Faculty Bibliography

Importance:Historically, deceased organ donation was lower among Black compared with White populations, motivating efforts to reduce racial disparities. The overarching effect of these efforts in Black and other racial/ethnic groups remains unclear. Objective:To examine changes in deceased organ donation over time. Design, Setting, and Participants:This population-based cohort study used data from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2017, from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to quantify the number of actual deceased organ donors, and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research Detailed Mortality File to quantify the number of potential donors (individuals who died under conditions consistent with organ donation). Data were analyzed from December 2, 2019, to May 14, 2020. Exposures:Race and ethnicity of deceased and potential donors. Main Outcomes and Measures:For each racial/ethnic group and year, a donation ratio was calculated as the number of actual deceased donors divided by the number of potential donors. Direct age and sex standardization was used to allow for group comparisons, and Poisson regression was used to quantify changes in donation ratio over time. Results:A total of 141 534 deceased donors and 5 268 200 potential donors were included in the analysis. Among Black individuals, the donation ratio increased 2.58-fold from 1999 to 2017 (yearly change in adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.05; P < .001). This increase was significantly greater than the 1.60-fold increase seen in White individuals. Nevertheless, substantial racial differences remained, with Black individuals still donating at only 69% the rate of White individuals in 2017 (P < .001). Among other racial minority populations, changes were less drastic. Deceased organ donation increased 1.80-fold among American Indian/Alaska Native and 1.40-fold among Asian or Pacific Islander populations, with substantial racial differences remaining in 2017 (American Indian/Alaska Native population donation at 28% and Asian/Pacific Islander population donation at 85% the rate of the White population). Deceased organ donation differences between Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino populations increased over time (4% lower in 2017). Conclusions and Relevance:The findings of this cohort study suggest that differences in deceased organ donation between White and some racial minority populations have attenuated over time. The greatest gains were observed among Black individuals, who have been the primary targets of study and intervention. Despite improvements, substantial differences remain, suggesting that novel approaches are needed to understand and address relatively lower rates of deceased organ donation among all racial minorities.

BACKGROUND:Individuals undergoing hemodialysis in the United States frequently report pain and receive three-fold more opioid prescriptions than the general population. While opioid use is appropriate for select patients, high-dose utilization may contribute to an increased risk of death due to possible accumulation of opioid metabolites. METHODS:We studied high-dose opioid utilization (≥120 morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day) among adults initiating hemodialysis in the United States between 2007 and 2014 using national registry data. We calculated the cumulative incidence (%) of high-dose utilization and depicted trends in the average percentage of days individuals were exposed to opioids. We used adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to identify which opioid doses were associated with mortality. RESULTS:Among 327,344 adults undergoing hemodialysis, the cumulative incidence of high-dose utilization was 14.9% at 2 years after initiating hemodialysis. Among patients with ≥1 opioid prescription during follow-up, the average percentage of days exposed to high-dose utilization increased from 13.9% in 2007 to 26.1% in 2014. Compared to 0MME per day, doses < 60MME were not associated with an increased risk of mortality, but high-dose utilization was associated with a 1.63-fold (95% CI, 1.57, 1.69) increased risk of mortality. The risk of mortality associated with opioid dose was highest in the first year after hemodialysis initiation. CONCLUSIONS:The risk of mortality associated with opioid utilization among individuals on hemodialysis increases as doses exceed 60MME per day and is greatest during periods of high-dose utilization. Patients and clinicians should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of opioid doses exceeding 60MME per day.

BACKGROUND:clinical and imaging investigations allow a detailed assessment of an organ donor, but a quota of cancer still elude detection. Complete autopsy of donors is even less frequently performed, due to economic issues and increasing availability of high-quality imaging. The aim of this study is to gather evidence from the literature on donor malignancy discovered at autopsy following organ donation and to discuss the utility and limitations of autopsy practice in the field of transplantation. METHODS:A systematic search according to PRISMA guidelines was carried out in Pubmed and Embase databases until September 2020 to select articles with reporting of cancer discovered in a donor at postmortem examination. Cancer discover in not-transplant setting were excluded. A descriptive synthesis was provided. RESULTS:Of 7388 articles after duplicates removal, 56 were included. Fifty-one studies reported on complete autopsy, while 5 dealt only with limited autopsy (prostate and central nervous system). The number of autopsies ranged between 1 and 246 with a total of 823 autopsies performed. The most frequent cancer discovered at autopsy was lymphoma (n = 13, 15%), followed by renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n = 11, 13%), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 10, 11%), melanoma (n = 10, 11%), choriocarcinoma (n = 6, 7%) and glioblastoma (GBM) (n = 6, 7%). CONCLUSIONS:Lymphoma and melanoma are still difficult-to-detect cancers both during donor investigation and at procurement, whilst prostate cancer and choriocarcinoma are almost always easily detected nowadays thank to blood markers and clinical examination. There have been improvements with time in pre-donation detection procedures which are now working well, particularly when complete imaging investigations are performed, given that detection rate of CT/MRI is high and accurate. Autopsy can play a role to help to establish the correct donor management pathways in case of cancer discover. Furthermore, it helps to better understand which cancers are still eluding detection and consequently to refine guidelines' assessment procedures.

Recently, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-based liver allocation in the United States has been questioned based on concerns that waitlist mortality for a given biologic MELD (bMELD), calculated using laboratory values alone, might be higher at certain centers in certain locations across the country. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the center-level variation in bMELD-predicted mortality risk. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data from January 2015 to December 2019, we modeled mortality risk in 33 260 adult, first-time waitlisted candidates from 120 centers using multilevel Poisson regression, adjusting for sex, and time-varying age and bMELD. We calculated a "MELD correction factor" using each center's random intercept and bMELD coefficient. A MELD correction factor of +1 means that center's candidates have a higher-than-average bMELD-predicted mortality risk equivalent to 1 bMELD point. We found that the "MELD correction factor" median (IQR) was 0.03 (-0.47, 0.52), indicating almost no center-level variation. The number of centers with "MELD correction factors" within ±0.5 points, and between ±0.5-± 1, ±1.0-±1.5, and ±1.5-±2.0 points was 62, 41, 13, and 4, respectively. No centers had waitlisted candidates with a higher-than-average bMELD-predicted mortality risk beyond ±2 bMELD points. Given that bMELD similarly predicts waitlist mortality at centers across the country, our results support continued MELD-based prioritization of waitlisted candidates irrespective of center.

BACKGROUND:We studied the safety and reactogenicity SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in transplant recipients because immunosuppressed patients were excluded from vaccine trials. METHODS:US transplant recipients were recruited into this prospective cohort study through social media; those who completed the full vaccine series between December 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 were included. We collected demographics, medical history, and safety information within 7 d after doses 1 and 2 (D1, D2). Associations between characteristics and reactions were evaluated using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS:We studied 741 transplant recipients who underwent BNT162b2 (54%) or mRNA-1273 (46%) vaccination. Median (interquartile range) age was 60 (44-69) y, 57% were female, and 10% were non-White. Although local site reactions decreased after D2 (85% D1 versus 78% D2, P < 0.001), systemic reactions increased (49% D1 versus 69% D2, P < 0.001). Younger participants were more likely to develop systemic symptoms after D1 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] per 10 y = 0.850.900.94, P < 0.001) and D2 (aIRR per 10 y = 0.910.930.96, P < 0.001). Participants who experienced pain (aIRR = 1.111.662.47, P = 0.01) or redness (aIRR = 1.833.928.41, P < 0.01) were more likely to develop an antibody response to D1 of mRNA vaccines. No anaphylaxis, neurologic diagnoses, or SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses were reported. Infections were minimal (3% after D1, <0.01% after D2). One patient reported incident acute rejection post-D2. CONCLUSIONS:In solid organ transplant recipients undergoing mRNA vaccination, reactogenicity was similar to that reported in the original trials. Severe reactions were rare. These early safety data may help address vaccine hesitancy in transplant recipients.