Faculty Bibliography

Using nonideal kidneys for transplant quickly might reduce the discard rate of kidney transplants. We studied changing kidney allocation to eliminate sequential offers, instead making offers to multiple centers for all nonlocally allocated kidneys, so that multiple centers must accept or decline within the same 1 hour. If more than 1 center accepted an offer, the kidney would go to the highest-priority accepting candidate. Using 2010 Kidney-Pancreas Simulated Allocation Model-Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data, we simulated the allocation of 12 933 kidneys, excluding locally allocated and zero-mismatch kidneys. We assumed that each hour of delay decreased the probability of acceptance by 5% and that kidneys would be discarded after 20 hours of offers beyond the local level. We simulated offering kidneys simultaneously to small, medium-size, and large batches of centers. Increasing the batch size increased the percentage of kidneys accepted and shortened allocation times. Going from small to large batches increased the number of kidneys accepted from 10 085 (92%) to 10 802 (98%) for low-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys and from 1257 (65%) to 1737 (89%) for high-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys. The average number of offers that a center received each week was 10.1 for small batches and 16.8 for large batches. Simultaneously expiring offers might allow faster allocation and decrease the number of discards, while still maintaining an acceptable screening burden.

OBJECTIVES:Older adults who undergo kidney transplantation (KT) are living longer with a functioning graft and are at risk for age-related adverse events including fractures. Understanding recipient, transplant, and donor factors and the outcomes associated with fractures may help identify older KT recipients at increased risk. We determined incidence of hip, vertebral, and extremity fractures; assessed factors associated with incident fractures; and estimated associations between fractures and subsequent death-censored graft loss (DCGL) and mortality. DESIGN:This was a prospective cohort study of patients who underwent their first KT between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2014. SETTING:We linked data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to Medicare claims through the US Renal Data System. PARTICIPANTS:The analytic population included 47 815 KT recipients aged 55 years or older. MEASUREMENTS:We assessed the cumulative incidence of and factors associated with post-KT fractures (hip, vertebral, or extremity) using competing risks models. We estimated risk of DCGL and mortality after fracture using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS:The 5-year incidence of post-KT hip, vertebral, and extremity fracture for those aged 65 to 69 years was 2.2%, 1.0%, and 1.7%, respectively. Increasing age was associated with higher hip (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.37 per 5-y increase; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-1.45) and vertebral (aHR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.20-1.42) but not extremity (aHR = .97; 95% CI = .91-1.04) fracture risk. DCGL risk was higher after hip (aHR = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.12-1.60) and extremity (aHR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.08-1.57) fracture. Mortality risk was higher after hip (aHR = 2.31; 95% CI = 2.11-2.52), vertebral (aHR = 2.80; 95% CI = 2.44-3.21), and extremity (aHR = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.64-2.10) fracture. CONCLUSION:Our findings suggest that older KT recipients are at higher risk for hip and vertebral fracture but not extremity fracture; and those with hip, vertebral, or extremity fracture are more likely to experience subsequent graft loss or mortality. These findings underscore that different fracture types may have different underlying etiologies and risks, and they should be approached accordingly. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1680-1688, 2019.

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) has resulted in fewer pediatric kidneys being allocated to pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant (pDDKT) recipients. This had prompted concerns that post-pDDKT outcomes may worsen. To study this, we used SRTR data to compare the outcomes of 953 pre-KAS pDDKT (age <18 years) recipients (December 4, 2012-December 3, 2014) with the outcomes of 934 post-KAS pDDKT recipients (December 4, 2014-December 3, 2016). We analyzed mortality and graft loss by using Cox regression, delayed graft function (DGF) by using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) by using negative binomial regression. Post-KAS recipients had longer pretransplant dialysis times (median 1.26 vs 1.07 years, P = .02) and were more often cPRA 100% (2.0% vs 0.1%, P = .001). Post-KAS recipients had less graft loss than pre-KAS recipients (hazard ratio [HR]: _0.35 0.54_0.83 , P = .005) but no statistically significant differences in mortality (HR: _0.29 0.72_1.83 , P = .5), DGF (odds ratio: _0.93 1.32_1.93 , P = .2), and LOS (LOS ratio: _0.96 1.06_1.19 , P = .4). After adjusting for donor-recipient characteristics, there were no statistically significant post-KAS differences in mortality (adjusted HR: _0.37 1.04_2.92 , P = .9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio: _0.94 1.41_2.13 , P = .1), or LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: _0.93 1.04_1.16 , P = .5). However, post-KAS pDDKT recipients still had less graft loss (adjusted HR: _0.38 0.59_0.91 , P = .02). KAS has had a mixed effect on short-term posttransplant outcomes for pDDKT recipients, although our results are limited by only 2 years of posttransplant follow-up.

BACKGROUND:Body mass index of living kidney donors has increased substantially. Determining candidacy for live kidney donation among obese individuals is challenging because many donation-related risks among this subgroup remain unquantified, including even basic postdonation mortality. METHODS:We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients linked to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to study long-term mortality risk associated with being obese at the time of kidney donation among 119,769 live kidney donors (1987-2013). Donors were followed for a maximum of 20 years (interquartile range 6.0-16.0). Cox proportional hazards estimated the risk of postdonation mortality by obesity status at donation. Multiple imputation accounted for missing obesity data. RESULTS:Obese (body mass index ≥ 30) living kidney donors were more likely male, African American, and had higher blood pressure. The estimated risk of mortality 20 years after donation was 304.3/10,000 for obese and 208.9/10,000 for nonobese living kidney donors. Adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, blood pressure, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, relationship to recipient, smoking, and year of donation, obese living kidney donors had a 30% increased risk of long-term mortality compared with their nonobese counterparts (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.09-1.60, P = .006). The impact of obesity on mortality risk did not differ significantly by sex, race or ethnicity, biologic relationship, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, or among donors who did and did not develop postdonation kidney failure. CONCLUSION:These findings may help to inform selection criteria and discussions with obese persons considering living kidney donation.

BACKGROUND:Inflammation is more common among African Americans (AAs), and it is associated with frailty, poor physical performance, and mortality in community-dwelling older adults. Given the elevated inflammation levels among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, inflammation may be associated with adverse health outcomes such as frailty, physical impairment, and poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and these associations may differ between AA and non-AA ESRD patients. METHODS:One thousand three ESRD participants were recruited at kidney transplant evaluation (4/2014-5/2017), and inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 [IL-6], tumor necrosis factor-a receptor-1 [TNFR1], C-reactive protein [CRP]) were measured. We quantified the association with frailty (Fried phenotype), physical impairment (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]), and fair/poor HRQOL at evaluation using adjusted modified Poisson regression and tested whether these associations differed by race (AA vs. non-AA). RESULTS:Non-AAs had lower levels of TNFR1 (9.7 ng/ml vs 14.0 ng/ml, p < 0.001) and inflammatory index (6.7 vs 6.8, p < 0.001) compared to AAs, but similar levels of IL-6 (4.5 pg/ml vs 4.3 pg/ml, p > 0.9) and CRP (4.7 μg/ml vs 4.9 μg/ml, p = 0.4). Non-AAs had an increased risk of frailty with elevated IL-6 (RR = 1.58, 95% CI:1.27-1.96, p < 0.001), TNFR1 (RR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.25-2.05, p < 0.001), CRP (RR = 1.41, 95% CI:1.10-1.82, p < 0.01), and inflammatory index (RR = 1.82, 95% CI:1.44-2.31, p < 0.001). The associations between elevated inflammatory markers and frailty were not present among AAs. Similar results were seen with SPPB impairment and poor/fair HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS:Non-AAs with elevated inflammatory markers may need closer follow-up and may benefit from prehabilitation to improve physical function, reduce frailty burden, and improve quality of life prior to transplant.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:There is debate on whether weight loss, a hallmark of frailty, signals higher risk for adverse outcomes among recipients of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:Using national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data, we included all DDKT recipients in the United States between December 4, 2004, and December 3, 2014, who were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) when listed for DDKT. EXPOSURES:Relative pre-DDKT weight change as a continuous predictor and categorized as <5% weight change from listing to DDKT, ≥5% to <10% weight loss, ≥10% weight loss, ≥5% to <10% weight gain, and ≥10% weight gain. OUTCOMES:We examined 3 post-DDKT outcomes: (1) transplant hospitalization length of stay (LOS) in days, (2) all-cause graft failure, and (3) mortality. ANALYTIC APPROACH:Unadjusted fractional polynomial methods, multivariable log-gamma models, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS:Among 94,465 recipients of DDKT, median pre-DDKT weight change was 0 (interquartile range, -3.5 to +3.9) kg. There were nonlinear unadjusted associations between relative pre-DDKT weight loss and longer transplant hospitalization LOS, higher all-cause graft loss, and higher mortality. Compared with recipients with <5% pre-DDKT weight change (n = 49,366; 52%), recipients who lost ≥10% of their listing weight (n = 10,614; 11%) had 0.66 (95% CI, 0.23-1.09) days longer average transplant hospitalization LOS (P = 0.003), 1.11-fold higher graft loss (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17; P < 0.001), and 1.18-fold higher mortality (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25; P < 0.001) independent of recipient, donor, and transplant factors. Pre-DDKT dialysis exposure, listing body mass index category, and waiting time modified the association of pre-DDKT weight change with hospital LOS (interaction P < 0.10), but not with all-cause graft loss and mortality. LIMITATIONS:Unmeasured confounders and inability to identify volitional weight change. Also, the higher significance level set to increase the power of detecting interactions with the fixed sample size may have resulted in increased risk for type 1 error. CONCLUSIONS:DDKT recipients with ≥10% pre-DDKT weight loss are at increased risk for adverse outcomes and may benefit from augmented support post-DDKT.

BACKGROUND:HIV+ to HIV+ solid organ transplants in the United States are now legally permitted. Currently, these transplants must adhere to the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act Safeguards and Research Criteria that require the provision of an independent recipient advocate, a novel requirement for solid organ transplant programs. The objective of this study was to understand the experiences of the first advocates serving in this role. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 HOPE independent recipient advocates (HIRAs) from 12 institutions. RESULTS:All HIRAs had a professional degree and experience in transplantation or infectious diseases. HIRAs' encounters with potential recipients varied in length, modality, and timing. The newness of the role and the lack of guidance were associated with unease among some HIRAs. Some questioned whether their role was redundant to others involved in transplantation and research since some potential recipients experienced informational fatigue. CONCLUSIONS:HOPE independent recipient advocates are ensuring the voluntariness of potential participants' decision to accept an HIV-infected organ. Many suggested additional guidance would be helpful and alleviate unease. Concerns about potential role redundancy raise the question of whether the HIRA requirement may be inadvertently increasing burden for potential recipients. Future work that captures the experiences of potential recipients is warranted.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:We report the current state of HIV+ to HIV+ kidney transplantation in the United States and remaining challenges in implementing this practice nationally. RECENT FINDINGS:The HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act, which was the first step in unlocking the potential of HIV+ organ donors, mandates clinical research on HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation. As of March 2019, there have been 57 HOPE donors, including both true and false positive HOPE donors resulting in more than 120 transplants. SUMMARY:The HOPE Act, signed in 2013, reversed the federal ban on the transplantation of organs from HIV+ donors into HIV+ recipients. Ongoing national studies are exploring the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of both kidney and liver transplantation in this population. If successfully and fully implemented, HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation could attenuate the organ shortage for everyone waiting, resulting in a far-reaching public health impact.

BACKGROUND:Transplant recipients are living longer than ever before, and occasionally require acute care surgery for nontransplant-related issues. We hypothesized that while both acute care surgeons (ACS) and transplant surgeons would feel comfortable operating on this unique patient population, both would believe transplant centers provide superior care. METHODS:, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS:We obtained 230 responses from ACS and 204 from transplant surgeons. ACS and transplant surgeons believed care is better at transplant centers (78% and 100%), and transplant recipients requiring acute care surgery should be transferred to a transplant center (80.2% and 87.2%). ACS felt comfortable operating (97.5%) and performing laparoscopy (94.0%) on transplant recipients. ACS cited transplant medication use as the most important underlying cause of increased surgical complications for transplant recipients. Transplant surgeons felt it was their responsibility to perform acute care surgery on transplant recipients (67.3%), but less so if patient underwent transplant at a different institution (26.5%). Transplant surgeons cited poor transplanted organ resiliency as the most important underlying cause of increased surgical complications for transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS:ACS and transplant surgeons feel comfortable performing laparoscopic and open acute care surgery on transplant recipients, and recommend treating transplant recipients at transplant centers, despite the lack of supportive evidence. Elucidating common goals allows surgeons to provide optimal care for this unique patient population.

BACKGROUND:United States transplant centers are required to report follow-up data for living kidney donors for 2 years post-donation. However, living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up is often incomplete. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could ease data collection burden but have not yet been explored in this context. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 21 transplant providers and thought leaders about challenges in LKD follow-up, and the potential role of mHealth in overcoming these challenges. RESULTS:Participants reported challenges conveying the importance of follow-up to LKDs, limited data from international/out-of-town LKDs, and inadequate staffing. They believed the 2-year requirement was insufficient, but expressed difficulty engaging LKDs for even this short time and inadequate resources for longer-term follow-up. Participants believed an mHealth system for post-donation follow-up could benefit LKDs (by simplifying communication/tasks and improving donor engagement) and transplant centers (by streamlining communication and decreasing workforce burden). Concerns included cost, learning curves, security/privacy, patient language/socioeconomic barriers, and older donor comfort with mHealth technology. CONCLUSIONS:Transplant providers felt that mHealth technology could improve LKD follow-up and help centers meet reporting thresholds. However, designing a secure, easy to use, and cost-effective system remains challenging.