Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

As the field of Vascular Composite Allotransplantation (VCA) grows, demand for VCA donations will increase. The public should be made aware of this treatment option to support patients' informed decision-making and authorization for deceased donation. We assessed the availability and quality of existing VCA public education materials from organ procurement organizations (OPOs), transplant centers, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Defense. A content analysis was performed to identify topics covered and important gaps. In total, 1314 public education materials were analyzed, including OPO Facebook posts (61.6%), OPO Twitter posts (29.9%), websites (6.4%), and written documents (eg, fact sheets, research reports) (2.1%). Upper extremity (34.7%) and face (34.5%) transplants were more commonly covered than reproductive (6.4%) or other VCA types (2.8%). Most materials (76.6%) referenced a specific VCA story. However, few materials described which patient population could benefit from VCA (eg, Veterans, amputees, burn victims, 16.4%), the authorization requirements for VCA donation (6.6%), or the appearance of transplanted VCA organs (1.2%). Current VCA public education materials do not adequately educate the public. More comprehensive education materials are needed to prepare the public to authorize VCA donation, become potential donors, or learn about transplant options.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The Live Donor Champion (LDC) program trains kidney transplant (KT) candidates and their family/friends ("champions") as educator-advocates for live donor KT (LDKT). This program was created to empower patients and champions, particularly African American (AA) waitlist candidates that historically had lower access to LDKT. We assessed changes in knowledge about and comfort discussing live donation and donor referral associated with LDC participation, both overall and by participant race. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We compared 163 adult KT candidates who were LDC participants from October 2013 to May 2016 with 489 matched controls, both overall and by race. We compared changes in comfort and knowledge post-LDC using rank-sum tests among participants by race. We compared time to first live donor referral for participants versus controls, by race, using Cox regression. Results/UNASSIGNED: < 0.001); the impact of LDC participation was similar among non-AAs and AAs (p-interaction = 0.6). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:The LDC program increased knowledge, comfort, and live donor referral for non-AA and AA participants, underscoring the effectiveness in the program in promoting LDKT in a population with historically lower access to LDKT.

BACKGROUND:Evidence about the reliability of pre-implantation biopsy is still conflicting, depending on both biopsy type and pathologist's expertise. Aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement of general v specialist pathologists and to compare scores on biopsy and whole organs in a set of discarded kidneys. METHODS:46 discarded kidneys were identified with their corresponding biopsies. The biopsies were reviewed by three general and two specialist pathologists, blinded to the original report, according to Remuzzi score. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both groups. Discarded kidneys were scored according to Remuzzi score by a single specialist pathologist. Biopsies and organs were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted κ coefficients between biopsy and organ scores were also calculated. RESULTS:Specialist pathologists achieved higher values of ICC, reaching excellent or good agreement in most of the parameters, while general pathologists values were mainly fair or good. On whole organs, scores were consistently lower than biopsies, with a significant difference in most of the parameters. Weighted κ coefficient was slight or fair for most of the parameters. CONCLUSIONS:Our data suggests that the creation of a pool of specialist pathologists would improve organ utilization. Moreover, biopsies are not representative of the whole organ. As the Remuzzi score on biopsy is a major reasons for discard, a quota of transplantable kidneys may be erroneously discarded. Refinement in Remuzzi cut-offs based on expert reporting and recognition of sampling error of biopsies in correlation with clinical outcome data should be undertaken.

BACKGROUND:There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization. METHODS:To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression. RESULTS:Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS:We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.

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.

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.