Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Approximately half of the patients who progress to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and undergo dialysis develop difficulties carrying out essential self-care activities, leading to institutionalization and mortality. It is unclear what percentage of kidney transplant (KT) candidates, a group of ESKD patients selected to be healthy enough to withstand transplantation, are functionally independent and whether independence is associated with better access to KT and reduced waitlist mortality. METHODS:We studied a prospective cohort of 3168 ESKD participants (January 2009 to June 2018) who self-reported functional independence in more basic self-care Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (needing help with eating, dressing, walking, grooming, toileting and bathing) and more complex instrumental ADL (IADL) (needing help using a phone, shopping, cooking, housework, washing, using transportation, managing medications and managing money). We estimated adjusted associations between functional independence (separately) and listing (Cox), waitlist mortality (competing risks) and transplant rates (Poisson). RESULTS:At KT evaluation, 92.4% were independent in ADLs, but only 68.5% were independent in IADLs. Functionally independent participants had a higher chance of listing for KT [ADL: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.87; IADL: aHR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.26-1.52]. Among KT candidates, ADL independence was associated with lower waitlist mortality risk [adjusted subdistribution HR (aSHR) = 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.98] and higher rate of KT [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 1.58, 95% CI 1.12-2.22]; the same was not observed for IADL independence (aSHR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.12; aIRR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.19). CONCLUSIONS:Functional independence in more basic self-care ADL was associated with better KT access and lower waitlist mortality. Nephrologists, geriatricians and transplant surgeons should screen KT candidates for ADLs, and identify interventions to promote independence and improve waitlist outcomes.

Cooperative kidney paired donation (KPD) networks account for an increasing proportion of all living donor kidney transplants in the United States. There are sparse data on the rate of primary nonfunction (PNF) losses and their consequences within KPD networks. We studied National Kidney Registry (NKR) transplants (February 14, 2009 to December 31, 2017) and quantified PNF, graft loss within 30 days of transplantation, and graft losses in the first-year posttransplant and assessed potential risk factors. Of 2364 transplants, there were 38 grafts (1.6%) lost within the first year, 13 (0.5%) with PNF. When compared to functioning grafts, there were no clinically significant differences in blood type compatibility, degree of HLA mismatch, number of veins/arteries, cold ischemia, and travel times. Of 13 PNF cases, 2 were due to early venous thrombosis, 2 to arterial thrombosis, and 2 to failure of desensitization and development of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Given the low rate of PNF, the NKR created a policy to allocate chain-end kidneys to recipients with PNF following event review and attributable to surgical issues of donor nephrectomy. It is expected that demonstration of low incidence of poor early graft outcomes and the presence of a "safety net" would further encourage program participation in national KPD.

Frailty, a measure of physiologic reserve, is associated with poor outcomes and mortality among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. There are no national estimates of frailty in this population, which may help patient counseling and resource allocation at transplant centers. We studied 4616 KT candidates and 1763 recipients in our multicenter prospective cohort of frailty from 2008-2018 with Fried frailty measurements. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data (KT candidates = 560 143 and recipients = 243 508), we projected the national prevalence of frailty (for KT candidates and recipients separately) using standardization through inverse probability weighting, accounting for candidate/recipient, donor, and transplant factors. In our multicenter cohort, 13.3% of KT candidates were frail at evaluation; 8.2% of LDKT recipients and 17.8% of DDKT recipients were frail at transplantation. Projected nationally, our modeling strategy estimated 91 738 KT candidates or 16.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%-18.4%) of all KT candidates during the study period were frail, and that 34 822 KT recipients or 14.3% (95% CI 12.3%-16.3%) of all KT recipients were frail (LDKT = 8.2%; DDKT = 17.8%). Given the estimated national prevalence of frailty, transplant programs should consider assessing the condition during KT evaluation to improve patient counseling and resource allocation along with identification of recipients at risk for poor outcomes.

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence. The strengths of recommendations are provided in the full report. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.

Understanding the economic implications of induction and maintenance immunosuppression (ISx) is important in developing personalized kidney transplant (KTx) care. Using data from a novel integrated data set including financial records from the University Health System Consortium, Medicare, and pharmacy claims (2007-2014), we estimated the differences in the impact of induction and maintenance ISx regimens on transplant hospitalization costs and Medicare payments from KTx to 3 years. Use of thymoglobulin (TMG) significantly increased transplant hospitalization costs ($12 006; P = .02), compared with alemtuzumab and basiliximab. TMG resulted in lower Medicare payments in posttransplant years 1 (-$2058; P = .05) and 2 (-$1784; P = .048). Patients on steroid-sparing ISx incurred relatively lower total Medicare spending (-$10 880; P = .01) compared with patients on triple therapy (tacrolimus, antimetabolite, and steroids). MPA/AZA-sparing, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors-based, and cyclosporine-based maintenance ISx regimens were associated with significantly higher payments. Alternative ISx regimens were associated with different KTx hospitalization costs and longer-term payments. Future studies of clinical efficacy should also consider cost impacts to define the economic effectiveness of alternative ISx regimens.

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, and immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence, and the strengths of recommendations are provided. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.

Importance:Living kidney donation is associated with increased long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). An early postdonation marker of ESRD risk could improve postdonation risk assessment and counseling for kidney donors and allow early intervention for donors at increased risk. Objective:To determine the association between renal function in the first 6 months postdonation and subsequent risk of ESRD in kidney donors. Design, Setting, and Participants:This secondary analysis of a prospective national cohort uses a population-based registry of all living kidney donors in the United States between October 26, 1999, and January 1, 2018, with follow-up through December 31, 2018. All kidney donors who had donated in the date range and had serum creatinine measured at 6 months (±3 months) postdonation were included. Exposures:Renal function as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate 6 months after donation (eGFR6). Main Outcomes and Measures:End-stage renal disease, ascertained via linkage to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. Results:A total of 71 468 living kidney donors were included (of 109 065 total donors over this period). Their median (interquartile range) eGFR6 was 63 (54-74) mL/min/1.73 m2. Cumulative incidence of ESRD at 15 years postdonation ranged from 11.7 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values greater than 70 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 33.1 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values of 50 mL/min/1.73 m2 or less. Adjusting for age, race, sex, body mass index, and biological relationship, every 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 reduction in eGFR6 was associated with a 28% increased risk of ESRD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.54]; P = .009). The association between predonation eGFR and ESRD was not significant and was fully mediated by eGFR6 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.17]; P = .97). The postdonation eGFR value was a better marker of ESRD than eGFR decline after donation or the ratio of eGFR6 to predonation eGFR, as determined by the Akaike information criterion (in which a lower value indicates a better model fit; eGFR6, 1495.61; predonation eGFR - eGFR6, 1503.58; eGFR6 / predonation eGFR, 1502.30). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, there was an independent association of eGFR6 with subsequent ESRD risk in living kidney donors, even after adjusting for predonation characteristics. The findings support measurement of early postdonation serum creatinine monitoring in living kidney donors, and the use of these data to help identify donors who might need more careful surveillance and early intervention.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017. EXPOSURE:Biological relationship of donor and recipient. OUTCOME:ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome. ANALYTIC APPROACH:Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used. RESULTS:Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6). LIMITATIONS:Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND:Recipients of kidneys from living donors who subsequently develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) also have higher graft failure, suggesting the 2 donor kidneys share risk factors that could inform recipient outcomes. Given that donor ESRD is rare, an earlier and more common postdonation outcome could serve as a surrogate to individualize counseling and management for recipients. Hypertension is a frequent event before donor ESRD; thus, early postdonation hypertension might indicate higher risk of graft failure. METHODS:We studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to quantify the association between early postdonation hypertension and recipient graft failure using propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression. We also examined the association between postdonation systolic blood pressure and graft failure. RESULTS:Of 37 901 recipients, 2.4% had a donor who developed hypertension within 2 years postdonation. Controlling for donor and recipient characteristics, recipients whose donors developed hypertension had no higher risk for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.25, P = 0.72). This was consistent among subgroups of recipients at higher risk for adverse outcomes due to hyperfiltration: African American recipients (aHR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70-1.73, P = 0.68) and those with ESRD caused by hypertension (aHR 1.10, 95% CI 0.65-1.85, P = 0.73) or diabetes (aHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56-1.13, P = 0.20). However, graft failure was associated with postdonation systolic blood pressure (per 10 mm Hg, aHR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Although postdonation systolic blood pressure is associated with graft failure, the reported diagnosis of hypertension as determined by the requirement for blood pressure treatment early postdonation did not portend a higher risk of recipient graft failure in the same way as eventual postdonation ESRD.

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non-SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005-2007:_13.15 15.28_17.74 ; 2008-2011:_11.77 13.41_15.29 ; 2012-2014:_9.87 11.37_13.10 ; 2015-2017:_7.79 8.89_10.15 , P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: _0.43 0.54_0.68 , P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: _0.42 0.53_0.67 , P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.21 , P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.20 , P = .6) to recipients of non-SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool.