Faculty Bibliography

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated the safety of utilizing hepatitis C viremic donors (HCV+) to expand the donor pool through transplantation into hepatitis C naive recipients (HCV-). However, there has been a lack of enthusiasm to of er HCV+ pancreas grafts to HCV- recipients. We of ered HCV- pancreas patients the option to list for HCV+ donor organs.
Material(s) and Method(s): Patients undergoing pancreas transplant evaluation had informed consent by a transplant physician to receive HCV+ donor organs. We ensured patients had pharmacy coverage for post-transplant HCV anti-retroviral therapy prior to listing. In our early experience, 4 of our 8 transplant recipients elected to list for HCV+ donor organs.
Result(s): In the first 8 months, the average time to transplant from listing was 41 days for patients with standard listing and 21 days for patients listing for HCV+ organs (p<0.05). Of note, 2 of the 4 HCV- recipients were blood type AB and had shorter match time due to their blood type. For all HCV+ donors, COD was anoxia/drug OD, all were HCV antibody and NAT positive, PHS IR, and national imports, with average rank of 3 on the match run. All HCV- donors were local donors with average rank of 21 on the match run. HCV+ donors were younger (28 years) in contrast to HCV- donors (35 years). All recipients have excellent graft function with no signif cant dif erences in complications, LOS, or readmissions.
Conclusion(s): Utilization of HCV+ pancreas donors has allowed our patients increased access to high quality pancreas donors with signif cantly shorter wait times

Desensitization using plasma exchange can remove harmful antibodies prior to transplantation and mitigate risks for hyperacute and severe early acute antibody-mediated rejection. Traditionally, the use of plasma exchange requires a living donor so that the timing of treatments relative to transplant can be planned. Non-HLA antibody is increasingly recognized as capable of causing antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection and has been associated with decreased graft longevity. Our patient had high-strength non-HLA antibody deemed prohibitive to transplantation without desensitization, but no living donors. As the patient was eligible to receive an A2 ABO blood group organ and was willing to accept a hepatitis C positive donor kidney, this afforded a high probability of receiving an offer within a short enough time frame to attempt empiric desensitization in anticipation of a deceased donor transplant. Fifteen plasma exchange treatments were performed before the patient received an organ offer, and the patient was successfully transplanted. Hepatitis C infection was treated posttransplant. No episodes of rejection were observed. At one-year posttransplant, the patient maintains good graft function. In this case, willingness to consider nontraditional donor organs enabled us to mimic living donor desensitization using a deceased donor.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The presence of a donor-specific positive crossmatch has been considered to be a contraindication to kidney transplantation because of the risk of hyperacute rejection. Desensitization is the process of removing hazardous preformed donor-specific antibody (DSA) in order to safely proceed with transplant. Traditionally, this involves plasmapheresis and intravenous immune globulin treatments that occur over days to weeks, and has been feasible when there is a living donor and the date of the transplant is known, allowing time for pre-emptive treatments. For sensitized patients without a living donor, transplantation has been historically difficult. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:IdeS (imlifidase) is an endopeptidase derived from Streptococcus pyogenes which has specificity for human IgG, and when infused intravenously results in rapid cleavage of IgG. METHODS:Here we present our single-center's experience with 7 highly sensitized (cPRA98-100%) kidney transplant candidates who had DSA resulting in positive crossmatches with their donors (5 deceased, 2 living) who received IdeS within 24 hours prior to transplant. RESULTS:All pre-IdeS crossmatches were positive and would have been prohibitive for transplantation. All crossmatches became negative post-IdeS and the patients underwent successful transplantation. Three patients had DSA rebound and antibody-mediated rejection, which responded to standard of care therapies. Three patients had delayed graft function, which ultimately resolved. No serious adverse events were associated with IdeS. All patients have functioning renal allografts at a median follow-up of 235 days. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:IdeS may represent a groundbreaking new method of desensitization for patients who otherwise might have no hope for receiving a lifesaving transplant.

Background: Inheritance of two APOL1 risk variants accounts for the excess risk of non-diabetic ESRD in African Americans when compared to Caucasian, Hispanic and Asian Americans. African American living donors have a higher risk of ESRD than matched non-black donors. APOL1 genotyping in potential kidney donors of African descent may identify individuals at risk for progressive CKD following donation.
Method(s): We report the retrospective analysis of APOL1 genotyping in a cohort of African American potential kidney donors. In July 2016, we initiated targeted genotyping of all African American kidney donor candidates. African American candidates with two APOL1 risk variants were excluded from kidney donation.
Result(s): A total of 28 African American kidney donor candidates were evaluated between July 2016 and April 2018. 2 (7%) were found to have two APOL1 risk variants (high risk genotype). Low risk genotype was identified in 10 (36%) candidates who had one risk variant and 16 (57%) candidates who had none. To date, 15 candidates have completed their donor work-up. Of these, 7 (47%) have already undergone donor nephrectomy, and 4 (27%) were cleared for surgery and are awaiting operation. 4 (27%) of the candidates did not meet our center specific criteria for donation. 2 out these 4 candidates who were excluded from donation were ruled out expressly for having been found to have two APOL1 risk variants.
Conclusion(s): APOL1 genotyping led to the exclusion of two donors who might have previously been allowed to donate, possibly mitigating their risk of CKD/ESRD and suboptimal graft outcomes in recipients. (Table Presented)

Current research states that AIDS pathogenesis has its roots in a chronic activation of immune system secondary to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-induced proliferation of T cells, B cells, NK cells, and macrophages. Immune activation due to acute HIV infection can be highly detrimental to allograft survival in a renal transplant recipient. In this report, we describe a 32-year-old African-American male patient who underwent a second live donor renal transplant, following which he developed acute allograft rejection coincident with newly acquired HIV seropositivity.

Several classifications systems have been developed to predict outcomes of kidney transplantation based on donor variables. This study aims to identify kidney transplant recipient variables that would predict graft outcome irrespective of donor characteristics. All U.S. kidney transplant recipients between October 25,1999 and January 1, 2007 were reviewed. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model time until graft failure. Death-censored and nondeath-censored graft survival models were generated for recipients of live and deceased donor organs. Recipient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), presence of cardiac risk factors, peripheral vascular disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, history of malignancy, hepatitis B core antibody, hepatitis C infection, dialysis status, panel-reactive antibodies (PRA), geographic region, educational level, and prior kidney transplant were evaluated in all kidney transplant recipients. Among the 88,284 adult transplant recipients the following groups had increased risk of graft failure: younger and older recipients, increasing PRA (hazard ratio [HR],1.03-1.06], increasing BMI (HR, 1.04-1.62), previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.17-1.26), dialysis at the time of transplantation (HR, 1.39-1.51), hepatitis C infection (HR, 1.41-1.63), and educational level (HR, 1.05-1.42). Predictive criteria based on recipient characteristics could guide organ allocation, risk stratification, and patient expectations in planning kidney transplantation.

Parvovirus B19 (PVB19) is a DNA virus which causes clinically relevant infection in renal transplant recipients (RTR) leading to significant morbidity. Manifestations include erythropoietin resistant anemia, proteinuria, and glomerulosclerosis in the allograft. Severe infection may require administration of intravenous immunoglobulin, reduction in immunosuppression and transfusions. The major challenge in managing and preventing the infection in RTR involves the act of balancing the decreased level of immunosuppression and the risk of rejection. The objective of this article is to understand the importance of PVB19 infection and its outcome in RTR. We reviewed the medical records of three RTR with confirmed PVB19 infection and recorded patient information including demographics, clinical and laboratory data, management, and outcome. The average time of occurrence of PVB19 infection as transplant was 8.6 weeks and they presented with symptomatic anemia. Elevated creatinine values were noted in two of them. Following treatment, anemia improved and creatinine values returned to baseline. One of them developed an early relapse and had to be treated once again similarly. We emphasize the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion for PVB19 infection in patients with anemia in the posttransplant phase, especially in patients on higher doses of immunosuppressants. Early and proper treatment can prevent worsening clinical condition and possible effects on the allograft.