Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Medicaid expansion has led to earlier stage diagnoses in several cancers but has not been studied in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a disease with complex risk factors. We examined the effect of Medicaid expansion on the diagnosis of HCC and associations with county-level social vulnerability. METHODS:Patients with HCC <65 years of age were identified from the SEER database (2010-2016). County-level social vulnerability factors were obtained from the CDC SVI and BRFSS. A Difference-in-Difference analysis evaluated change in early-stage diagnoses (stage I-II) between expansion and non-expansion states. A Difference-in-Difference-in-Difference analysis evaluated expansion impact among counties with higher proportions of social vulnerability. RESULTS:Of 19,751 patients identified, 81.5% were in expansion states. Uninsured status decreased in expansion states (6.3%-2.4%, p < 0.0001) and remained unchanged in non-expansion states (12.7%-14.8%, p = 0.43). There was no significant difference in the incidence of early-stage diagnoses between expansion states and non-expansion states. Results were consistent when accounting for social vulnerability. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Medicaid expansion was not associated with earlier stage diagnoses in patients with HCC, including those with higher social vulnerability. Unlike other cancers, expanded access did not translate into higher utilization of care in HCC, suggesting barriers on a multitude of levels.

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.

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

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.

BACKGROUND:Organ transplantation from donors with HIV to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) presents risks of donor-derived infections. Understanding clinical, immunologic, and virologic characteristics of HIV+ donors is critical for safety. METHODS:We performed a prospective study of donors with HIV-positive and HIV false-positive (FP) testing within the HOPE in Action studies of HIV D+/R+ transplantation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602262; NCT03500315; NCT03734393). We compared clinical characteristics in HIV+ versus FP donors. We measured CD4+ T cells, HIV viral load (VL), drug resistance mutations (DRMs), co-receptor tropism, and serum antiretroviral therapy (ART) detection using mass spectrometry in HIV+ donors. RESULTS:Between 03/2016-03/2020, 92 donors (58 HIV+, 34 FP), representing 98.9% of all US HOPE donors during this period, donated 177 organs (131 kidney, 46 liver). Each year the number of donors increased. Prevalence of hepatitis B (16% vs. 0%), syphilis (16% vs. 0%), and cytomegalovirus (91% vs. 58%) was higher in HIV+ versus FP donors; hepatitis C viremia was similar (2% vs. 6%). Most HIV+ donors (71%) had known HIV diagnosis, of whom 90% were prescribed ART and 68% had VL<400 copies/mL. Median CD4 count was 194 cells/uL (IQR=77-331); median CD4% was 27.0 (IQR=16.8-36.1). Major HIV DRMs were detected in 42%, including non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (33%), integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI, 4%), and multiclass (13%). Serum ART was detected in 46% and matched ART by history. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Utilization of HIV+ donor organs is increasing. HIV DRMs are common, yet resistance that would compromise INSTI-based regimens is rare, which is reassuring regarding safety.