Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Evidence suggests that older patients are less frequently placed on the waiting list for kidney transplantation (KT) than their younger counterparts. The trends and magnitude of this age disparity in access to first KT and repeat KT (re-KT) remain unclear. METHODS:Using the US Renal Data System, we identified 2 496 743 adult transplant-naive dialysis patients and 110 338 adult recipients with graft failure between 1995 and 2018. We characterized the secular trends of age disparities and used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the chances of listing and receiving first KT versus re-KT by age (18-64 y versus ≥65 y). RESULTS:Older transplant-naive dialysis patients were less likely to be listed (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.18) and receive first KT (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.87-0.89) compared with their younger counterparts. Additionally, older patients with graft failure had a lower chance of being listed (aHR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.38-0.41) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81). The magnitude of the age disparity in being listed for first KT was greater than that for re-KT ( Pinteraction  < 0.001), and there were no differences in the age disparities in receiving first KT or re-KT ( Pinteraction  = 0.13). Between 1995 and 2018, the age disparity in listing for first KT reduced significantly ( P  < 0.001), but the age disparities in re-KT remained the same ( P  = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS:Age disparities exist in access to both first KT and re-KT; however, some of this disparity is attenuated among older adults with graft failure. As the proportion of older patients with graft failure rises, a better understanding of factors that preclude their candidacy and identification of appropriate older patients are needed.

BACKGROUND:Evidence suggests that older patients are less frequently placed on the waiting list for kidney transplantation (KT) than their younger counterparts. The trends and magnitude of this age disparity in access to first KT and repeat KT (re-KT) remain unclear. METHODS:Using the US Renal Data System, we identified 2 496 743 adult transplant-naive dialysis patients and 110 338 adult recipients with graft failure between 1995 and 2018. We characterized the secular trends of age disparities and used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the chances of listing and receiving first KT versus re-KT by age (18-64 y versus ≥65 y). RESULTS:Older transplant-naive dialysis patients were less likely to be listed (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.18) and receive first KT (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.87-0.89) compared with their younger counterparts. Additionally, older patients with graft failure had a lower chance of being listed (aHR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.38-0.41) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81). The magnitude of the age disparity in being listed for first KT was greater than that for re-KT ( Pinteraction  < 0.001), and there were no differences in the age disparities in receiving first KT or re-KT ( Pinteraction  = 0.13). Between 1995 and 2018, the age disparity in listing for first KT reduced significantly ( P  < 0.001), but the age disparities in re-KT remained the same ( P  = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS:Age disparities exist in access to both first KT and re-KT; however, some of this disparity is attenuated among older adults with graft failure. As the proportion of older patients with graft failure rises, a better understanding of factors that preclude their candidacy and identification of appropriate older patients are needed.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Identifying the mechanisms of structural racism, such as racial and ethnic segregation, is a crucial first step in addressing the persistent disparities in access to live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess whether segregation at the candidate's residential neighborhood and transplant center neighborhood is associated with access to LDKT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:In this cohort study spanning January 1995 to December 2021, participants included non-Hispanic Black or White adult candidates for first-time LDKT reported in the US national transplant registry. The median (IQR) follow-up time for each participant was 1.9 (0.6-3.0) years. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Segregation, measured using the Theil H method to calculate segregation tertiles in zip code tabulation areas based on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates, reflects the heterogeneity in neighborhood racial and ethnic composition. To quantify the likelihood of LDKT by neighborhood segregation, cause-specific hazard models were adjusted for individual-level and neighborhood-level factors and included an interaction between segregation tertiles and race. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 162 587 candidates for kidney transplant, the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (13.2) years, 65 141 (40.1%) were female, 80 023 (49.2%) were Black, and 82 564 (50.8%) were White. Among Black candidates, living in a high-segregation neighborhood was associated with 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.97]) lower access to LDKT relative to residence in low-segregation neighborhoods; no such association was observed among White candidates (P for interaction = .01). Both Black candidates (AHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-1.00]) and White candidates (AHR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]) listed at transplant centers in high-segregation neighborhoods had lower access to LDKT relative to their counterparts listed at centers in low-segregation neighborhoods (P for interaction = .64). Within high-segregation transplant center neighborhoods, candidates listed at predominantly minority neighborhoods had 17% lower access to LDKT relative to candidates listed at predominantly White neighborhoods (AHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]). Black candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers in predominantly minority neighborhoods had significantly lower likelihood of LDKT relative to White candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers located in predominantly White neighborhoods (65% and 64%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Segregated residential and transplant center neighborhoods likely serve as a mechanism of structural racism, contributing to persistent racial disparities in access to LDKT. To promote equitable access, studies should assess targeted interventions (eg, community outreach clinics) to improve support for potential candidates and donors and ultimately mitigate the effects of segregation.

Body mass index is often used to determine kidney transplant (KT) candidacy. However, this measure of body composition (BC) has several limitations, including the inability to accurately capture dry weight. Objective computed tomography (CT)-based measures may improve pre-KT risk stratification and capture physiological aging more accurately. We quantified the association between CT-based BC measurements and waitlist mortality in a retrospective study of 828 KT candidates (2010-2022) with clinically obtained CT scans using adjusted competing risk regression. In total, 42.5% of candidates had myopenia, 11.4% had myopenic obesity (MO), 68.8% had myosteatosis, 24.8% had sarcopenia (probable = 11.2%, confirmed = 10.5%, and severe = 3.1%), and 8.6% had sarcopenic obesity. Myopenia, MO, and sarcopenic obesity were not associated with mortality. Patients with myosteatosis (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] = 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-2.45; after confounder adjustment) or sarcopenia (probable: aSHR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; confirmed: aSHR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.01-2.82; and severe: aSHR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.12-5.66; after full adjustment) were at increased risk of mortality. When stratified by age, MO (aSHR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.28-3.83; P interaction = .005) and myosteatosis (aSHR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.18-3.21; P interaction = .038) were associated with elevated risk only among candidates <65 years. MO was only associated with waitlist mortality among frail candidates (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.28-5.05; P interaction = .021). Transplant centers should consider using BC metrics in addition to body mass index when a CT scan is available to improve pre-KT risk stratification at KT evaluation.

Kidney transplantation from blood type A2/A2B donors to type B recipients (A2→B) has increased dramatically under the current Kidney Allocation System (KAS). Among living donor transplant recipients, A2-incompatible transplants are associated with an increased risk of all-cause and death-censored graft failure. In light of this, we used SRTR data from 12/2014-6/2022 to evaluate the association between A2→B listing and time to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and post-DDKT outcomes for A2→B recipients. Among 53,409 type B waitlist registrants, only 12.6% were listed as eligible to accept A2→B offers ("A2-eligible"). 1-/3-/5-year DDKT rates were 32.1%/61.4%/72.1% among A2-eligible candidates and 14.1%/29.9%/44.1% among A2-ineligible candidates, with the former experiencing a 133% higher rate of DDKT (Cox weighted HR = _2.192.33_2.47; p<0.001). The 7-year adjusted mortality was comparable between A2→B and B-ABOc (type B/O donors to B recipients) recipients (wHR _0.780.94_1.13, p=0.5). Moreover, there was no difference between A2→B vs. B-ABOc DDKT recipients with regards to death-censored graft failure (wHR _0.771.00_1.29, p>0.9) or all-cause graft loss (wHR _0.820.96_1.12, p=0.6). Following its broader adoption since the implementation of KAS, A2→B DDKT appears to be a safe and effective transplant modality for eligible candidates. As such, A2→B listing for eligible type B candidates should be expanded.

The first 2 living recipients of pig hearts died unexpectedly within 2 months, despite both recipients receiving what over 30 years of nonhuman primate (NHP) research would suggest were the optimal gene edits and immunosuppression to ensure success. These results prompt us to question how faithfully data from the NHP model translate into human outcomes. Before attempting any further heart xenotransplants in living humans, it is highly advisable to gain a more comprehensive understanding of why the promising preclinical NHP data did not accurately predict outcomes in humans. It is also unlikely that additional NHP data will provide more information that would de-risk a xenoheart clinical trial because these cases were based on the best practices from the most successful NHP results to date. Although imperfect, the decedent model offers a complementary avenue to determine appropriate treatment regimens to control the human immune response to xenografts and better understand the biologic differences between humans and NHP that could lead to such starkly contrasting outcomes. Herein, we explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of the decedent model and contrast it to the advantages and disadvantages of the extensive body of data generated in the NHP xenoheart transplantation model.

BACKGROUND:Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative lung transplant recipients (LTRs) with seropositive donors (CMV D+/R-) have the highest mortality of all CMV serostatuses. Due to immunosenescence and other factors, we hypothesized CMV D+/R- status might disproportionately impact older LTRs. Thus, we investigated whether recipient age modified the relationship between donor CMV status and mortality among CMV-seronegative LTRs. METHODS:Adult, CMV-seronegative first-time lung-only recipients were identified through the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between May 2005 and December 2019. We used adjusted multivariable Cox regression to assess the relationship of donor CMV status and death. Interaction between recipient age and donor CMV was assessed via likelihood ratio testing of nested Cox models and by the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) and attributable proportion (AP) of joint effects. RESULTS:We identified 11,136 CMV-seronegative LTRs. The median age was 59 years; 65.2% were male, with leading transplant indication of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (35.6%); and 60.8% were CMV D+/R-. In multivariable modeling, CMV D+/R- status was associated with 27% increased hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.34) compared to CMV D-/R-. Recipient age ≥60 years significantly modified the relationship between donor CMV-seropositive status and mortality on the additive scale, including RERI 0.24 and AP 11.4% (p = 0.001), that is, the interaction increased hazard of death by 0.24 and explained 11.4% of mortality in older CMV D+ recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Among CMV-seronegative LTRs, donor CMV-seropositive status confers higher risk of posttransplant mortality, which is amplified in older recipients. Future studies should define optimal strategies for CMV prevention and management in older D+/R- LTRs.

BACKGROUND:Recent clinical trials demonstrate benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with chronic kidney disease, but data on use in kidney transplant (KTx) recipients are limited. METHODS:). RESULTS:vs. prior years). CONCLUSION:SGLT2i use is increasing in KTx recipients but varies with factors including race, education, and insurance. While ongoing study is needed to define risks and benefits of SGLT2i use in KTx patients, attention should also focus on reducing treatment disparities related to sociodemographic traits.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplant (KT) candidates with HIV face higher mortality on the waitlist compared with candidates without HIV. Because the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act has expanded the donor pool to allow donors with HIV (D+), it is crucial to understand whether this has impacted transplant rates for this population. METHODS:Using a linkage between the HOPE in Action trial (NCT03500315) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 324 candidates listed for D+ kidneys (HOPE) compared with 46 025 candidates not listed for D+ kidneys (non-HOPE) at the same centers between April 26, 2018, and May 24, 2022. We characterized KT rate, KT type (D+, false-positive [FP; donor with false-positive HIV testing], D- [donor without HIV], living donor [LD]) and quantified the association between HOPE enrollment and KT rate using multivariable Cox regression with center-level clustering; HOPE was a time-varying exposure. RESULTS:HOPE candidates were more likely male individuals (79% versus 62%), Black (73% versus 35%), and publicly insured (71% versus 52%; P < 0.001). Within 4.5 y, 70% of HOPE candidates received a KT (41% D+, 34% D-, 20% FP, 4% LD) versus 43% of non-HOPE candidates (74% D-, 26% LD). Conversely, 22% of HOPE candidates versus 39% of non-HOPE candidates died or were removed from the waitlist. Median KT wait time was 10.3 mo for HOPE versus 60.8 mo for non-HOPE candidates (P < 0.001). After adjustment, HOPE candidates had a 3.30-fold higher KT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.30, 95% confidence interval, 2.14-5.10; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Listing for D+ kidneys within HOPE trials was associated with a higher KT rate and shorter wait time, supporting the expansion of this practice for candidates with HIV.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups. STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. SETTING & POPULATION/UNASSIGNED:We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/UNASSIGNED:and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate. LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.