Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear. METHODS: In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study. RESULTS: Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).

The updated Banff classification allows for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in the absence of peritubular capillary C4d staining. Our objective was to quantify allograft loss risk in patients with consistently C4d-negative AMR (n = 51) compared with C4d-positive AMR patients (n = 156) and matched control subjects without AMR. All first-year posttransplant biopsy results from January 2004 through June 2014 were reviewed and correlated with the presence of donor-specific antibody (DSA). C4d-negative AMR patients were not different from C4d-positive AMR patients on any baseline characteristics, including immunologic risk factors (panel reactive antibody, prior transplant, HLA mismatch, donor type, DSA class, and anti-HLA/ABO-incompatibility). C4d-positive AMR patients were significantly more likely to have a clinical presentation (85.3% vs. 54.9%, p < 0.001), and those patients presented substantially earlier posttransplantation (median 14 [interquartile range 8-32] days vs. 46 [interquartile range 20-191], p < 0.001) and were three times more common (7.8% vs 2.5%). One- and 2-year post-AMR-defining biopsy graft survival in C4d-negative AMR patients was 93.4% and 90.2% versus 86.8% and 82.6% in C4d-positive AMR patients, respectively (p = 0.4). C4d-negative AMR was associated with a 2.56-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.05, p = 0.033) increased risk of graft loss compared with AMR-free matched controls. No clinical characteristics were identified that reliably distinguished C4d-negative from C4d-positive AMR. However, both phenotypes are associated with increased graft loss and thus warrant consideration for intervention.

The Open Payments Program (OPP) was recently implemented to publicly disclose industry payments to physicians, with the goal of enabling patient awareness of potential conflicts of interests. Awareness of OPP, its data, and its implications for transplantation are critical. We used the first wave of OPP data to describe industry payments made to transplant surgeons. Transplant surgeons (N = 297) received a total of $759 654. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) payment to a transplant surgeon was $125 ($39-1018), and the highest payment to an individual surgeon was $83 520; 122 surgeons received <$100, and 17 received >$10 000. A higher h-index was associated with 30% higher chance of receiving >$1000 (relative risk/10 unit h-index increase = 1.18 1.301.44 , p < 0.001). The highest payment category was consulting fees, with a total of $314 448 paid in this reported category. Recipients of consulting fees had higher h-indices, median (IQR) of 20 (10-35) versus nine (3-17) (p < 0.001). Ten of 122 companies accounted for 62% of all payments. Kidney transplant and liver transplant (LT) centers that received >$1000 had higher center volumes (p < 0.001). LT centers that received payments of >$1000 had a higher percentage of private-insurance/self-pay patients (p < 0.01). Continued surveillance of industry payments may further elucidate the relationship between industry payments and physician practices.