Faculty Bibliography

Prescription narcotic use among living kidney donors is not well described. Using a unique database that integrates national registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) in the United States with billing claims from a private health insurer (2000-2007), we identified pharmacy fills for prescription narcotic medications in periods 1-4 and >4 yr post-donation and estimated relative likelihoods of post-donation narcotic use by Cox regression. We also compared narcotic fill rates and medication possession ratios (MPRs, defined as (days of medication supplied)/(days observed)), between donors and age- and sex-matched non-donors. Overall, rates of narcotic medication fills were 32.3 and 32.4 per 100 person-years in periods 1-4 and >4 yr post-donation. After age and race adjustment, women were approximately twice as likely as men to fill a narcotic prescription in years 1-4 (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.86-2.79) and >4 yr (aHR 1.70; 95% CI 1.50-1.93). MPRs in donors were low (<2.5% days exposed), and lower than among age- and sex-matched non-donors. Prescription narcotic medication use is more common among women than men in the intermediate term after live kidney donation. Overall, total narcotic exposure is low, and lower than among non-donors from the general population.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To understand the natural history of frailty after an aggressive surgical intervention, kidney transplantation (KT). DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective cohort study (December 2008-March 2014). SETTING/METHODS:Baltimore, Maryland. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Kidney transplantation recipients (N = 349). MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:The Fried frailty score was measured at the time of KT and during routine clinical follow-up. Using a Cox proportional hazards model, factors associated with improvements in frailty score after KT were identified. Using a longitudinal analysis, predictors of frailty score changes after KT were identified using a multilevel mixed-effects Poisson model. RESULTS:At KT, 19.8% of recipients were frail; 1 month after KT, 33.3% were frail; at 2 months, 27.7% were frail; and at 3 months, 17.2% were frail. On average, frailty scores had worsened by 1 month (mean change 0.4, P < .001), returned to baseline by 2 months (mean change 0.2, P = .07), and improved by 3 months (mean change -0.3, P = .04) after KT. The only recipient or transplant factor associated with improvement in frailty score after KT was pre-KT frailty (hazard ratio = 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.71-3.82, P < .001). Pre-KT frailty status (relative risk (RR) = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.29-1.72, P < .001), recipient diabetes mellitus (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.08-1.46, P = .003), and delayed graft function (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.04-1.43, P = .02) were independently associated with long-term changes in frailty score. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:After KT, in adult recipients of all ages, frailty initially worsens but then improves by 3 months. Although KT recipients who were frail at KT had higher frailty scores over the long term, they were most likely to show improvements in their physiological reserve after KT, supporting the transplantation in these individuals and suggesting that pretransplant frailty is not an irreversible state of low physiological reserve.

The Best Practice in Live Kidney Donation Consensus Conference held in June of 2014 included the Best Practices in Living Donor Education Workgroup, whose charge was to identify best practice strategies in education of living donors, community outreach initiatives, commercial media, solicitation, and state registries. The workgroup's goal was to identify critical content to include in living kidney donor education and best methods to deliver educational content. A detailed summary of considerations regarding educational content issues for potential living kidney donors is presented, including the consensus that was reached. Educational topics that may require updating on the basis of emerging studies on living kidney donor health outcomes are also presented. Enhancing the educational process is important for increasing living donor comprehension to optimize informed decision-making.

Kidney transplantation is a viable treatment for select patients with HIV and ESRD, but data are lacking regarding long-term outcomes and comparisons with appropriately matched HIV-negative patients. We analyzed data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR; 2002-2011): 510 adult kidney transplant recipients with HIV (median follow-up, 3.8 years) matched 1:10 to HIV-negative controls. Compared with HIV-negative controls, HIV-infected recipients had significantly lower 5-year (75.3% versus 69.2%) and 10-year (54.4% versus 49.8%) post-transplant graft survival (GS) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.15 to 1.64; P<0.001) that persisted when censoring for death (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.84; P=0.005). However, compared with HIV-negative/hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative controls, HIV monoinfected recipients had similar 5-year and 10-year GS, whereas HIV/HCV coinfected recipients had worse GS (5-year: 64.0% versus 52.0%, P=0.02; 10-year: 36.2% versus 27.0%, P=0.004 [HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.77; P=0.01]). Patient survival (PS) among HIV-infected recipients was 83.5% at 5 years and 51.6% at 10 years and was significantly lower than PS among HIV-negative controls (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.68; P<0.01). However, PS was similar for HIV monoinfected recipients and HIV-negative/HCV-negative controls at both times. HIV/HCV coinfected recipients had worse PS compared with HIV-negative/HCV-infected controls (5-year: 67.0% versus 78.6%, P=0.007; 10-year: 29.3% versus 56.23%, P=0.002 [HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.22; P=0.01]). In conclusion, HIV-negative and HIV monoinfected kidney transplant recipients had similar GS and PS, whereas HIV/HCV coinfected recipients had worse outcomes. Although encouraging, these results suggest caution in transplanting coinfected patients.

BACKGROUND:In response to recent studies, a better understanding of the risks of renal complications among African American and biologically related living kidney donors is needed. METHODS:We examined a database linking U.S. registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) to billing claims from a private health insurer (2000-2007 claims) to identify renal condition diagnoses categorized by International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision coding. Cox regression with left and right censoring was used to estimate cumulative incidence of diagnoses after donation and associations (adjusted hazards ratios, aHR) with donor traits. RESULTS:Among 4650 living donors, 13.1% were African American and 76.3% were white; 76.1% were first-degree relatives of their recipient. By 7 years post-donation, after adjustment for age and sex, greater proportions of African American compared with white donors had renal condition diagnoses: chronic kidney disease (12.6% vs 5.6%; aHR, 2.32; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.48-3.62), proteinuria (5.7% vs 2.6%; aHR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.32-3.89), nephrotic syndrome (1.3% vs 0.1%; aHR, 15.7; 95% CI, 2.97-83.0), and any renal condition (14.9% vs 9.0%; aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23-2.41). Although first-degree biological relationship to the recipient was not associated with renal risk, associations of African American race persisted for these conditions and included unspecified renal failure and reported disorders of kidney dysfunction after adjustment for biological donor-recipient relationship. CONCLUSIONS:African Americans more commonly develop renal conditions after living kidney donation, independent of donor-recipient relationship. Continued research is needed to improve risk stratification for renal outcomes among African American living donors.

Concerns have been raised that optimized redistricting of liver allocation areas might have the unintended result of shifting livers from better-performing to poorer-performing organ procurement organizations (OPOs). We used liver simulated allocation modeling to simulate a 5-year period of liver sharing within either 4 or 8 optimized districts. We investigated whether each OPO's net liver import under redistricting would be correlated with 2 OPO performance metrics (observed to expected liver yield and liver donor conversion ratio), along with 2 other potential correlates (eligible deaths and incident listings above a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 15). We found no evidence that livers would flow from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs in either redistricting scenario. Instead, under these optimized redistricting plans, our simulations suggest that livers would flow from OPOs with more-than-expected eligible deaths toward those with fewer-than-expected eligible deaths and that livers would flow from OPOs with fewer-than-expected incident listings to those with more-than-expected incident listings; the latter is a pattern that is already established in the current allocation system. Redistricting liver distribution to reduce geographic inequity is expected to align liver allocation across the country with the distribution of supply and demand rather than transferring livers from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs.