Faculty Bibliography

The HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act now allows transplantation of organs from HIV-positive living and deceased donors to HIV-positive individuals with end-stage organ disease in the United States. Although clinical experience with such transplants is limited to a small number of deceased-donor kidney transplants from HIV-positive to HIV-positive persons in South Africa, unprecedented HIV-positive-to-HIV-positive liver transplantations and living-donor kidney transplantations are also now on the horizon. Initially, all HIV-positive-to-HIV-positive transplantations will occur under research protocols with safeguards and criteria mandated by the National Institutes of Health. Nevertheless, this historic change brings ethical opportunities and challenges. For HIV-positive individuals needing an organ transplant, issues of access, risk, and consent must be considered. For potential HIV-positive donors, there are additional ethical challenges of privacy, fairness, and the right to donate. Careful consideration of the ethical issues involved is critical to the safe and appropriate evaluation of this novel approach to transplantation.

Since March 26, 2012, the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) has been provided with all deceased-donor kidney offers, with the goal of improving the expanded criteria donor (ECD) indicator. Although an improved risk index may facilitate identification and transplantation of marginal yet viable kidneys, a granular percentile system may reduce provider-patient communication flexibility, paradoxically leading to more discards ("labeling effect"). We studied the discard rates of the kidneys recovered for transplantation between March 26, 2010 and March 25, 2012 ("ECD era," N = 28 636) and March 26, 2012 and March 25, 2014 ("KDPI era," N = 29 021) using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data. There was no significant change in discard rate from ECD era (18.1%) to KDPI era (18.3%) among the entire population (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.97 1.041.10 , p = 0.3), or in any KDPI stratum. However, among kidneys in which ECD and KDPI indicators were discordant, "high risk" standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys (with KDPI > 85) were at increased risk of discard in the KDPI era (aOR = 1.07 1.421.89 , p = 0.02). Yet, recipients of these kidneys were at much lower risk of death (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR] = 0.56 0.770.94 at 2 years posttransplant) compared to those remaining on dialysis waiting for low-KDPI kidneys. Our findings suggest that there might be an unexpected, harmful labeling effect of reporting a high KDPI for SCD kidneys, without the expected advantage of providing a more granular risk index.

Choosing between multiple living kidney donors, or evaluating offers in kidney paired donation, can be challenging because no metric currently exists for living donor quality. Furthermore, some deceased donor (DD) kidneys can result in better outcomes than some living donor kidneys, yet there is no way to compare them on the same scale. To better inform clinical decision-making, we created a living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI, using Cox regression and adjusting for recipient characteristics. Donor age over 50 (hazard ratio [HR] per 10 years = 1.15 1.241.33 ), elevated BMI (HR per 10 units = 1.01 1.091.16 ), African-American race (HR = 1.15 1.251.37 ), cigarette use (HR = 1.09 1.161.23 ), as well as ABO incompatibility (HR = 1.03 1.271.58 ), HLA B (HR = 1.03 1.081.14 ) mismatches, and DR (HR = 1.04 1.091.15 ) mismatches were associated with greater risk of graft loss after living donor transplantation (all p < 0.05). Median (interquartile range) LKDPI score was 13 (1-27); 24.2% of donors had LKDPI < 0 (less risk than any DD kidney), and 4.4% of donors had LKDPI > 50 (more risk than the median DD kidney). The LKDPI is a useful tool for comparing living donor kidneys to each other and to deceased donor kidneys.

BACKGROUND: Kidney donors can develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) after donation, but the outcomes of those who do remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Using United States Renal Data System and Scientific Registry for Transplant Research data, we compared access to kidney transplantation (KT), time from ESRD to listing, time from listing to KT, and post-KT graft failure and death between donors and matched nondonors with ESRD. RESULTS: Among 99 donors between April 1994 and November 2011 who developed ESRD, 78 initially received dialysis (of whom 37 listed for KT, 2 received live donor KT without listing, and 39 never listed for or received a KT), 20 listed preemptively (of whom 19 were subsequently transplanted), and 1 received a preemptive live donor KT without listing or ever receiving dialysis. Donors were listed earlier (median time to listing, 17 months vs 120 for nondonors; P < 0.001), received KT earlier (median waiting time, 2.8 months vs 21.5 for nondonors; P < 0.001), and received 13% live donor, 87% standard criteria, and 0% expanded criteria deceased donor KT (39%, 50%, and 11% in nondonors). Post-KT graft (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 4.1; P = 0.1) and patient (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 2.4; P = 0.5) survival were comparable in donors and nondonors. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that 39 of 99 donors who developed ESRD never listed for a transplant warrants further study to ascertain why these donors with ESRD never gained access to the waiting list.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that living kidney donors are at an increased risk of end-stage renal disease. However, predicting which donors will have renal dysfunction remains challenging, particularly among those with no clinical evidence of disease at the time of donation. Although renal biopsies are not routinely performed as part of the donor evaluation process, they may yield valuable information that improves the ability to predict renal function in donors. METHODS: We used implantation protocol biopsies to evaluate the association between histological abnormalities in the donated kidney and postdonation renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of the remaining kidney in living kidney donors. Longitudinal analysis using mixed-effects linear regression was used to account for multiple eGFR measures per donor. RESULTS: Among 310 donors between 1997 and 2012, median (IQR) follow-up was 6.2 (2.5-8.7; maximum 14.0) years. In this cohort, the overall prevalence of histological abnormalities was 65.8% (19.7% abnormal glomerulosclerosis, 23.9% abnormal interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA), 4.8% abnormal mesangial matrix increase, 32.0% abnormal arteriolar hyalinosis, and 32.9% abnormal vascular intimal thickening). IFTA was associated with a 5-mL/min/1.73 m decrease of postdonation eGFR after adjusting for donor age at donation, sex, race, preoperative systolic blood pressure, preoperative eGFR, and time since donation (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study, among healthy individuals cleared for living donation, IFTA was associated with decreased postdonation eGFR, whereas no other subclinical histological abnormalities provided additional information.

BACKGROUND:Patients who require hemodialysis are historically excluded from randomized studies of carotid artery stenting (CAS) due to perceived poor outcomes. Observational studies of outcomes after CAS in hemodialysis patients are mostly limited to small, single-institution series. OBJECTIVE:This study evaluated long-term outcomes after CAS in a large nationally representative cohort of hemodialysis patients. METHODS:We studied all patients who underwent CAS in the United States Renal Disease System database between January 2006 and December 2011. Patient outcomes were determined by matching with the Medicare database. Univariable and multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to compare perioperative (stroke, death, myocardial infarction) and long-term (stroke, death) outcomes after CAS. RESULTS:The cohort included 1109 patients who underwent CAS. Median follow-up was 2.5 years (interquartile range, 1.30-3.71; maximum, 4.97 years). Mean age was 67 (standard deviation, 9.9) years, and 61% of patients were male, 75% were white, and 83% were asymptomatic. Overall, 30-day perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rates were 5.5%, 5.5%, and 3.1%, respectively. Long-term freedom from stroke was 90% at 1 year, 85% at 2 years, and 76% at 4 years. Patient survival was 73% at 1 year and 29% at 4 years. Symptomatic status was the only significant predictor of stroke in a long-term period of 4 years (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.29; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:This study, which is the largest population-based study of outcomes after CAS in hemodialysis patients, demonstrates relatively poor long-term survival and prohibitive operative stroke and death risk. We recommend avoidance of CAS in asymptomatic dialysis patients and cautious consideration when planning CAS in symptomatic patients.

For recipients of liver transplantations (LTs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), HCC recurrence after transplantation remains a major concern. Sirolimus (SRL), an immunosuppressant with anticarcinogenic properties, may reduce HCC recurrence and improve survival. In our study, the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was linked to pharmacy claims. For liver recipients transplanted for HCC, Cox regression was used to estimate associations of early SRL use with recurrence, cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality, adjusting for recipient ethnicity, calendar year of transplant, total tumor volume, alpha-fetoprotein, transplant center size, use of interleukin 2 induction therapy, and allocated and calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. We performed stratified analyses among recipients who met Milan criteria, among those without renal failure, among those with deceased liver donors, by age at transplantation, and by tumor size. Among the 3936 included HCC LTs, 234 (6%) were SRL users. In total, there were 242 recurrences and 879 deaths, including 261 cancer-related deaths. All-cause mortality was similar in SRL users and nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.39). HCC recurrence and cancer-specific mortality rates appeared lower in SRL users, but associations were not statistically significant (recurrence aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.45-1.65; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.43-1.50). Among recipients >55 years old, associations were suggestive of better outcomes for SRL users (all-cause mortality aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01; recurrence aHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19-1.44; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11-1.09), whereas among recipients ≤55 years old, SRL users had worse outcomes (all-cause mortality aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.12-2.75; recurrence aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.62-3.61; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.71-3.32). In conclusion, among HCC liver recipients overall, SRL did not appear beneficial in reducing all-cause mortality. However, there were suggestions of reductions in recurrence and cancer-specific mortality, and effects appeared to be modified by age at transplantation. Liver Transplantation 22 627-634 2016 AASLD.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the risk of liver-related events and death in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-exposed liver transplantation (LT) recipients. METHODS:Retrospective review was performed in all adults who underwent LT between January 1995 through December 2010 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Recipients with graft failure or death within 14 d of LT or missing HBV status were excluded, leaving 575 individuals for analysis. Patients were classified according to HBV exposure status: Unexposed, Resolved HBV, Chronic HBV, or hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) seropositive liver donor. RESULTS:Compared with HBV-unexposed patients, the relative hazard of combined liver-related events (rejection, cirrhosis, re-transplantation) and death after LT was not increased in patients with a baseline history of resolved HBV infection or chronic hepatitis B. Using anti-HBc seropositive donors also did not increase the risk of liver-related events, death, or composite events (all p ≥ 0.05). However, hepatitis C was associated with liver-related events [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-2.52], and blacks had a higher risk of death (aHR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.01-2.22). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:LT of patients with prior HBV exposure or use of anti-HBc seropositive donors is not associated with increased risk of liver-related events or death.

BACKGROUND:Midodrine is prescribed to prevent symptomatic hypotension and decrease complications associated with hypotension during dialysis. We hypothesized that midodrine use before kidney transplantation may be a novel marker for posttransplant risk. METHODS:We analyzed integrated national US transplant registry, pharmacy records, and Medicare claims data for 16 308 kidney transplant recipients transplanted 2006 to 2008, of whom 308 (1.9%) had filled midodrine prescriptions in the year before transplantation. Delayed graft function (DGF), graft failure, and patient death were ascertained from the registry. Posttransplant cardiovascular complications were identified using diagnosis codes on Medicare billing claims. Adjusted associations of pretransplant midodrine use with complications at 3 and 12 months posttransplant were quantified by multivariate Cox or logistic regression, including propensity for midodrine exposure. RESULTS:At 3 months, patients who used midodrine pretransplant had significantly (P < 0.05) higher rates of DGF, 32% versus 19%; hypotension, 14% versus 4%; acute myocardial infarction, 4% versus 2%; cardiac arrest, 2% versus 0.9%, graft failure, 5% versus 2%; and death, 4% versus 1% than nonusers. After multivariate adjustment including recipient and donor factors, as well as for the propensity of midodrine exposure, pretransplant midodrine use was independently associated with risks of DGF (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.32), and 3 month death-censored graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.18-3.39), and death (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.95-6.24). Patterns were similar at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Although associations may in part reflect underlying conditions, the need for midodrine before kidney transplantation is a risk marker for complications including DGF, graft failure, and death.

The infrequent use of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation in the United States may reflect concern about the costs of necessary preconditioning and posttransplant care. Medicare data for 26 500 live donor kidney transplant recipients (2000 to March 2011), including 271 ABOi and 62 A2-incompatible (A2i) recipients, were analyzed to assess the impact of pretransplant, transplant episode and 3-year posttransplant costs. The marginal costs of ABOi and A2i versus ABO-compatible (ABOc) transplants were quantified by multivariate linear regression including adjustment for recipient, donor and transplant factors. Compared with ABOc transplantation, patient survival (93.2% vs. 88.15%, p = 0.0009) and death-censored graft survival (85.4% vs. 76.1%, p < 0.05) at 3 years were lower after ABOi transplant. The average overall cost of the transplant episode was significantly higher for ABOi ($65 080) compared with A2i ($36 752) and ABOc ($32 039) transplantation (p < 0.001), excluding organ acquisition. ABOi transplant was associated with high adjusted posttransplant spending (marginal costs compared to ABOc - year 1: $25 044; year 2: $10 496; year 3: $7307; p < 0.01). ABOi transplantation provides a clinically effective method to expand access to transplantation. Although more expensive, the modest increases in total spending are easily justified by avoiding long-term dialysis and its associated morbidity and cost.