Faculty Bibliography

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.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The early effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on transplantation are dramatic: >75% of kidney and liver programs are either suspended or operating under major restrictions. To resume transplantation, it is important to understand the prevalence of COVID-19 among transplant recipients, donors, and healthcare workers (HCWs) and its associated mortality. Methods/UNASSIGNED:To investigate this, we studied severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 diagnostic test results among patients with end-stage renal disease or kidney transplants from the Johns Hopkins Health System (n = 235), and screening test results from deceased donors from the Southwest Transplant Alliance Organ Procurement Organization (n = 27), and donors, candidates, and HCWs from the National Kidney Registry and Viracor-Eurofins (n = 253) between February 23 and April 15, 2020. Results/UNASSIGNED:We found low rates of COVID-19 among donors and HCWs (0%-1%) who were screened, higher rates of diagnostic tests among patients with end-stage renal disease or kidney transplant (17%-20%), and considerable mortality (7%-13%) among those who tested positive. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:These findings suggest the threat of COVID-19 for the transplant population is significant and ongoing data collection and reporting is critical to inform transplant practices during and after the pandemic.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors. Methods/UNASSIGNED:To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT. Results/UNASSIGNED: = 0.3). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

BACKGROUND:Falls occur in 28% of hemodialysis patients and increase the risk of physical impairment, morbidity, and mortality. Therefore, it is likely that kidney transplantation (KT) candidates with recurrent falls are less likely to access KT and more likely to experience adverse post-KT outcomes. METHODS:We used a 2-center cohort study of KT candidates (n = 3666) and recipients (n = 770) (January 2009 to January 2018). Among candidates, we estimated time to listing, waitlist mortality, and transplant rate by recurrent falls (≥2 falls) before evaluation using adjusted regression. Among KT recipients, we estimated risk of mortality, graft loss, and length of stay by recurrent falls before KT using adjusted regression. RESULTS:Candidates with recurrent falls (6.5%) had a lower chance of listing (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.83) but not transplant rate; waitlist mortality was 31-fold (95% CI, 11.33-85.93) higher in the first year and gradually decreased over time. Recipients with recurrent falls (5.1%) were at increased risk of mortality (aHR = 51.43, 95% CI, 16.00-165.43) and graft loss (aHR = 33.57, 95% CI, 11.25-100.21) in the first year, which declined over time, and a longer length of stay (adjusted relative ratio [aRR] = 1.13, 95% CI, 1.03-1.25). In summary, 6.5% of KT candidates and 5.1% of recipients experienced recurrent falls which were associated with adverse pre- and post-KT outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:While recurrent falls were relatively rare in KT candidates and recipients, they were associated with adverse outcomes. Transplant centers should consider employing fall prevention strategies for high-risk candidates as part of comprehensive prehabilitation.

BACKGROUND:Donor livers with ≥30% macrosteatosis (steatotic livers) represent a possible expansion to the donor pool, but are frequently discarded as they are associated with an increased risk of mortality and graft loss. We hypothesized that there are certain recipient phenotypes that would tolerate donor steatosis well, and are therefore best suited to receive these grafts. METHODS:Using national registry data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2006 and 2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers with 69 394 recipients of nonsteatotic (<30%) livers. We identified recipient factors that amplified the impact of donor steatosis on mortality and graft loss using interaction analysis, classifying recipients without these factors as preferred recipients. We compared mortality and graft loss with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers in preferred and nonpreferred recipients using Cox regression. RESULTS:Preferred recipients of steatotic livers were determined to be first-time recipients with a model for end-stage liver disease 15-34, without primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support before transplant. Preferred recipients had no increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.921.041.16; P = 0.5) or graft loss (HR: 0.931.031.15; P = 0.5) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had a 41% increased mortality risk (HR: 1.171.411.70; P < 0.001) and 39% increased risk of graft loss (HR: 1.161.391.66; P < 0.001) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. CONCLUSIONS:The risks of liver transplantation with steatotic donor livers could be minimized by appropriate recipient matching.

Prioritization of highly sensitized (HS) candidates under the kidney allocation system (KAS) and growth of large, multicenter kidney-paired donation (KPD) clearinghouses have broadened the transplant modalities available to HS candidates. To quantify temporal trends in utilization of these modalities, we used SRTR data from 2009 to 2017 to study 39 907 adult HS (cPRA ≥ 80%) waitlisted candidates and 19 003 recipients. We used competing risks regression to quantify temporal trends in likelihood of DDKT, KPD, and non-KPD LDKT for HS candidates (Era 1: January 1, 2009-December 31, 2011; Era 2: January 1, 2012-December 3, 2014; Era 3: December 4, 2014-December 31, 2017). Although the likelihood of DDKT and KPD increased over time for all HS candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] Era 3 vs 1 for DDKT: _1.74 1.85_1.97 , P < .001 and for KPD: _1.70 2.20_2.84 , P < .001), the likelihood of non-KPD LDKT decreased (aSHR: _0.69 0.82_0.97 , P = .02). However, these changes affected HS recipients differently based on cPRA. Among recipients, more cPRA 98%-99.9% and 99.9%+ recipients underwent DDKT (96.2% in Era 3% vs 59.1% in Era 1 for cPRA 99.9%+), whereas fewer underwent non-KPD LDKT (1.9% vs 30.9%) or KPD (2.0% vs 10.0%). Although KAS increased DDKT likelihood for the most HS candidates, it also decreased the use of non-KPD LDKT to transplant cPRA 98%+ candidates.

In March 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread rapidly nationally, causing widespread emergent changes to the health system. Our goal was to understand the impact of the epidemic on kidney transplantation (KT), at both the national and center levels, accounting statistically for waitlist composition. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we compared data on observed waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, and living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplants (LDKT/DDKT) March 15-April 30, 2020 to expected events calculated from preepidemic data January 2016-February 2020. There were few changes before March 15, at which point the number of new listings/DDKT/LDKT dropped to 18%/24%/87% below the expected value (all P < .001). Only 12 centers performed LDKT March 15-31; by April 30, 40 centers had resumed LDKT. The decline in new listings and DDKT was greater among states with higher per capita confirmed COVID-19 cases. The number of waitlist deaths was 2.2-fold higher than expected in the 5 states with highest COVID-19 burden (P < .001). DCD DDKT and regional/national imports declined nationwide but most steeply in states with the highest COVID-19 burden. The COVID-19 epidemic has resulted in substantial changes to KT; we must adapt and learn rapidly to continue to provide safe access to transplantation and limit the growing indirect toll of an already deadly disease.

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.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Intact cognition is generally a prerequisite for navigating through and completing evaluation for kidney transplantation. Despite kidney transplantation being contraindicated for those with severe dementia, screening for more mild forms of cognitive impairment before referral is rare. Candidates may have unrecognized cognitive impairment, which may prolong evaluation, elevate mortality risk, and hinder access to kidney transplantation. We estimated the burden of cognitive impairment and its association with access to kidney transplantation and waitlist mortality. STUDY DESIGN:Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:3,630 participants (January 2009 to June 2018) with cognitive function measured (by the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination [3MS]) at kidney transplantation evaluation at 1 of 2 transplantation centers. PREDICTORS:Cognitive impairment (3MS score<80). OUTCOMES:Listing, waitlist mortality, and kidney transplantation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:We estimated the adjusted chance of listing (Cox regression), risk for waitlist mortality (competing-risks regression), and kidney transplantation rate (Poisson regression) by cognitive impairment. Given potential differences in cause of cognitive impairment among those with and without diabetes, we tested whether these associations differed by diabetes status using a Wald test. RESULTS:=0.02). Among candidates without diabetes, those with cognitive impairment were at 2.47 (95% CI, 1.31-4.66) times greater risk for waitlist mortality; cognitive impairment was not associated with this outcome among candidates with diabetes. LIMITATIONS:Single measure of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS:Cognitive impairment is associated with a lower chance of being placed on the waitlist, and among patients without diabetes, with increased mortality on the waitlist. Future studies should investigate whether implementation of screening for cognitive impairment improves these outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Frailty, originally characterized in community-dwelling older adults, is increasingly being studied and implemented for adult patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) of all ages (>18 years). Frailty prevalence and manifestation are unclear in younger adults (18-64 years) with ESKD; differences likely exist based on whether the patients are treated with hemodialysis (HD) or kidney transplantation (KT). METHODS:We leveraged 3 cohorts: 378 adults initiating HD (2008-2012), 4,304 adult KT candidates (2009-2019), and 1,396 KT recipients (2008-2019). The frailty phenotype was measured within 6 months of dialysis initiation, at KT evaluation, and KT admission. Prevalence of frailty and its components was estimated by age (≥65 vs. <65 years). A Wald test for interactions was used to test whether risk factors for frailty differed by age. RESULTS:In all 3 cohorts, frailty prevalence was higher among older than younger adults (HD: 71.4 vs. 47.3%; candidates: 25.4 vs. 18.8%; recipients: 20.8 vs. 14.3%). In all cohorts, older patients were more likely to have slowness and weakness but less likely to report exhaustion. Among candidates, older age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.47-2.17), non-Hispanic black race (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.08-1.57), and dialysis type (HD vs. no dialysis: OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.61-2.64; peritoneal dialysis vs. no dialysis: OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.28-2.48) were associated with frailty prevalence, but sex and Hispanic ethnicity were not. These associations did not differ by age (pinteractions > 0.1). Similar results were observed for recipients and HD patients. CONCLUSIONS:Although frailty prevalence increases with age, younger patients have a high burden. Clinicians caring for this vulnerable population should recognize that younger patients may experience frailty and screen all age groups.