Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Prior to kidney transplantation (KT) most patients have an elevated parathyroid hormone (PTH). However, the impact of PTH on post-KT mortality and graft loss is unclear. We quantified the association between PTH levels measured at transplant and adverse post-KT outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A prospective longitudinal cohort of 1,136 KT recipients from a single tertiary care center between 12/2008 and 2/2020. Pre-KT PTH levels were abstracted retrospectively. Adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between pre-KT PTH levels and mortality and death-censored graft loss (DCGL). RESULTS:Of 1,136 recipients, pre-KT PTH levels were ≤300pg/mL in 62.3% and >600pg/mL in 12.5%. Compared to those with a pre-KT PTH≤300pg/mL, patients with a pre-KT PTH>600pg/mL were more likely to be Black (51.4% vs. 34.6%) and have a longer dialysis vintage (4.8y vs. 1.7y) (p<0.001). Those with a pre-KT PTH>600pg/mL had a higher 10-year cumulative incidence of DCGL than those with PTH≤300pg/mL (31.7% vs. 15.4%, p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, pre-KT PTH>600pg/mL was associated with a 1.76-fold increased risk of DCGL (95% CI: 1.16-2.65). The magnitude of this association differed by race (pinteraction=0.011) and by treatment (pinteraction=0.018). Among non-Black patients, a PTH>600pg/mL was associated with a 3.21-fold increased risk of DCGL compared to those with PTH≤300pg/mL (95%CI: 1.77-5.81). Among untreated patients, those with PTH>600pg/mL had a 2.54-fold increase in DCGL (95%CI: 1.44-4.47). There was no association between pre-KT PTH and mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS:PTH >600pg/mL prior to KT increased the risk of DCGL by 76%, demonstrating the importance of treating PTH prior to KT to prevent graft loss in a contemporary era with the introduction and widespread availability of medical therapy.

BACKGROUND:Pretransplant functional, motor, cognitive, and academic deficits are common in pediatric patients requiring heart transplantation (HT); some persist post-HT. We assessed the association between these quality of life (QoL) deficits and post-HT outcomes. METHODS:Using SRTR data 2008-2023, we evaluated the functional, motor, cognitive, and academic status of pediatric HT recipients from listing to 15 years post-HT. We compared all-cause graft survival among patients with vs. without pre-HT deficits using Cox regressions. Among patients with a functioning graft at 1 year, we assessed the association between deficits at that time and subsequent graft failure. RESULTS:, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Pediatric HT recipients with decreased functional status are at higher risk for graft failure and mortality. These patients may benefit from early intervention aimed at improving functional status.

Developing real-world evidence from electronic health records (EHR) is vital to advance kidney transplantation (KT). We assessed the feasibility of studying KT using the Epic Cosmos aggregated EHR dataset, which includes 274 million unique individuals cared for in 238 U.S. health systems, by comparing it with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). We identified 69,418 KT recipients transplanted between January 2014 and December 2022 in Cosmos (39.4% of all US KT transplants during this period). Demographics and clinical characteristics of recipients captured in Cosmos were consistent with the overall SRTR cohort. Survival estimates were generally comparable, although there were some differences in long-term survival. At 7 years post-transplant, patient survival was 80.4% in Cosmos and 77.8% in SRTR. Multivariable Cox regression showed consistent associations between clinical factors and mortality in both cohorts, with minor discrepancies in the associations between death and both age and race. In summary, Cosmos provides a reliable platform for KT research, allowing EHR-level clinical granularity not available with either the transplant registry or healthcare claims. Consequently, Cosmos will enable novel analyses to improve our understanding of KT management on a national scale.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplant (KT) candidates often experience hospitalizations, increasing their delirium risk. Hospitalizations and delirium are associated with worse post-KT outcomes, yet their relationship with pre-KT outcomes is less clear. Pre-KT delirium may worsen access to KT due to its negative impact on cognition and ability to maintain overall health. METHODS:Using a prospective cohort of 2374 KT candidates evaluated at a single center (2009-2020), we abstracted hospitalizations and associated delirium records after listing via chart review. We evaluated associations between waitlist mortality and likelihood of KT with hospitalizations and hospitalized delirium using competing risk models and tested whether associations differed by gerontologic factors. RESULTS: < 0.001), with those aged ≥65 having a 61% lower likelihood of KT. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Hospitalization and delirium are associated with worse pre-KT outcomes and have serious implications on candidates' access to KT. Providers should work to reduce preventable instances of delirium.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV is an emerging practice. It has been performed since 2016 under the U.S. congressional HIV Organ Policy Equity Act and is currently approved for research only. The Department of Health and Human Services is considering expanding the procedure to clinical practice, but data are limited to small case series that did not include donors without HIV as controls. METHODS:In an observational study conducted at 26 U.S. centers, we compared transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors with HIV and donors without HIV to recipients with HIV. The primary outcome was a safety event (a composite of death from any cause, graft loss, serious adverse event, HIV breakthrough infection, persistent failure of HIV treatment, or opportunistic infection), assessed for noninferiority (margin for the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, 3.00). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, survival without graft loss, rejection, infection, cancer, and HIV superinfection. RESULTS:We enrolled 408 transplantation candidates, of whom 198 received a kidney from a deceased donor; 99 received a kidney from a donor with HIV and 99 from a donor without HIV. The adjusted hazard ratio for the composite primary outcome was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.38), which showed noninferiority. The following secondary outcomes were similar whether the donor had HIV or not: overall survival at 1 year (94% vs. 95%) and 3 years (85% vs. 87%), survival without graft loss at 1 year (93% vs. 90%) and 3 years (84% vs. 81%), and rejection at 1 year (13% vs. 21%) and 3 years (21% vs. 24%). The incidence of serious adverse events, infections, surgical or vascular complications, and cancer was similar in the groups. The incidence of HIV breakthrough infection was higher among recipients of kidneys from donors with HIV (incidence rate ratio, 3.14; 95%, CI, 1.02 to 9.63), with one potential HIV superinfection among the 58 recipients in this group with sequence data and no persistent failures of HIV treatment. CONCLUSIONS:In this observational study of kidney transplantation in persons with HIV, transplantation from donors with HIV appeared to be noninferior to that from donors without HIV. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03500315.).

BACKGROUND:Prognostic models are becoming increasingly relevant in clinical trials as potential surrogate endpoints, and for patient management as clinical decision support tools. However, the impact of competing risks on model performance remains poorly investigated. We aimed to carefully assess the performance of competing risk and noncompeting risk models in the context of kidney transplantation, where allograft failure and death with a functioning graft are two competing outcomes. METHODS:We included 11,046 kidney transplant recipients enrolled in 10 countries. We developed prediction models for long-term kidney graft failure prediction, without accounting (i.e., censoring) and accounting for the competing risk of death with a functioning graft, using Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox regression models. To this aim, we followed a detailed and transparent analytical framework for competing and noncompeting risk modelling, and carefully assessed the models' development, stability, discrimination, calibration, overall fit, clinical utility, and generalizability in external validation cohorts and subpopulations. More than 15 metrics were used to provide an exhaustive assessment of model performance. RESULTS:Among 11,046 recipients in the derivation and validation cohorts, 1,497 (14%) lost their graft and 1,003 (9%) died with a functioning graft after a median follow-up post-risk evaluation of 4.7 years (IQR 2.7-7.0). The cumulative incidence of graft loss was similarly estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen methods (17% versus 16% in the derivation cohort). Cox and competing risk models showed similar and stable risk estimates for predicting long-term graft failure (average mean absolute prediction error of 0.0140, 0.0138 and 0.0135 for Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox models, respectively). Discrimination and overall fit were comparable in the validation cohorts, with concordance index ranging from 0.76 to 0.87. Across various subpopulations and clinical scenarios, the models performed well and similarly, although in some high-risk groups (such as donors over 65 years old), the findings suggest a trend towards moderately improved calibration when using a competing risk approach. CONCLUSIONS:Competing and noncompeting risk models performed similarly in predicting long-term kidney graft failure.

BACKGROUND:Recent data suggest patients with graft failure had better access to repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) than transplant-naive dialysis accessing first KT. This was postulated to be because of better familiarity with the transplant process and healthcare system; whether this advantage is equitably distributed is not known. We compared the magnitude of racial/ethnic disparities in access to re-KT versus first KT. METHODS:Using United States Renal Data System, we identified 104 454 White, Black, and Hispanic patients with a history of graft failure from 1995 to 2018, and 2 357 753 transplant-naive dialysis patients. We used adjusted Cox regression to estimate disparities in access to first and re-KT and whether the magnitude of these disparities differed between first and re-KT using a Wald test. RESULTS:Black patients had inferior access to both waitlisting and receiving first KT and re-KT. However, the racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.80) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.64) was greater than the racial/ethnic disparities in first KT (waitlisting: aHR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93; Pinteraction = 0.001; KT: aHR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64-0.72; Pinteraction < 0.001). For Hispanic patients, ethnic disparities in waitlisting for re-KT (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) were greater than for first KT (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.16; Pinteraction < 0.001). However, the disparity in receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80) was similar to that for first KT (aHR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79; Pinteraction = 0.55). Inferences were similar when restricting the cohorts to the Kidney Allocation System era. CONCLUSIONS:Unlike White patients, Black and Hispanic patients with graft failure do not experience improved access to re-KT. This suggests that structural and systemic barriers likely persist for racialized patients accessing re-KT, and systemic changes are needed to achieve transplant equity.

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.