Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In older adults (≥65) access to and outcomes following kidney transplantation (KT) have improved over the past three decades. It is unknown if there were parallel trends in re-KT. We characterized the trends, changing landscape, and outcomes of re-KT in older adults. METHODS:Among the 44,149 older kidney-only recipients (1995-2016) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 1,743 who underwent re-KT. We analyzed trends and outcomes (mortality, death-censored graft failure [DCGF]) by eras (1995-2002, 2003-2014 and 2015-2016) that were defined by changes to the ECD and KDPI policies. RESULTS:Among all older kidney-only recipients during 1995-2002, 2003-2014, 2015-2016 the proportion that were re-KTs increased from 2.7%-4.2%-5.7% p<0.001, respectively. Median age at re-KT (67-68-68, p=0.04), years on dialysis after graft failure (1.4-1.5-2.2, p=0.003), donor age (40.0-43.0-43.5, p=0.04), proportion with PRA 80-100 (22.0%-32.7%-48.7%, p<0.001) and donations after circulatory death (1.1%-13.4%-19.5%, p<0.001) have increased. Despite this, the 3-year cumulative incidence for mortality (22.3%-19.1%-11.5%, p=0.002) and DCGF (13.3%-10.0%-5.1%, p=0.01) decreased over time. Compared with deceased donor re-transplant recipients during 1995-2002, those during 2003-2014 and 2015-2016 had lower mortality hazard (aHR=0.78, 95%CI:0.63-0.86 and aHR=0.55, 95%CI:0.35-0.86, respectively). These declines were noted but not significant for DCGF and in living donor re-KTs. CONCLUSIONS:In older re-transplant recipients, outcomes have improved significantly over time despite higher risk profiles; yet they represent a fraction of the KTs performed. Our results support increasing access to re-KT in older adults; however, approaches to guide the selection and management in those with graft failure need to be explored.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.