Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Kidneys from infectious risk donors (IRD) confer substantial survival benefit in adults, yet the benefit of IRD kidneys to pediatric candidates remains unclear in the context of high waitlist prioritization. METHODS:Using 2010-2016 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we studied 2417 pediatric candidates (age <18 y) who were offered an IRD kidney that was eventually used for transplantation. We followed candidates from the date of first IRD kidney offer until the date of death or censorship and used Cox regression to estimate mortality risk associated with IRD kidney acceptance versus decline, adjusting for age, sex, race, diagnosis, and dialysis time. RESULTS:Over the study period, 2250 (93.1%) pediatric candidates declined and 286 (11.8%) accepted an IRD kidney offer; 119 (41.6%) of the 286 had previously declined a different IRD kidney. Cumulative survival among those who accepted versus declined the IRD kidney was 99.6% versus 99.4% and 96.3% versus 97.8% 1 and 6 years post decision, respectively (P = 0.1). Unlike the substantial survival benefit seen in adults (hazard ratio = 0.52), among pediatric candidates, we did not detect a survival benefit associated with accepting an IRD kidney (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.791.723.73, P = 0.2). However, those who declined IRD kidneys waited a median 9.6 months for a non-IRD kidney transplant (11.2 mo among those <6 y, 8.8 mo among those on dialysis). Kidney donor profile index (KDPI) of the eventually accepted non-IRD kidneys (median = 13, interquartile range = 6-23) was similar to KDPI of the declined IRD kidneys (median = 16, interquartile range = 9-28). CONCLUSIONS:Unlike in adults, IRD kidneys conferred no survival benefit to pediatric candidates, although they did reduce waiting times. The decision to accept IRD kidneys should balance the advantage of faster transplantation against the risk of infectious transmission.

BACKGROUND:The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented Share 35 on June 18, 2013, to broaden deceased donor liver sharing within regional boundaries. We investigated whether increased sharing under Share 35 impacted geographic disparity in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) across donation service areas (DSAs). METHODS:Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients June 2009 to June 2017, we identified 86 083 adult liver transplant candidates and retrospectively estimated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-adjusted DDLT rates using nested multilevel Poisson regression with random intercepts for DSA and transplant program. From the variance in DDLT rates across 49 DSAs and 102 programs, we derived the DSA-level median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of DDLT rates. MIRR is a robust metric of heterogeneity across each hierarchical level; larger MIRR indicates greater disparity. RESULTS:MIRR was 2.18 pre-Share 35 and 2.16 post-Share 35. Thus, 2 candidates with the same MELD in 2 different DSAs were expected to have a 2.2-fold difference in DDLT rate driven by geography alone. After accounting for program-level heterogeneity, MIRR was attenuated to 2.10 pre-Share 35 and 1.96 post-Share 35. For candidates with MELD 15-34, MIRR decreased from 2.51 pre- to 2.27 post-Share 35, and for candidates with MELD 35-40, MIRR increased from 1.46 pre- to 1.51 post-Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity in DDLT. DSA-level heterogeneity in DDLT rates was greater than program-level heterogeneity pre- and post-Share 35. CONCLUSIONS:Geographic disparity substantially impacted DDLT rates before and after Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity and particularly for candidates with MELD 35-40. Despite broader sharing, geography remains a major determinant of access to DDLT.

This report describes the results of 2 international randomized trials (total of 508 kidney transplant recipients). The primary objective was to assess the noninferiority of rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG, Thymoglobulin^® ) versus interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL2RAs) for the quadruple endpoint (treatment failure defined as biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or loss to follow-up) to serve as the pivotal data for United States (US) regulatory approval of rATG. The pooled analysis provided an incidence of treatment failure of 25.1% in the rATG and 36.0% in the IL2RA treatment groups, an absolute difference of -10.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] -18.8% to -2.9%) supporting noninferiority (noninferiority margin was 10%) and superiority of rATG to IL2RA. In a meta-analysis of 7 trials comparing rATG with an IL2RA, the difference in the proportion of patients with BPAR at 12 months was -4.8% (95% CI -8.6% to -0.9%) in favor of rATG. In conclusion, a rigorous reanalysis of patient-level data from 2 prior randomized, controlled trials comparing rATG versus IL-2R monoclonal antibodies provided support for regulatory approval for rATG for induction therapy in renal transplant, making it the first T cell-depleting therapy approved for the prophylaxis of acute rejection in patients receiving a kidney transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND:Arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) and grafts (AVG) have been associated with significant cardiac morbidity that often improves after ligation. However, AV access ligation after kidney transplant (KT) is controversial due to concern for potential long-term allograft failure. We investigated US trends in AV access ligation after KT and the association between ligation and allograft failure. METHODS:All adult Medicare patients on pretransplant hemodialysis with a functioning AVF or AVG who underwent first-time KT were studied using the United States Renal Data Systems (January 2011 to December 2013). Post-transplant AV access ligation was determined using current procedural terminology codes. The incidence of post-transplant AV access ligation was described, and characteristics for patients undergoing ligation vs no ligation were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were then used to determine the association of AV access ligation with long-term allograft failure and all-cause mortality after accounting for patient characteristics, donor characteristics, and variation in transplant center practices. RESULTS:), spent longer on dialysis pretransplant (4.2 vs 4.0 years), and were less likely to have renal failure secondary to diabetes compared with other etiologies (25.0% vs 34.9%) (all, P ≤ .03). Patients who underwent ligation were also more likely to have steal syndrome (77.2% vs 4.1%) and AV access infectious or aneurysmal complications (2.7% vs 0.7%) (both, P < .001). After adjusting for donor and recipient characteristics, increasing age (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.01), increasing years on dialysis (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.13), zero human leukocyte antigen mismatch (aHR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.09-3.05), and steal syndrome (aHR, 41.00; 95% CI, 34.56-48.64) were associated with post-transplant AV access ligation. Black race (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and congestive heart failure (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.82) were negatively associated with ligation. Three-year allograft failure occurred in 4.9% ± 1.3% transplant recipients who underwent access ligation vs 9.5% ± 0.5% transplant recipients with functioning access (log-rank, P = .30), and was not significantly different between groups after risk adjustment (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.47-1.40). There was also no significant association between AV access and all-cause mortality after risk adjustment (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46-1.54). CONCLUSIONS:Post-transplant AV access ligation is uncommon and generally reserved for patients with steal syndrome. Importantly, ligation is not associated with post-transplant allograft failure, which occurs in less than 10% of patients at 3 years. There also appears to be no reduction in all-cause mortality with AV access ligation. These data suggest that AV access ligation after KT can likely be reserved for access-related complications because the systemic benefits appear to be minimal.

In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.

Several single-center reports of using HCV-viremic organs for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV- recipients (HCV D+/R-) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015-December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center-level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R- KTs and LTs. HCV-viremic (NAT+) D+/R- KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV-aviremic (Ab+/NAT-) D+/R- KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2-1.6) and 1.6 (0.4-3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5-4.0) among HCV D-/R-. HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21-30) and 25 (21-32) at transplantation versus 29 (23-36) among HCV D-/R-. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R- transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R- transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R- transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R- transplantation.

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates often have multiple potential living donors (LDs); no evidence-based tool exists to compare potential LDs, or to decide between marginal LDs and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation (KT). We developed a pediatric living kidney donor profile index (P-LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI by using Cox regression to model the risk of all-cause graft loss as a function of living donor characteristics and DD KDPI. HLA-B mismatch (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per mismatch = _1.04 1.27_1.55 ), HLA-DR mismatch (aHR per mismatch = _1.02 1.23_1.49 ), ABO incompatibility (aHR = _1.20 3.26_8.81 ), donor systolic blood pressure (aHR per 10 mm Hg = _1.01 1.07_1.18 ), and donor estimated GFR (eGFR; aHR per 10 mL/min/1.73 m² = _0.88 0.94_0.99 ) were associated with graft loss after LDKT. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) P-LKDPI was -25 (-56 to 12). 68% of donors had P-LKDPI <0 (less risk than any DD kidney) and 25% of donors had P-LKDPI >14 (more risk than median DD kidney among pediatric KT recipients during the study period). Strata of LDKT recipients of kidneys with higher P-LKDPI had a higher cumulative incidence of graft loss (39% at 10 years for P-LDKPI ≥20, 28% for 20> P-LKDPI ≥-20, 23% for -20 > P-LKDPI ≥-60, 19% for P-LKDPI <-60 [log rank P < .001]). The P-LKDPI can aid in organ selection for pediatric KT recipients by allowing comparison of potential LD and DD kidneys.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Frailty, a syndrome distinct from comorbidity and disability, is clinically manifested as a decreased resistance to stressors and is present in up to 35% of patient with ESKD. It is associated with falls, hospitalizations, poor cognitive function, and mortality. Also, frailty is associated with poor outcomes after kidney transplant, including delirium and mortality. Frailty is likely also associated with decreased access to kidney transplantation, given its association with poor outcomes on dialysis and post-transplant. Yet, clinicians have difficulty identifying which patients are frail; therefore, we sought to quantify if frail kidney transplant candidates had similar access to kidney transplantation as nonfrail candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:We studied 7078 kidney transplant candidates (2009-2018) in a three-center prospective cohort study of frailty. Fried frailty (unintentional weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level) was measured at outpatient kidney transplant evaluation. We estimated time to listing and transplant rate by frailty status using Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression, adjusting for demographic and health factors. RESULTS:<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Frailty is associated with lower chance of listing and lower rate of transplant, and is a potentially modifiable risk factor.

The number of live kidney donors has declined since 2005. This decline parallels the evolving knowledge of risk for biologically related, black, and younger donors. To responsibly promote donation, we sought to identify declining low-risk donor subgroups that might serve as targets for future interventions. We analyzed a national registry of 77 427 donors and quantified the change in number of donors per 5-year increment from 2005 to 2017 using Poisson regression stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity. Among related donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors declined by 21%, 29%, and 3%; black donors declined by 30%, 31%, and 12%; Hispanic donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years declined by 18% and 15%, and those aged ≥50 increased by 10%. Conversely, among unrelated donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors increased by 12%, 4%, and 24%; black donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years did not change but those aged ≥50 years increased by 34%; Hispanic donors increased by 16%, 21%, and 46%. Unlike unrelated donors, related donors were less likely to donate in recent years across race/ethnicity. Although this decline might be understandable for related younger donors, it is less understandable for lower-risk related older donors (≥50 years). Biologically related older individuals are potential targets for interventions to promote donation.

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine organized 2 multistakeholder symposia on February 2, 2018 and January 11, 2019 to address the problem of high graft failure in adolescent and young adult (AYA) solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Participants included international experts in transplantation, behavioral psychology, patient/parent advocacy, and technology. The objectives of the symposia were as follows: (1) to identify and discuss the barriers to and facilitators of effective transfer of care for AYA SOT recipients; (2) to actively explore strategies and digital solutions to promote their successful transfer of care; and (3) to develop meaningful partnerships for the successful development, evaluation, implementation, and dissemination of these digital solutions. Additionally, data were collected from 152 AYA SOT recipients demonstrating a substantial gap in how this population uses technologies for health-related activities, alongside an increased interest in an app to help them manage their transplant.