Faculty Bibliography

Older compatible living donor kidney transplant (CLDKT) recipients have higher mortality and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) compared to younger recipients. These risks may be amplified in older incompatible living donor kidney transplant (ILDKT) recipients who undergo desensitization and intense immunosuppression. In a 25-center cohort of ILDKT recipients transplanted between September 24, 1997, and December 15, 2016, we compared mortality, DCGF, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and length of stay (LOS) between 234 older (age ≥60 years) and 1172 younger (age 18-59 years) recipients. To investigate whether the impact of age was different for ILDKT recipients compared to 17 542 CLDKT recipients, we used an interaction term to determine whether the relationship between posttransplant outcomes and transplant type (ILDKT vs CLDKT) was modified by age. Overall, older recipients had higher mortality (hazard ratio: _1.632.07_2.65, P < .001), lower DCGF (hazard ratio: _0.360.53_0.77, P = .001), and AR (odds ratio: _0.390.54_0.74, P < .001), and similar DGF (odds ratio: _0.461.03_2.33, P = .9) and LOS (incidence rate ratio: _0.880.98_1.10, P = 0.8) compared to younger recipients. The impact of age on mortality (interaction P = .052), DCGF (interaction P = .7), AR interaction P = .2), DGF (interaction P = .9), and LOS (interaction P = .5) were similar in ILDKT and CLDKT recipients. Age alone should not preclude eligibility for ILDKT.

The latent viral reservoir(LVR) remains a major barrier to HIV-1 curative strategies. It is unknown whether receiving a liver transplant from a donor with HIV might lead to an increase in the LVR since the liver is a large lymphoid organ. We found no differences in intact provirus, defective provirus, or the ratio of intact to defective provirus between recipients with ART-supporesed HIV who received a liver from a donor with(n = 19) or without HIV(n = 10). All measures remained stable from baseline by one-year post transplant. These data demonstrate that the LVR is stable after liver transplantation in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND:The use of large-scale data and artificial intelligence (AI) to support complex transplantation decisions is in its infancy. Transplant candidate decision-making, which relies heavily on subjective assessment (ie, high variability), provides a ripe opportunity for AI-based clinical decision support (CDS). However, AI-CDS for transplant applications must consider important concerns regarding fairness (ie, health equity). The objective of this study was to use human-centered design methods to elicit providers' perceptions of AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions. METHODS:In this multicenter qualitative study conducted from December 2020 to July 2021, we performed semistructured interviews with 53 multidisciplinary liver transplant providers from 2 transplant centers. We used inductive coding and constant comparison analysis of interview data. RESULTS:Analysis yielded 6 themes important for the design of fair AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions: (1) transparency in the creators behind the AI-CDS and their motivations; (2) understanding how the AI-CDS uses data to support recommendations (ie, interpretability); (3) acknowledgment that AI-CDS could mitigate emotions and biases; (4) AI-CDS as a member of the transplant team, not a replacement; (5) identifying patient resource needs; and (6) including the patient's role in the AI-CDS. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, providers interviewed were cautiously optimistic about the potential for AI-CDS to improve clinical and equitable outcomes for patients. These findings can guide multidisciplinary developers in the design and implementation of AI-CDS that deliberately considers health equity.

Genetically modified xenografts are one of the most promising solutions to the discrepancy between the numbers of available human organs for transplantation and potential recipients. To date, a porcine heart has been implanted into only one human recipient. Here, using 10-gene-edited pigs, we transplanted porcine hearts into two brain-dead human recipients and monitored xenograft function, hemodynamics and systemic responses over the course of 66 hours. Although both xenografts demonstrated excellent cardiac function immediately after transplantation and continued to function for the duration of the study, cardiac function declined postoperatively in one case, attributed to a size mismatch between the donor pig and the recipient. For both hearts, we confirmed transgene expression and found no evidence of cellular or antibody-mediated rejection, as assessed using histology, flow cytometry and a cytotoxic crossmatch assay. Moreover, we found no evidence of zoonotic transmission from the donor pigs to the human recipients. While substantial additional work will be needed to advance this technology to human trials, these results indicate that pig-to-human heart xenotransplantation can be performed successfully without hyperacute rejection or zoonosis.

UNLABELLED:Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) require desensitization to facilitate transplantation, and this substantial upfront immunosuppression may result in serious complications, including cancer. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:To characterize cancer risk in ILDKTr, we evaluated 858 ILDKTr and 12 239 compatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (CLDKTr) from a multicenter cohort with linkage to the US transplant registry and 33 cancer registries (1997-2016). Cancer incidence was compared using weighted Cox regression. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among ILDKTr, the median follow-up time was 6.7 y (maximum 16.1 y) for invasive cancers (ascertained via cancer registry linkage) and 5.0 y (maximum 16.1 y) for basal and squamous cell carcinomas (ascertained via the transplant registry and censored for transplant center loss to follow-up). Invasive cancers occurred in 53 ILDKTr (6.2%) and 811 CLDKTr (6.6%; weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.35). Basal and squamous cell carcinomas occurred in 41 ILDKTr (4.8%) and 737 CLDKTr (6.0%) (wHR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40). Cancer risk did not vary according to donor-specific antibody strength, and in an exploratory analysis, was similar between CLDKTr and ILDKTr for most cancer types and according to cancer stage, except ILDKTr had a suggestively increased risk of colorectal cancer (wHR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.23-8.71); however, this elevation was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:These findings indicate that the risk of cancer is not increased for ILDKTr compared with CLDKTr. The possible elevation in colorectal cancer risk is unexplained and might suggest a need for tailored screening or prevention.