Faculty Bibliography

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) went up for competitive bid again this year, yet this contract has been held by only 1 entity since its inception. The OPTN's scope has grown steadily, and it now embraces several disparate missions: to operate the computing and coordination infrastructure that maintains waitlists and makes organ offers in priority order, to regulate transplant centers and organ procurement organizations, to follow and protect living donors, and to decide organ allocation policy in concert with the many voices of the transplant community. The contracting process and performance work statement continue to discourage both innovative approaches to the OPTN and competitive bids outside of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), with evaluation criteria that either disqualify or strongly disadvantage new applicants. The performance work statement also emphasizes bureaucratic tasks while obligating the OPTN contractor to the specific committee structure that has impeded decision-making and tended to preserve the status quo in controversial matters. Finally, the UNOS computing infrastructure is antiquated and requires months to years to implement small changes. Restructuring the OPTN contract to separate the information technology requirements from the policy/regulatory responsibilities might allow more nimble and effective specialty contractors to offer their capabilities in service of the national transplant enterprise.

BACKGROUND:As transplant centers start leveraging Twitter for information dissemination and public engagement, it is important to understand current living solid organ donation-related Twitter use. METHODS:We identified public Twitter profiles available in 01/2017 that referenced living organ donation and analyzed the use of donation-related Twitter handles, names, or profile information. Tweets were manually abstracted and qualitatively analyzed for common themes. Social media influence of those tweeting about living donation was evaluated using Klout score. RESULTS:We identified 93 donors, 61 professionals, 12 hospitals, and 19 organizations that met eligibility criteria. Social media influence was similar across these groups (P = 0.4). Donors (16%) and organizations (23%) were more likely than professionals (7%) or hospitals (0%) to include transplant-related educational information in their profiles (P = 0.007). Living donation-related tweets were most commonly donation stories (33%), news reports (20%), reports about new transplant research (15%), and sharing transplant candidates' searches for donors (14%). CONCLUSIONS:This exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals, hospitals, and organizations on Twitter provides insight into how the social media platform may be used to communicate about and disseminate information about living donation.

In November 2017, in response to a lawsuit from a New York City lung transplant candidate, an emergency change to the lung allocation policy eliminated the donation service area (DSA) as the first geographic tier of allocation. The lawsuit claimed that DSA borders are arbitrary and that allocation should be based on medical priority. We investigated whether deceased-donor lung transplant (LT) rates differed substantially between DSAs in the United States before the policy change. We estimated LT rates per active person-year using multilevel Poisson regression and empirical Bayes methods. We found that the median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of transplant rates between DSAs was 2.05, meaning a candidate could be expected to double their LT rate by changing their DSA. This can be compared directly to a 1.54-fold increase in LT rate that we found associated with an increase in lung allocation score (LAS) category from 38-42 to 42-50. Changing a candidate's DSA would have had a greater impact on the candidate's LT rate than changing LAS categories from 38-42 to 42-50. In summary, we found that the DSA of listing was a major determinant of LT rate for candidates across the country before the emergency lung allocation change.

Prehabilitation is the process of enhancing preoperative functional capacity to improve tolerance for the upcoming stressor; it was associated with improved postoperative outcomes in a handful of studies, but never evaluated in transplantation. Kidney transplant (KT) candidates may be uniquely suited for prehabilitation because they experience a profound loss of functional capacity while waiting years on dialysis. To better understand the feasibility and effectiveness of prehabilitation in KT, we conducted a pilot study of center-based prehabilitation for candidates; this intervention consisted of weekly physical therapy sessions at an outpatient center with at-home exercises. We enrolled 24 participants; 18 participated in prehabilitation (75% of enrolled; 17% of eligible). 61% were male, 72% were African American, and mean age = 52 (SD = 12.9); 71% of participants had lower-extremity impairment, and 31% were frail. By 2 months of prehabilitation, participants improved their physical activity by 64% (P = 0.004) based on accelerometry. Participants reported high satisfaction. Among 5 prehabilitation participants who received KT during the study, length of stay was shorter than for age-, sex-, and race-matched control (5 vs 10 days; RR = 0.69; 95% CI:0.50-0.94; P = 0.02). These pilot study findings suggest that prehabilitation is feasible in pretransplant patients and may potentially be a strategy to improve post-KT outcomes.

A consensus conference on frailty in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation (AST) and endorsed by the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), and the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST) took place on February 11, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona. Input from the transplant community through scheduled conference calls enabled wide discussion of current concepts in frailty, exploration of best practices for frailty risk assessment of transplant candidates and for management after transplant, and development of ideas for future research. A current understanding of frailty was compiled by each of the solid organ groups and is presented in this paper. Frailty is a common entity in patients with end-stage organ disease who are awaiting organ transplantation, and affects mortality on the waitlist and in the posttransplant period. The optimal methods by which frailty should be measured in each organ group are yet to be determined, but studies are underway. Interventions to reverse frailty vary among organ groups and appear promising. This conference achieved its intent to highlight the importance of frailty in organ transplantation and to plant the seeds for further discussion and research in this field.

BACKGROUND:Hemodialysis (HD) patients frequently experience pain. Previous studies of HD patients suggest increased opioid prescribing through 2010. It remains unclear if this trend continued after 2010 or declined with national trends. METHODS:Longitudinal cohort study of 484,745 HD patients in the United States Renal Data System/Medicare data. We used Poisson/negative binomial regression to estimate annual incidence rates of opioid prescribing between 2007 and 2014. We compared prescribing rates with the general US population using IQVIA's National Prescription Audit data. Outcomes included the following: percent of HD patients receiving an opioid prescription, rate of opioid prescriptions, quantity, days supply, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) dispensed per 100 person-days, and prescriptions per person. RESULTS:In 2007, 62.4% of HD patients received an opioid prescription. This increased to 63.2% in 2010 then declined to 53.7% by 2014. Opioid quantity peaked in 2011 at 73.5 pills per 100 person-days and declined to 62.6 pills per 100 person-days in 2014. MME peaked between 2010 and 2012 then declined through 2014. In 2014, MME rates were 1.8-fold higher among non-Hispanic patients and 1.6-fold higher among low-income patients. HD patients received 3.2-fold more opioid prescriptions per person compared to the general US population and were primarily prescribed oxycodone and hydrocodone. Between 2012 and 2014, HD patients experienced greater declines in opioid prescriptions per person (18.2%) compared to the general US population (7.1%). CONCLUSION:Opioid prescribing among HD patients declined between 2012 and 2014. However, HD patients continue receiving substantially more opioids than the general US population.

Prior studies have shown that beginning hemodialysis (HD) with a hemodialysis catheter (HC) is associated with worse mortality than with an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG). We hypothesized that transplant waitlisting would modify the effect of HD access on mortality, given waitlist candidates' more robust health status. Using the US Renal Data System, we studied patients with incident ESRD who initiated HD between 2010 and 2015 with an AVF, AVG, or HC. We used Cox regression including an interaction term for HD access and waitlist status. There were 587,607 patients that initiated HD, of whom 82,379 (14.0%) were waitlisted for transplantation. Only 26,264 (4.5%) were transplanted. Among patients not listed, those with an AVF had a 34% lower mortality compared to HC [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.67] while those with an AVG had a 21% lower mortality compared to HC (aHR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.81). Transplant waitlisting attenuated the association between hemodialysis access type and mortality (interaction p < 0.001 for both AVF and AVG vs. HC). Among patients on the waitlist, those with an AVF had a 12% lower mortality compared to HC (aHR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.93), while those with an AVG had no difference in mortality (aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.08). While all patients benefit from AVF or AVG over HC, the benefit was attenuated in waitlisted patients. Efforts to improve health status and access to healthcare for non-waitlisted ESRD patients might decrease HD-associated mortality and improve rates of AVF and AVG placement.

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009-2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time-of-offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five-year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR:_0.45 0.52_0.59 , P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35-40) candidates (aHR:_0.10 0.24_0.55 , P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long-term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35-40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers.

In the United States, kidney donation from international (noncitizen/nonresident) living kidney donors (LKDs) is permitted; however, given the heterogeneity of healthcare systems, concerns remain regarding the international LKD practice and recipient outcomes. We studied a US cohort of 102 315 LKD transplants from 2000-2016, including 2088 international LKDs, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. International LKDs were more tightly clustered among a small number of centers than domestic LKDs (Gini coefficient 0.76 vs 0.58, P < .001). Compared with domestic LKDs, international LKDs were more often young, male, Hispanic or Asian, and biologically related to their recipient (P < .001). Policy-compliant donor follow-up was substantially lower for international LKDs at 6, 12, and 24 months postnephrectomy (2015 cohort: 45%, 33%, 36% vs 76%, 71%, 70% for domestic LKDs, P < .001). Among international LKDs, Hispanic (aOR = _0.23 0.36_0.56 , P < .001) and biologically related (aOR = _0.39 0.59_0.89 , P < .01) donors were more compliant in donor follow-up than white and unrelated donors. Recipients of international living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) had similar graft failure (aHR = _0.78 0.89_1.02 , P = .1) but lower mortality (aHR = _0.53 0.62_0.72 , P < .001) compared with the recipients of domestic LDKT after adjusting for recipient, transplant, and donor factors. International LKDs may provide an alternative opportunity for living donation. However, efforts to improve international LKD follow-up and engagement are warranted.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplantation (KT) candidates often present with multiple comorbidities. These patients also have a substantial burden of frailty, which is also associated with increased mortality. However, it is unknown if frailty is merely a surrogate for comorbidity, itself an independent domain of risk, or if frailty and comorbidity have differential effects. Better understanding the interplay between these 2 constructs will improve clinical decision making in KT candidates. OBJECTIVE:To test whether comorbidity is equally associated with waitlist mortality among frail and nonfrail KT candidates and to test whether measuring both comorbidity burden and frailty improves mortality risk prediction. METHODS:We studied 2,086 candidates on the KT waitlist (November 2009 - October 2017) in a multicenter cohort study, in whom frailty and comorbidity were measured at evaluation. We quantified the association between Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) adapted for end-stage renal disease and waitlist mortality using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and tested whether this association differed between frail and nonfrail candidates. RESULTS:At evaluation, 18.1% of KT candidates were frail and 51% had a high comorbidity burden (CCI score ≥2). Candidates with a high comorbidity burden were at 1.38-fold (95% CI 1.01-1.89) increased risk of waitlist mortality. However, this association differed by frailty status (p for interaction = 0.01): among nonfrail candidates, a high comorbidity burden was associated with a 1.66-fold (95% CI 1.17-2.35) increased mortality risk; among frail candidates, here was no statistically significant association (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.29). Adding this interaction between comorbidity and frailty to a mortality risk estimation model significantly improved prediction, increasing the c-statistic from 0.640 to 0.656 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Nonfrail candidates with a high comorbidity burden at KT evaluation have an increased risk of waitlist mortality. Importantly, comorbidity is less of a concern in already high-risk patients who are frail.