Faculty Bibliography

In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial drug with immunomodulatory effects used to treat systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and scleroderma. The antiviral effects of HCQ have raised attention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, although safety is controversial. We examined linkages of national transplant registry data with pharmaceutical claims and Medicare billing claims to study HCQ use among Medicare-insured kidney transplant recipients with SLE or scleroderma (2008-2017; N = 1820). We compared three groups based on immunosuppression regimen 7 months-to-1 year post transplant: (a) tacrolimus (Tac) + mycophenolic acid (MPA) + prednisone (Pred) (referent group, 77.7%); (b) Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ (16.5%); or (c) other immunosuppression + HCQ (5.7%). Compared to the referent group, recipients treated with other immunosuppression + HCQ had a 2-fold increased risk of abnormal ECG or QT prolongation (18.9% vs. 10.7%; aHR,_1.12 1.96_3.42 , p = .02) and ventricular arrhythmias (15.2% vs. 11.4%; aHR,_1.00 1.81_3.29 , p = .05) in the >1-to-3 years post-transplant. Tac + MPA + Pred + HCQ was associated with increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias (13.5% vs. 11.4%; aHR,_1.02 1.54_2.31 , p = .04) and pancytopenia (35.9% vs. 31.4%; aHR,_1.03 1.31_1.68 , p = .03) compared to triple immunosuppression without HCQ. However, HCQ-containing regimens were not associated with an increased risk of death or graft failure. HCQ may be used safely in selected kidney transplant recipients in addition to their maintenance immunosuppression, although attention to arrhythmias is warranted.

BACKGROUND:Older (≥65) KT recipients differ from their younger counterparts in their immune response to immunosuppression (IS) and may have a different risk of malignancy after receiving induction. METHODS:We identified 66 700 adult KT recipients treated with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (n = 40 443) or interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2RA) (n = 26 327) induction (1/1/1999-12/31/2014) using USRDS/Medicare data. We estimated the risk of first-diagnosed post-KT malignancy associated with induction (ATG vs. IL-2RA) using Cox proportional hazard models. We then tested whether these risks differed between older and younger recipients (Wald test for interaction). Models incorporated inverse probability of treatment weights to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: = 0.01) between younger (HR = 1.18; 95%CI:1.08-1.29) and older (HR = 1.01; 95%CI:0.93-1.09) recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with IL-2RA induction, ATG was associated with elevated post-KT malignancy risk but only among younger recipients. Transplant centers may need to tailor induction IS for younger recipients to mitigate malignancy risk.

The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood).

BACKGROUND:Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up. METHODS/DESIGN:We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION:Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

Kidney transplant recipients who develop symptoms consistent with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are bringing unique challenges to health care professionals. Telemedicine has surged dramatically since the pandemic in effort to maintain patient care and reduce the risk of COVID-19 exposure to patients, health care workers, and the public. Herein we present reports of 3 kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 who were managed using telemedicine via synchronous video visits integrated with an electronic medical record system, from home to inpatient settings. We demonstrate how telemedicine helped assess, diagnose, triage, and treat patients with COVID-19 while avoiding a visit to an emergency department or outpatient clinic. While there is limited information about the duration of viral shedding for immunosuppressed patients, our findings underscore the importance of using telemedicine in the follow-up care for kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 who have recovered from symptoms but might have persistently positive nucleic acid tests. Our experience emphasizes the opportunities of telemedicine in the management of kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 and in the maintenance of uninterrupted follow-up care for such immunosuppressed patients with prolonged viral shedding. Telemedicine may help increase access to care for kidney transplant recipients during and beyond the pandemic as it offers a prompt, safe, and convenient platform in the delivery of care for these patients. Yet, to advance the practice of telemedicine in the field of kidney transplantation, barriers to increasing the widespread implementation of telemedicine should be removed, and research studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of telemedicine in the care of kidney transplant recipients.

Clinical decision-making in kidney transplant (KT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is understandably a conundrum: both candidates and recipients may face increased acquisition risks and case fatality rates (CFRs). Given our poor understanding of these risks, many centers have paused or reduced KT activity, yet data to inform such decisions are lacking. To quantify the benefit/harm of KT in this context, we conducted a simulation study of immediate-KT vs delay-until-after-pandemic for different patient phenotypes under a variety of potential COVID-19 scenarios. A calculator was implemented (http://www.transplantmodels.com/covid_sim), and machine learning approaches were used to evaluate the important aspects of our modeling. Characteristics of the pandemic (acquisition risk, CFR) and length of delay (length of pandemic, waitlist priority when modeling deceased donor KT) had greatest influence on benefit/harm. In most scenarios of COVID-19 dynamics and patient characteristics, immediate KT provided survival benefit; KT only began showing evidence of harm in scenarios where CFRs were substantially higher for KT recipients (eg, ≥50% fatality) than for waitlist registrants. Our simulations suggest that KT could be beneficial in many centers if local resources allow, and our calculator can help identify patients who would benefit most. Furthermore, as the pandemic evolves, our calculator can update these predictions.

An increasing number of studies claim machine learning (ML) predicts transplant outcomes more accurately. However, these claims were possibly confounded by other factors, namely, supplying new variables to ML models. To better understand the prospects of ML in transplantation, we compared ML to conventional regression in a "common" analytic task: predicting kidney transplant outcomes using national registry data. We studied 133 431 adult deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients between 2005 and 2017. Transplant centers were randomly divided into 70% training set (190 centers/97 787 recipients) and 30% validation set (82 centers/35 644 recipients). Using the training set, we performed regression and ML procedures [gradient boosting (GB) and random forests (RF)] to predict delayed graft function, one-year acute rejection, death-censored graft failure C, all-cause graft failure, and death. Their performances were compared on the validation set using -statistics. In predicting rejection, regression (C = _0.601 0.611_0.621 ) actually outperformed GB (C = _0.581 0.591_0.601 ) and RF (C = _0.569 0.579_0.589 ). For all other outcomes, the C-statistics were nearly identical across methods (delayed graft function, 0.717-0.723; death-censored graft failure, 0.637-0.642; all-cause graft failure, 0.633-0.635; and death, 0.705-0.708). Given its shortcomings in model interpretability and hypothesis testing, ML is advantageous only when it clearly outperforms conventional regression; in the case of transplant outcomes prediction, ML seems more hype than helpful.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Compared to recipients of ABO-compatible (ABOc) living donor kidney transplants (LDKT), recipients of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) LDKT have a higher risk of graft loss, particularly in the first few weeks after transplantation. However, the decision to proceed with ABOi LDKT should be based on a comparison of the alternative: waiting for future ABOc LDKT (e.g, through kidney paired exchange) or for a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT). We sought to evaluate the patient survival difference between ABOi LDKT and waiting for an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study of adults in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 808 ABOi LDKT recipients and 2423 matched controls from among 245,158 adult, first-time kidney-only waitlist registrants who did not receive an ABOi LDKT and who remained on the waitlist or received either an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT, 2002-2017 EXPOSURE: Receipt of ABOi LDKT OUTCOME: Death ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We compared mortality among ABOi LDKT recipients versus a weighted matched comparison population using Cox proportional hazards regression as well as Cox models that accommodated for changing hazards ratios over time. RESULTS:Compared to matched controls, ABOi LDKT was associated with lower survival risk in the first 30 days post-transplant (99.0% vs 99.6%, respectively), but higher survival risk beyond 180 days post-transplant. Patients who received ABOi LDKT had higher survival at 5 and 10 years (90.0% and 75.4% respectively) than similar patients who remained on the waitlist or received ABOc LDKT or ABOc DDKT (81.9% and 68.4% respectively). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:No measurement of ABO antibody titers in recipients; eligibility of participants for kidney paired donation is unknown. CONCLUSIONS:Transplant candidates who receive an ABOi LDKT and survive more than 180 days post-transplant experience a long-term survival benefit compared to remaining on the waitlist to potentially receive an ABO compatible kidney transplant.