Faculty Bibliography

Donor/recipient incompatibility in kidney transplantation classically refers to ABO/HLA-incompatibility. Kidney paired donation (KPD) was historically established to circumvent ABO/HLA-incompatibility, with the goal of identifying ABO/HLA-compatible matches. However, there is a broad range of donor factors known to impact recipient outcomes beyond ABO/HLA-incompatibility, such as age and weight, and quantitative tools are now available to empirically compare potential living donors across many of these factors, such as the living donor kidney donor profile index (LKDPI). Moreover, the detrimental impact of mismatch at other HLA antigens (such as DQ) and epitope mismatching on posttransplant outcomes has become increasingly recognized. Thus, it is time for a new paradigm of incompatibility that considers all of these risks factors together in assessing donor/recipient compatibility and the potential utility for KPD. Under this new paradigm of incompatibility, we show how the LKDPI and other tools can be used to identify donor/recipient incompatibilities that could be improved through KPD, even for those with a traditionally "compatible" living donor.

Kidney transplantation (KT) experts did not support the use of subjective unintentional weight loss to measure shrinking in the physical frailty phenotype (PFP); a clinically feasible and predictive measure of shrinking is needed. To test whether unintentional weight loss could be replaced by an assessment of sarcopenia using existing CT scans, we performed a prospective cohort study of adult KT recipients with original PFP (oPFP) measured at admission (December 2008-February 2020). We ascertained sarcopenia by calculating skeletal muscle index from available, clinically obtained CTs within 1-year pre-KT (male < 50 cm² /m² ; female < 39 cm² /m² ) and combined it with the original four components to determine new PFP (nPFP) scores. Frailty was classified by frailty score: 0: non-frail; 1-2: pre-frail; ≥3: frail. Mortality and graft loss hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Model discrimination was quantified using Harrell's C-statistic. Among 1113 recipients, 18.6% and 17.1% were frail by oPFP and nPFP, respectively. Compared to non-frail recipients, frail patients by either PFP had higher risks of mortality (oPFP HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.07-2.62, C = 0.710; nPFP HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66, C = 0.710) and graft loss (oPFP HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.17-2.40, C = 0.631; nPFP HR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.15-2.40, C = 0.634) with similar discriminations. oPFP and nPFP are equally useful in risk prediction for KT recipients; oPFP may aid in screening patients for pre-KT interventions, while nPFP may assist in nuanced clinical decision-making.

Vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses are attenuated in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) and breakthrough infections are more common. Additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses increase anti-spike IgG in some SOTRs, but it is uncertain whether neutralization of variants of concern (VOCs) is enhanced. We tested 47 SOTRs for clinical and research anti-spike IgG, pseudoneutralization (ACE2 blocking), and live-virus neutralization (nAb) against VOCs before and after a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose (70% mRNA, 30% Ad26.COV2.S) with comparison to 15 healthy controls after two mRNA vaccine doses. We used correlation analysis to compare anti-spike IgG assays and focused on thresholds associated with neutralization. A third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose increased median total anti-spike (1.6-fold), pseudoneutralization against VOCs (2.5-fold vs. Delta), and neutralizing antibodies (1.4-fold against Delta). However, neutralization activity was significantly lower than healthy controls (p < .001); 32% of SOTRs had zero detectable nAb against Delta after third vaccination compared to 100% for controls. Correlation with nAb was seen at anti-spike IgG >4 Log₁₀ (AU/ml) on the Euroimmun ELISA and >4 Log₁₀ (AU/ml) on the MSD research assay. These findings highlight benefits of a third vaccine dose for some SOTRs and the need for alternative strategies to improve protection in a significant subset of this population.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and frailty are major drivers of outcomes among patients with cirrhosis. What is unknown is the impact of physical frailty on the development of AKI. We included adults with cirrhosis without hepatocellular carcinoma listed for liver transplantation at nine US centers (n = 1,033). Frailty was assessed using the Liver Frailty Index (LFI); "frail" was defined by LFI ≥ 4.2. Chronic kidney disease as a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m² . Our primary outcome, AKI, was defined as an increase in serum creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dL or a serum creatinine ≥1.5-fold increase. Wait-list mortality was defined as either a death on the wait list or removal for being too sick. We performed Cox regression analyses to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for AKI and wait-list mortality. Of 1,033 participants, 41% were frail and 23% had CKD. Twenty-one percent had an episode of AKI during follow-up. Frail versus nonfrail patients were more likely to develop AKI (25% vs. 19%) and wait-list mortality (21% vs. 13%) (P < 0.01 for each). In multivariable Cox regression, each of the following groups was associated with a higher risk of AKI as compared with not frail/no CKD: frail/no CKD (adjusted HR [aHR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29-2.72); not frail/CKD (aHR = 4.30, CI = 2.88-6.42); and frail/CKD (aHR = 4.85, CI = 3.33-7.07). We use a readily available metric, LFI, to identify those patients with cirrhosis most at risk for AKI. We highlight that serum creatinine and creatinine-based estimations of glomerular filtration rate may not fully capture a patient's vulnerability to AKI among the frail phenotype. Conclusion: Our work lays the foundation for implementing physical frailty in clinical practice to identify AKI earlier, implement reno-protective strategies, and expedite liver transplantation.

Despite a documented survival benefit, older liver donor (OLD, age ≥70) graft offers are frequently declined, with utilization worsening over the last decade. To understand how offer acceptance varies by center, we studied 1113 eventually transplanted OLD grafts from 2009 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data and random-intercept multilevel logistic regression. To understand how center-level acceptance of OLD graft offers might be associated with waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, we studied all adult, actively listed, liver-only candidates and recipients during the study period using Poisson regression (transplant rate), competing risks regression (waitlist mortality), and Cox regression (posttransplant mortality). Among 117 centers, OLD offer acceptance ranged from 0 (23 centers) to 95 acceptances, with a median odds ratio of 2.88. Thus, a candidate may be three times as likely to receive an OLD graft simply by listing at a different center. Centers in the highest quartile (Q4) of OLD acceptance (accepted 39% of OLD offers) accepted more nationally shared organs (Q4 versus Q1: 14.1% versus 0.0%, P < 0.001) and had higher annual liver transplant volume (Q4 versus Q1: 80 versus 21, P < 0.001). After adjustment, nationally shared OLD offers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.20) and offers to centers with higher median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87) were less likely to be accepted. OLD offers to centers with higher annual transplant volume were more likely to be accepted (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30). Additionally, candidates listed at centers within the highest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance had higher deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.50), lower waitlist mortality (adjusted subhazard ratio: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.76), and similar posttransplant survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1.01) when compared with those listed at centers in the lowest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance. The wide variation in OLD offer acceptance supports the need for optimizing the organ offer process and efficiently directing OLD offers to centers more likely to use them.

BACKGROUND:Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded due to higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for liver transplantation continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes. METHODS:We studied 5,975 recovered DCD livers using U.S. SRTR data from 2005-2017, with a comparison group of 78,235 adult DBD livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression. RESULTS:DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD vs. DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared to 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared to 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56). CONCLUSIONS:Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool.

BACKGROUND:Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) is a viable maintenance immunosuppression strategy in low-risk kidney transplant recipients. A low panel reactive antibody (PRA) may indicate low-risk condition amenable to ESW. We aimed to identify the threshold value of PRA above which ESW may pose additional risk, and to compare the association of ESW with transplant outcomes across PRA strata. METHODS:We studied 121,699 deceased-donor kidney-only recipients in 2002-2017 from SRTR. Using natural splines and ESW-PRA interaction terms, we explored how the associations of ESW with transplant outcomes change with increasing PRA values, and identified a threshold value for PRA. Then, we assessed whether PRA exceeding the threshold modified the associations of ESW with 1-year acute rejection, death-censored graft failure, and death. RESULTS:The association of ESW with acute rejection exacerbated rapidly when PRA exceeded 60. Among PRA≤60 recipients, ESW was associated with a minor increase in rejection (aOR=1.001.051.10) and with a tendency of decreased graft failure (aHR=0.910.971.03). However, among PRA>60 recipients, ESW was associated with a substantial increase in rejection (aOR=1.191.271.36; interaction p<0.001) and with a tendency of increased graft failure (aHR=0.981.081.20; interaction p=0.028). The association of ESW with death was similar between PRA strata (PRA≤60, aHR=0.910.961.01; and PRA>60, aHR=0.900.991.09; interaction p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings show that the association of ESW with transplant outcomes is less favorable in recipients with higher PRA, especially those with PRA>60, suggesting a possible role of PRA in the risk assessment for ESW.

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, _2.34 3.32_4.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, _1.70 2.51_3.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, _2.77 3.95_5.63 ; top 5 offers, _3.90 4.39_4.95 ; top 10 offers, _4.85 5.30_5.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], _0.68 0.77_0.88 ; non-HCC, _0.73 0.81_0.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, _0.59 0.65_0.71 ; non-HCC, _0.69 0.75_0.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.