Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Prior studies demonstrated that older adults tend to undergo less surgery for thyroid cancer. Our objective was to use a discrete choice experiment to identify factors influencing surgical decision-making for older adults with thyroid cancer. METHODS:Active and candidate members of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Multinomial logistic regression was utilized to assess patient and surgeon factors associated with treatment choices. RESULTS:Complete survey response rate was 25.7%. Most respondents were high-volume surgeons (88.5%) at academic centers (76.9%). Multinomial logistic regression demonstrated that patient age was the strongest predictor of management. Increasing age and comorbidities were associated with the choice for active surveillance (P = .000), not performing a lymphadenectomy in patients with nodal metastases (relative-risk ratio: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4-4.2, P = .002 and relative-risk ratio: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2-2.1, P = .004, respectively), and recommending hemithyroidectomy versus total thyroidectomy for a cancer >4 cm (relative-risk ratio: 4.4, 95% CI: 2.5-7.9, P = .000 and relative-risk ratio: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.3-5.1, P = .000, respectively). Surgeons with ≥10 years of experience (relative-risk ratio: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.1-10.3, P = .039) favored total thyroidectomy for a cancer <4 cm, and nonfellowship trained surgeons (relative-risk ratio: 7.3, 95% CI: 1.3-42.2, P = .027) opted for thyroidectomy without lymphadenectomy for lateral neck nodal metastases. CONCLUSION:This study highlights the variation in surgical management of older adults with thyroid cancer and demonstrates the influence of patient age, comorbidities, surgeon experience, and fellowship training on management of this population.

BACKGROUND:Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) affects nearly all patients on maintenance dialysis therapy. SHPT treatment options have considerably evolved over the past 2 decades, but vary in degree of improvement in SHPT. Therefore, we hypothesize that the risks of adverse outcomes after kidney transplantation (KT) may differ by SHPT treatment. METHODS:Using the SRTR and Medicare claims data, we identified 5,094 adults (age≥18) treated with cinacalcet or parathyroidectomy for SHPT prior to receiving KT between 2007-2016. We quantified the association between SHPT treatment and delayed graft function and acute rejection using adjusted logistic models and tertiary hyperparathyroidism (THPT), graft failure, and death using adjusted Cox proportional hazards; we tested whether these associations differed by patient characteristics. RESULTS:Of 5094 KT recipients who were treated for SHPT while on dialysis, 228 (4.5%) underwent parathyroidectomy and 4866 (95.5%) received cinacalcet. There was no association between treatment of SHPT and posttransplant delayed graft function, graft failure or death. However, compared to patients treated with cinacalcet, those treated with parathyroidectomy had a lower risk of developing THPT (aHR=0.56, 95%CI: 0.35-0.89) post-KT. Furthermore, this risk differed by dialysis vintage (pinteraction=0.039). Among patients on maintenance dialysis therapy for ≥3 years prior to KT (n=3,477, 68.3%), the risk of developing THPT was lower when treated with parathyroidectomy (aHR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.24-0.79). CONCLUSIONS:Parathyroidectomy should be considered as treatment for SHPT, especially in KT candidates on maintenance dialysis for ≥3 years. Additionally, patients treated with cinacalcet for SHPT should undergo close surveillance for development of tertiary hyperparathyroidism post-KT.

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) have pre-existing donor-specific antibody (DSA) that, despite desensitization, may persist or reappear with resulting consequences, including delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). To quantify the risk of DGF and AR in ILDKT and downstream effects, we compared 1406 ILDKTr to 17 542 compatible LDKT recipients (CLDKTr) using a 25-center cohort with novel SRTR linkage. We characterized DSA strength as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF); positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC); or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC). DGF occurred in 3.1% of CLDKT, 3.5% of PLNF, 5.7% of PFNC, and 7.6% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher DGF for PCC recipients (aOR = _1.03 1.68_2.72 ). However, the impact of DGF on mortality and DCGF risk was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction > .1). AR developed in 8.4% of CLDKT, 18.2% of PLNF, 21.3% of PFNC, and 21.7% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher AR (aOR PLNF = _1.45 2.09_3.02 ; PFNC = _1.67 2.40_3.46 ; PCC = _1.48 2.24_3.37 ). Although the impact of AR on mortality was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction = .1), its impact on DCGF risk was less consequential for ILDKT (aHR = _1.34 1.62_1.95 ) than CLDKT (aHR = _1.96 2.29_2.67 ) (p interaction = .004). Providers should consider these risks during preoperative counseling, and strategies to mitigate them should be considered.

BACKGROUND:Transplant recipients with HIV may have worse outcomes with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to impaired T-cell function coupled with immunosuppressive drugs. Alternatively, immunosuppression might reduce inflammatory complications and/or antiretrovirals could be protective. METHODS:Prospective reporting of all cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection was required within the HOPE in Action Multicenter Consortium, a cohort of kidney and liver transplant recipients with HIV who have received organs from donors with and without HIV at 32 transplant centers in the United States. RESULTS:Between March 20, 2020 and September 25, 2020, there were 11 COVID-19 cases among 291 kidney and liver recipients with HIV (4%). In those with COVID-19, median age was 59 y, 10 were male, 8 were kidney recipients, and 5 had donors with HIV. A higher proportion of recipients with COVID-19 compared with the overall HOPE in the Action cohort were Hispanic (55% versus 12%) and received transplants in New York City (73% versus 34%, P < 0.05). Most (10/11, 91%) were hospitalized. High-level oxygen support was required in 7 and intensive care in 5; 1 participant opted for palliative care instead of transfer to the intensive care unit. HIV RNA was undetectable in all. Median absolute lymphocyte count was 0.3 × 103 cells/μL. Median CD4 pre-COVID-19 was 298 cells/μL, declining to <200 cells/μl in 6/7 with measurements on admission. Treatment included high-dose steroids (n = 6), tocilizumab (n = 3), remdesivir (n = 2), and convalescent plasma (n = 2). Four patients (36%) died. CONCLUSIONS:Within a national prospective cohort of kidney and liver transplant recipients with HIV, we report high mortality from COVID-19.

Although the gold standard of monitoring kidney transplant function relies on glomerular filtration rate (GFR), little is known about GFR trajectories after transplantation, their determinants, and their association with outcomes. To evaluate these parameters we examined kidney transplant recipients receiving care at 15 academic centers. Patients underwent prospective monitoring of estimated GFR (eGFR) measurements, with assessment of clinical, functional, histological and immunological parameters. Additional validation took place in seven randomized controlled trials that included a total of 14,132 patients with 403,497 eGFR measurements. After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 1,688 patients developed end-stage kidney disease. Using unsupervised latent class mixed models, we identified eight distinct eGFR trajectories. Multinomial regression models identified seven significant determinants of eGFR trajectories including donor age, eGFR, proteinuria, and several significant histological features: graft scarring, graft interstitial inflammation and tubulitis, microcirculation inflammation, and circulating anti-HLA donor specific antibodies. The eGFR trajectories were associated with progression to end stage kidney disease. These trajectories, their determinants and respective associations with end stage kidney disease were similar across cohorts, as well as in diverse clinical scenarios, therapeutic eras and in the seven randomized control trials. Thus, our results provide the basis for a trajectory-based assessment of kidney transplant patients for risk stratification and monitoring.

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = _0.77 1.40_2.56 ,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = _0.88 1.35_2.06 ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = _1.33 2.22_3.72 ,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = _2.62 3.57_4.88 , P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = _1.15 4.01_13.95 ,P = .03). Post-KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients.

HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation is permitted in the United States under the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act. To explore safety and the risk attributable to an HIV+ donor, we performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ vs HIV-negative donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D-/R+) kidney transplantation (KT). From 3/2016 to 7/2019 at 14 centers, there were 75 HIV+ KTs: 25 D+ and 50 D- (22 recipients from D- with false positive HIV tests). Median follow-up was 1.7 years. There were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (63 mL/min D+ vs 57 mL/min D-, P = .31), HIV breakthrough (4% D+ vs 6% D-, P > .99), infectious hospitalizations (28% vs 26%, P = .85), or opportunistic infections (16% vs 12%, P = .72). One-year rejection was higher for D+ recipients (50% vs 29%, HR: 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.95, P = .13) but did not reach statistical significance; rejection was lower with lymphocyte-depleting induction (21% vs 44%, HR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.87, P = .03). In this multicenter pilot study directly comparing HIV D+/R+ with HIV D-/R+ KT, overall transplant and HIV outcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further investigation.

BACKGROUND:Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remain unknown. METHODS:We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to SRTR for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences, and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS:After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (p<0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (p<0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Unlike most aspects of transplantation where center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.