Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Fewer minoritized patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) receive kidney transplantation (KT); efforts to mitigate disparities have thus far failed. Pinpointing the specific stage(s) within the transplant care continuum (being informed of KT options, joining the waiting list, to receiving KT) where disparities emerge among each minoritized population is pivotal for achieving equity. We therefore quantified racial and ethnic disparities across the KT care continuum. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2015-2020), with follow-up through 12/10/2021. Patients with incident dialysis were identified using the US national registry data. The exposure was race and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White). We used adjusted modified Poisson regression to quantify the adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) of being informed of KT, and cause-specific hazards models to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of listing, and transplantation after listing. FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED:Among 637,951 adults initiating dialysis, the mean age (SD) was 63.8 (14.6), 41.8% were female, 5.4% were Asian, 26.3% were Black, 16.6% were Hispanic, and 51.7% were White (median follow-up in years [IQR]:1.92 [0.97-3.39]). Black and Hispanic patients were modestly more likely to be informed of KT (Black: aPR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.01-1.02; Hispanic: aPR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03) relative to White patients. Asian patients were more likely to be listed (aHR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.15-1.21) but less likely to receive KT (aHR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58). Both Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to be listed (Black: aHR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85-0.88; Hispanic: aHR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.85-0.88) and receive KT (Black: aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.60-0.63; Hispanic: aHR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.63-0.66). INTERPRETATION/UNASSIGNED:Improved characterization of the barriers in KT access specific to each racial and ethnic group, and the interventions to address these distinct challenges throughout the KT care continuum are needed; our findings identify specific stages most in need of mitigation. FUNDING/UNASSIGNED:National Institutes of Health.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Dietary restrictions for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are burdensome. Kidney transplantation (KT) candidates who lack neighborhood resources and are burdened by dietary restrictions may have decreased access to KT. METHODS:In our two-center prospective cohort study (2014-2023), 2471 ESKD patients who were evaluated for KT (candidates) reported their perceived burden of dietary restrictions (not at all, somewhat/moderately, or extremely bothered). Neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors were derived from residential ZIP codes. We quantified the association of perceived burden of the dietary restrictions with a chance of listing using Cox models and risk of waitlist mortality using competing risks models. Then we tested whether these associations differed by neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: = 0.02). The association between dietary burden and waitlist mortality did not differ by neighborhood-level healthy food access. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The perceived burden of dietary restrictions is associated with a lower chance of listing for KT, and higher waitlist mortality only among candidates residing in neighborhoods with high food insecurity. Transplant centers should identify vulnerable patients and support them with nutrition education and access to food assistance programs.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:ChatGPT has shown the ability to answer clinical questions in general medicine but may be constrained by the specialized nature of kidney transplantation. Thus, it is important to explore how ChatGPT can be used in kidney transplantation and how its knowledge compares to human respondents. METHODS:We prompted ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4 Visual (4 V) with 12 multiple-choice questions related to six kidney transplant cases from 2013 to 2015 American Society of Nephrology (ASN) fellowship program quizzes. We compared the performance of ChatGPT with US nephrology fellowship program directors, nephrology fellows, and the audience of the ASN's annual Kidney Week meeting. RESULTS:Overall, ChatGPT 4 V correctly answered 10 out of 12 questions, showing a performance level comparable to nephrology fellows (group majority correctly answered 9 of 12 questions) and training program directors (11 of 12). This surpassed ChatGPT 4 (7 of 12 correct) and 3.5 (5 of 12). All three ChatGPT versions failed to correctly answer questions where the consensus among human respondents was low. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Each iterative version of ChatGPT performed better than the prior version, with version 4 V achieving performance on par with nephrology fellows and training program directors. While it shows promise in understanding and answering kidney transplantation questions, ChatGPT should be seen as a complementary tool to human expertise rather than a replacement.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) is often preferred over conventional steroid maintenance (CSM) therapy for kidney transplant recipients with low immunological risks because it may minimize immunosuppression-related adverse events while achieving similar transplant outcomes. However, the risk-benefit balance of ESW could be less favorable in retransplant recipients given their unique immunological risk profile. We hypothesized that the association of ESW with transplant outcomes would differ between first-transplant and retransplant recipients. METHODS:To assess whether the impact of ESW differs between first and retransplant recipients, we studied 210 086 adult deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Recipients who discontinued maintenance steroids before discharge from transplant admission were classified with ESW; all others were classified with CSM. We quantified the association of ESW (vs. CSM) with acute rejection, death-censored graft failure, and death, addressing retransplant as an effect modifier, using logistic/Cox regression with inverse probability weights to control for confounders. RESULTS:In our cohort, 26 248 (12%) were retransplant recipients. ESW was used in 30% of first-transplant and 20% of retransplant recipients. Among first-transplant recipients, ESW was associated with no significant difference in acute rejection (aOR = 1.04 [95% CI = 1.00-1.09]), slightly higher hazard of graft failure (HR = 1.09 [95% CI = 1.05-1.12]), and slightly lower mortality (HR = 0.93 [95% CI = 0.91-0.95]) compared to CSM. Nonetheless, among retransplant recipients, ESW was associated with notably higher risk of acute rejection (OR = 1.42 [95% CI = 1.29-1.57]; interaction p < 0.001) and graft failure (HR = 1.24 [95% CI = 1.14-1.34]; interaction p = 0.003), and similar mortality (HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.94-1.08]; interaction p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:In retransplant recipients, the negative impacts of ESW on transplant outcomes appear to be non-negligible. A more conservatively tailored approach to ESW might be necessary for retransplant recipients.