Faculty Bibliography

In this study of 12 people with HIV (PWH) who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies were detectable in all participants; lower antibody levels were seen in those with lower CD4+ counts, and vaccine reactions were generally mild.

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.

Transplant recipients were excluded from the initial clinical trials determining safety and efficacy of the landmark COVID-19 vaccines. Further, there is increasing evidence that immunosuppressed transplant recipients have a blunted antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination. In a concerning report by Sattler et al. in this issue of the JCI, kidney transplant recipients not only lacked a humoral response following two doses of Pfizer BNT162b2, but also displayed substantial impairment of the cellular response to SARS-CoV-2 antigens. This Commentary addresses potential strategies for transplant providers to evaluate and augment vaccine immunogenicity given the likelihood that COVID-19 will remain a world-wide threat to the health of transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND:In order to counter the lack of sufficient kidney donors, there has been interest in expanding the utilization of organs from increased infectious-risk donors. Negative nucleic acid testing of increased infectious-risk organs has been shown to increase their use as compared to only enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay negativity. However, it is not known how the expanded use of nucleic acid testing on a national scale might affect total donor utilization. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this paper was to determine if a national screening policy requiring the use of nucleic acid testing in both increased infectious-risk and non-increased infectious-risk renal transplant donors would increase the donor organ pool. METHODS:This study used decision-tree analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of four US national screening policies based on an increasingly expansive use of nucleic acid testing for increased infectious-risk and non-increased infectious-risk kidneys. Parameters were taken from the literature. All costs were reported in 2020 US dollars using a Medicare payer perspective and a life-time horizon. RESULTS:The use of nucleic acid screening solely for increased infectious-risk organs was the dominant strategy. Our results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. One of the main driving factors of cost-effectiveness was the false-positive rate of nucleic acid testing. CONCLUSION:Before implementing nucleic acid screening outside of increased infectious-risk organs, its false-positivity rate should be directly studied to ensure that its use does not detrimentally affect transplantation numbers, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs.

BACKGROUND:In March 2020, COVID-19 infections began to rise exponentially in the USA, placing substantial burden on the healthcare system. As a result, there was a rapid change in transplant practices and policies, with cessation of most procedures. Our goal was to understand changes to pediatric kidney transplantation (KT) at the national level during the COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS:Using SRTR data, we examined changes in pediatric waitlist registration, waitlist removal or inactivation, and deceased donor and living donor (DDKT/LDKT) events during the start of the disease transmission in the USA compared with the same time the previous year. RESULTS:) in states with high vs. low COVID activity. Transplant recipients during the pandemic were more likely to have received a DDKT, but had similar calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) values, waitlist time, and cause of kidney failure as before the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 pandemic initially reduced access to kidney transplantation among pediatric patients in the USA but has not had a sustained effect.

Fine particulate matter (PM_2.5 ), a common form of air pollution which can induce systemic inflammatory response, is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Kidney transplant (KT) recipients are likely vulnerable to PM_2.5 due to comorbidity and chronic immunosuppression. We sought to quantify the association between PM_2.5 and post-KT outcomes. For adult KT recipients (1/1/2010-12/31/2016) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we estimated annual zip-code level PM_2.5 concentrations at the time of KT using NASA's SEDAC Global PM_2.5 Grids. We determined the associations between PM_2.5 and delayed graft function (DGF) and 1-year acute rejection using logistic regression and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality using Cox proportional hazard models. All models were adjusted for sociodemographics, recipient, transplant, and ZIP code level confounders. Among 87 233 KT recipients, PM_2.5 was associated with increased odds of DGF (OR = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.48-1.71) and 1-year acute rejection (OR = 1.31; 95% CI: 1.17-1.46) and increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.07-1.23) but not DCGF (HR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.97-1.51). In conclusion, PM_2.5 was associated with higher odds of DGF and 1-year acute rejection and elevated risk of mortality among KT recipients. Our study highlights the importance of considering environmental exposure as risk factors for post-KT outcomes.

The SRTR maintains the liver-simulated allocation model (LSAM), a tool for estimating the impact of changes to liver allocation policy. Integral to LSAM is a model that predicts the decision to accept or decline a liver for transplant. LSAM implicitly assumes these decisions are made identically for adult and pediatric liver transplant (LT) candidates, which has not been previously validated. We applied LSAM's decision-making models to SRTR offer data from 2013 to 2016 to determine its efficacy for adult (≥18) and pediatric (<18) LT candidates, and pediatric subpopulations-teenagers (≥12 to <18), children (≥2 to <12), and infants (<2)-using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). For nonstatus 1A candidates, all pediatric subgroups had higher rates of offer acceptance than adults. For non-1A candidates, LSAM's model performed substantially worse for pediatric candidates than adults (AUC 0.815 vs. 0.922); model performance decreased with age (AUC 0.898, 0.806, 0.783 for teenagers, children, and infants, respectively). For status 1A candidates, LSAM also performed worse for pediatric than adult candidates (AUC 0.711 vs. 0.779), especially for infants (AUC 0.618). To ensure pediatric candidates are not unpredictably or negatively impacted by allocation policy changes, we must explicitly account for pediatric-specific decision making in LSAM.

BACKGROUND:Weight loss before kidney transplant (KT) is a known risk factor for weight gain and mortality, however, while unintentional weight loss is a marker of vulnerability, intentional weight loss might improve health. We tested whether pre-KT unintentional and intentional weight loss have differing associations with post-KT weight gain, graft loss and mortality. METHODS:Among 919 KT recipients from a prospective cohort study, we used adjusted mixed-effects models to estimate post-KT BMI trajectories, and Cox models to estimate death-uncensored graft loss, death-censored graft loss and all-cause mortality by 1-year pre-KT weight change category [stable weight (change ≤ 5%), intentional weight loss (loss > 5%), unintentional weight loss (loss > 5%) and weight gain (gain > 5%)]. RESULTS:The mean age was 53 years, 38% were Black and 40% were female. In the pre-KT year, 62% of recipients had stable weight, 15% had weight gain, 14% had unintentional weight loss and 10% had intentional weight loss. In the first 3 years post-KT, BMI increases were similar among those with pre-KT weight gain and intentional weight loss and lower compared with those with unintentional weight loss {difference +0.79 kg/m2/year [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.08], P < 0.001}. Only unintentional weight loss was independently associated with higher death-uncensored graft loss [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.80 (95% CI 1.23-2.62)], death-censored graft loss [aHR 1.91 (95% CI 1.12-3.26)] and mortality [aHR 1.72 (95% CI 1.06-2.79)] relative to stable pre-KT weight. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that unintentional, but not intentional, pre-KT weight loss is an independent risk factor for adverse post-KT outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplant recipients have higher risk of infectious diseases due to their reliance on immunosuppression. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, some clinicians might have opted for less potent immunosuppressive agents to counterbalance the novel infectious risk. We conducted a nationwide study to characterize immunosuppression use and subsequent clinical outcomes during the first 5 months of COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS:Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied all kidney-only recipients in the United States from January 1, 2017, to March 12, 2020 ("prepandemic" era; n = 64 849) and from March 13, 2020, to July 31, 2020 ("pandemic" era; n = 5035). We compared the use of lymphocyte-depleting agents (versus basiliximab or no induction) and maintenance steroids (versus steroid avoidance/withdrawal) in the pandemic era compared with the prepandemic era. Then, we compared early posttransplant outcomes by immunosuppression regimen during the pandemic era. RESULTS:Recipients in the pandemic era were substantially less likely to receive lymphocyte-depleting induction agents compared with their prepandemic counterparts (aOR = 0.400.530.69); similar trends were found across subgroups of state-level COVID-19 incidence, donor type, and recipient age. However, lymphocyte-depleting induction agents were associated with decreased rejection during admission (aOR = 0.110.230.47) but not with increased mortality in the pandemic era (aHR = 0.130.471.66). On the other hand, the use of maintenance steroids versus early steroid withdrawal remained similar (aOR = 0.711.071.62). CONCLUSIONS:The use of lymphocyte-depleting induction agents has decreased in favor of basiliximab and no induction during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this shift might have resulted in increases in rejection with no clear reductions in posttransplant mortality.