring protection against SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND:Evidence suggests that older patients are less frequently placed on the waiting list for kidney transplantation (KT) than their younger counterparts. The trends and magnitude of this age disparity in access to first KT and repeat KT (re-KT) remain unclear. METHODS:Using the US Renal Data System, we identified 2 496 743 adult transplant-naive dialysis patients and 110 338 adult recipients with graft failure between 1995 and 2018. We characterized the secular trends of age disparities and used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the chances of listing and receiving first KT versus re-KT by age (18-64 y versus ≥65 y). RESULTS:Older transplant-naive dialysis patients were less likely to be listed (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.18) and receive first KT (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.87-0.89) compared with their younger counterparts. Additionally, older patients with graft failure had a lower chance of being listed (aHR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.38-0.41) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81). The magnitude of the age disparity in being listed for first KT was greater than that for re-KT ( Pinteraction  < 0.001), and there were no differences in the age disparities in receiving first KT or re-KT ( Pinteraction  = 0.13). Between 1995 and 2018, the age disparity in listing for first KT reduced significantly ( P  < 0.001), but the age disparities in re-KT remained the same ( P  = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS:Age disparities exist in access to both first KT and re-KT; however, some of this disparity is attenuated among older adults with graft failure. As the proportion of older patients with graft failure rises, a better understanding of factors that preclude their candidacy and identification of appropriate older patients are needed.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups. STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. SETTING & POPULATION/UNASSIGNED:We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/UNASSIGNED:and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate. LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Uremic toxins contributing to increased risk of death remain largely unknown. We used untargeted metabolomics to identify plasma metabolites associated with mortality in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We measured metabolites in serum samples from 522 Longitudinal US/Canada Incident Dialysis (LUCID) study participants. We assessed the association between metabolites and 1-year mortality, adjusting for age, sex, race, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, body mass index, serum albumin, Kt/Vurea, dialysis duration, and country. We modeled these associations using limma, a metabolite-wise linear model with empirical Bayesian inference, and 2 machine learning (ML) models: Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and random forest (RF). We accounted for multiple testing using a false discovery rate (pFDR) adjustment. We defined significant mortality-metabolite associations as pFDR < 0.1 in the limma model and metabolites of at least medium importance in both ML models. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:limma. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Quinolinate and mesaconate were significantly associated with a 1-year risk of death in incident patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. External validation of our findings is needed.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has resulted in increased morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired immunity, hematologic malignancies, and immunosuppressive regimens. COVID-19 can cause a cytokine storm with some patients benefiting from blockade of the pro-inflammatory cytokine, interleukin 6 (IL6). As Castleman disease (CD) is an atypical lymphoproliferative disorder that can involve a cytokine storm and often requires immunosuppressive therapies, including IL6 inhibition, we sought to evaluate outcomes following COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in CD patients. We administered a survey in April 2021 to characterize experiences with COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among 300 CD patients enrolled in ACCELERATE, a natural history registry of CD patients. Among 128 respondents, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (16/95, 17%), severe disease (1/16, 6%), vaccination rates (112/128, 88%), and vaccine adverse effects after dose one (62/112, 55%) were comparable to the general U.S. population. While there were two cases of CD flares occurring shortly after SARS-CoV-2 infection (N=1) and vaccination (N=1), over 100 patients in this study that were infected and/or vaccinated did not experience CD flares. The median anti-spike titer six months after the second dose among CD patients was comparable to individuals with other immune-related diseases and healthy populations. Data from this small cohort suggest that, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, CD patients do not appear to be at increased risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes and can mount a humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02817997).

BACKGROUND:The number of deceased donor kidney transplants has been increasing and is at a record high, yet nonuse of kidneys recovered for transplantation has risen to 25.8% following circular kidney allocation system based on 250-nautical-mile circles implemented on March 15, 2021 (KAS250). METHODS:Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we studied all deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplant from March 15, 2019, to January 31, 2023. We calculated the association of multiple factors with kidney nonuse, including increasing recovery of kidneys from nonideal donors, delays in offer acceptance observed under KAS250, and impacts of COVID-19. RESULTS:In the 2 y before KAS250, the nonuse rate was 21.2%. Had this rate continued, 2334 more kidneys would have been transplanted through January 2023. We estimated that about 769 of these nonused kidneys (33%) were associated with offer acceptance delays under KAS250; about 994 of these nonused kidneys (43%) were associated with increased prevalence of nonideal donors: donation after circulatory death donors, older donors, and donors with elevated peak serum creatinine; and about 542 of these nonused kidneys (23%) were associated with an otherwise unexplained gradual upward trend in nonuse of recovered kidneys across the pre-KAS250 and KAS250 eras. The overall impact of COVID-19 on the nonuse rate was not significant. CONCLUSIONS:The rise in kidney nonuse rate was significantly associated with both increased recovery of nonideal donors, and with KAS250 allocation complexity and delays. Increasing recovery of kidneys from nonideal donors benefits patients because recovering more kidneys increases the number of kidneys available for transplant.

Durability of variant neutralization in solid organ transplant recipients following Omicron-containing boosters is unknown. We report wane in XBB.1.5 neutralization by 3 months following a first bivalent booster, improved by a second booster; hybrid immunity improved peak, and duration of neutralization. Boosting at 3 to 6 months appears necessary to maintain neutralization.