Faculty Bibliography

U.S. organ allocation policy sequesters livers from deceased donors within arbitrary geographic boundaries, frustrating the intent of those who wish to offer the livers to transplant candidates based on medical urgency. We used a zero-one integer program to partition 58 donor service areas into between four and eight sharing districts that minimize the disparity in liver availability among districts. Because the integer program necessarily suppressed clinically significant differences among patients and organs, we tested the optimized district maps with a discrete-event simulation tool that represents liver allocation at a per-person, per-organ level of detail. In April 2014, the liver committee of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) decided in a unanimous vote of 22-0-0 to write a policy proposal based on our eight-district and four-district maps. The OPTN board of directors could implement the policy after the proposal and public-comment period.Redistricting liver allocation would save hundreds of lives over the next five years and would attenuate the serious geographic inequity in liver transplant offers.

Life expectancy among HIV-infected (HIV+) individuals has improved dramatically with effective antiretroviral therapy. Consequently, chronic diseases such as end-stage liver and kidney disease are growing causes of morbidity and mortality. HIV+ individuals can have excellent outcomes after solid organ transplantation, and the need for transplantation in this population is increasing. However, there is a significant organ shortage, and HIV+ individuals experience higher mortality rates on transplant waitlists. In South Africa, the use of organs from HIV+ deceased donors (HIVDD) has been successful, but until recently federal law prohibited this practice in the United States. With the recognition that organs from HIVDD could fill a critical need, the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act was passed in November 2013, reversing the federal ban on the use of HIV+ donors for HIV+ recipients. In translating this policy into practice, the biologic risks of using HIV+ donors need to be carefully considered. In this mini-review, we explore relevant aspects of HIV virology, antiretroviral treatment, drug resistance, opportunistic infections and HIV-related organ dysfunction that are critical to a transplant team considering HIV-to-HIV transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-level risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF) have been well described. However, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network definition of DGF is based on dialysis in the first week, which is subject to center-level practice patterns. It remains unclear if there are center-level differences in DGF and if measurable center characteristics can explain these differences. METHODS: Using the 2003 to 2012 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we developed a hierarchical (multilevel) model to determine the association between center characteristics and DGF incidence after adjusting for known patient risk factors and to quantify residual variability across centers after adjustment for these factors. RESULTS: Of 82,143 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 27.0% developed DGF, with a range across centers of 3.2% to 63.3%. A center's proportion of preemptive transplants (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; per 5% increment; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.74-;0.93; P = 0.001) and kidneys with longer than 30 hr of cold ischemia time (CIT) (OR, 0.95; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 0.92-;0.98; P = 0.001) were associated with less DGF. A center's proportion of donation after cardiac death donors (OR, 1.12; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 1.03-;1.17; P < 0.001) and imported kidneys (OR, 1.06; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 1.03-;1.10; P < 0.001) were associated with more DGF. After patient-level and center-level adjustments, only 41.8% of centers had DGF incidences consistent with the national median and 28.2% had incidences above the national median. CONCLUSION: Significant heterogeneity in DGF incidences across centers, even after adjusting for patient-level and center-level characteristics, calls into question the generalizability and validity of the current DGF definition. Enhanced understanding of center-level variability and improving the definition of DGF accordingly may improve DGF's utility in clinical care and as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND:Induction immunosuppression is a mainstay of rejection prevention after transplantation. Studies have suggested a connection between antibody induction agents and cancer development, potentially limiting important immunosuppression protocols. METHODS:We used a linkage of U.S. transplantation data and cancer registries to explore the relationship between induction and cancer after transplantation. A total of 111,857 kidney recipients (1987-2009) in the Transplant Cancer Match Study, which links the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients and U.S. Cancer Registries, were included. Poisson regression models were used to estimate adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other cancers with increased incidence after transplantation (lung, colorectal, kidney, and thyroid cancers, plus melanoma). RESULTS:Two thousand seven hundred sixty-three cancers of interest were identified. Muromonab-CD3 was associated with increased NHL (aIRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76). Alemtuzumab was associated with increased NHL (aIRR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.02-3.14), colorectal cancer (aIRR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.03-5.91), and thyroid cancer (aIRR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.55-7.33). Polyclonal induction was associated with increased melanoma (aIRR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings highlight the relative safety with regard to cancer risk of the most common induction therapies, the need for surveillance of patients treated with alemtuzumab, and the possible role for increased melanoma screening for those patients treated with polyclonal anti-T-cell induction.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Based on evidence of survival benefit when initiating hemodialysis (HD) via arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) vs hemodialysis catheter (HC), the National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative published practice guidelines in 1997 recommending 50% or greater AVF rates in incident HD patients. A decade after, lapses exist and the impact on HD outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVE:To assess the achievement of the practice goals for incident vascular access and the effects on HD outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the US Renal Data System. All patients with end-stage renal disease in the United States without prior renal replacement therapy who had incident vascular access for HD created between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010 (N = 510 000) were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/METHODS:Incident vascular access use rates and mortality. Relative mortality was quantified using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. Coarsened exact matching and propensity score-matching techniques were used to better account for confounding by indication. RESULTS:Of 510 000 patients included in this study, 82.6% initiated HD via HC, 14.0% via AVF, and 3.4% via AVG. Arteriovenous fistula use increased only minimally, from 12.2% in 2006 to 15.0% in 2010. Patients initiating HD with AVF had 35% lower mortality than those with HC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.64-0.66; P < .001). Those initiating HD with AVF had 23% lower mortality than those initiating with an HC while awaiting maturation of an AVF (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.76-0.79; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Current incident AVF practice falls exceedingly short years after recommendations were made in 1997. The impact of this shortcoming on mortality for patients with end-stage renal disease is enormous. Functioning permanent access at initiation of HD confers lower mortality even compared with patients temporized with an HC while awaiting maturation of permanent access. A change of current policies and structured multidisciplinary efforts are required to establish matured fistulae prior to HD to ameliorate this deficit in delivering care.

Liver allocation is based on current Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, with priority in the case of a tie being given to those waiting the longest with a given MELD score. We hypothesized that this priority might not reflect risk: registrants whose MELD score has recently increased receive lower priority but might have higher wait-list mortality. We studied wait-list and posttransplant mortality in 69,643 adult registrants from 2002 to 2013. By likelihood maximization, we empirically defined a MELD spike as a MELD increase ≥ 30% over the previous 7 days. At any given time, only 0.6% of wait-list patients experienced a spike; however, these patients accounted for 25% of all wait-list deaths. Registrants who reached a given MELD score after a spike had higher wait-list mortality in the ensuing 7 days than those with the same resulting MELD score who did not spike, but they had no difference in posttransplant mortality. The spike-associated wait-list mortality increase was highest for registrants with medium MELD scores: specifically, 2.3-fold higher (spike versus no spike) for a MELD score of 10, 4.0-fold higher for a MELD score of 20, and 2.5-fold higher for a MELD score of 30. A model incorporating the MELD score and spikes predicted wait-list mortality risk much better than a model incorporating only the MELD score. Registrants with a sudden MELD increase have a higher risk of short-term wait-list mortality than is indicated by their current MELD score but have no increased risk of posttransplant mortality; allocation policy should be adjusted accordingly.

BACKGROUND:Frailty, a validated measure of physiologic reserve, predicts adverse health outcomes among adults with end-stage renal disease. Frailty typically is not measured clinically; instead, a surrogate-perceived frailty-is used to inform clinical decision-making. Because correlations between perceived and measured frailty remain unknown, the aim of this study was to assess their relationship. METHODS:146 adults undergoing hemodialysis were recruited from a single dialysis center in Baltimore, Maryland. Patient characteristics associated with perceived (reported by nephrologists, nurse practitioners (NPs), or patients) or measured frailty (using the Fried criteria) were identified using ordered logistic regression. The relationship between perceived and measured frailty was assessed using percent agreement, kappa statistic, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and prevalence of misclassification of frailty. Patient characteristics associated with misclassification were determined using Fisher's exact tests, t-tests, or median tests. RESULTS:Older age (adjusted OR [aOR] = 1.36, 95%CI:1.11-1.68, P = 0.003 per 5-years older) and comorbidity (aOR = 1.49, 95%CI:1.27-1.75, P < 0.001 per additional comorbidity) were associated with greater likelihood of nephrologist-perceived frailty. Being non-African American was associated with greater likelihood of NP- (aOR = 5.51, 95%CI:3.21-9.48, P = 0.003) and patient- (aOR = 4.20, 95%CI:1.61-10.9, P = 0.003) perceived frailty. Percent agreement between perceived and measured frailty was poor (nephrologist, NP, and patient: 64.1%, 67.0%, and 55.5%). Among non-frail participants, 34.4%, 30.0%, and 31.6% were perceived as frail by a nephrologist, NP, or themselves. Older adults (P < 0.001) were more likely to be misclassified as frail by a nephrologist; women (P = 0.04) and non-African Americans (P = 0.02) were more likely to be misclassified by an NP. Neither age, sex, nor race was associated with patient misclassification. CONCLUSIONS:Perceived frailty is an inadequate proxy for measured frailty among patients undergoing hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND:Disparities in access to kidney transplantation (KT) remain inadequately understood and addressed. Detailed descriptions of patient attitudes may provide insight into mechanisms of disparity. The aims of this study were to explore perceptions of dialysis and KT among African American adults undergoing hemodialysis, with particular attention to age- and sex-specific concerns. METHODS:Qualitative data on experiences with hemodialysis and views about KT were collected through four age- and sex-stratified (males <65, males ≥65, females <65, and females ≥65 years) focus group discussions with 36 African American adults recruited from seven urban dialysis centers in Baltimore, Maryland. RESULTS:Four themes emerged from thematic content analysis: 1) current health and perceptions of dialysis, 2) support while undergoing dialysis, 3) interactions with medical professionals, and 4) concerns about KT. Females and older males tended to be more positive about dialysis experiences. Younger males expressed a lack of support from friends and family. All participants shared feelings of being treated poorly by medical professionals and lacking information about renal disease and treatment options. Common concerns about pursuing KT were increased medication burden, fear of surgery, fear of organ rejection, and older age (among older participants). CONCLUSIONS:These perceptions may contribute to disparities in access to KT, motivating granular studies based on the themes identified.

BACKGROUND:Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) side effects often prompt dose reduction or discontinuation, and this MMF dose reduction (MDR) can lead to rejection and possibly graft loss. Unfortunately, little is known about what factors might cause or contribute to MDR. Frailty, a measure of physiologic reserve, is emerging as an important, novel domain of risk in kidney transplantation recipients. We hypothesized that frailty, an inflammatory phenotype, might be associated with MDR. METHODS:We measured frailty (shrinking, weakness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and slowed walking speed), other patient and donor characteristics, longitudinal MMF doses, and graft loss in 525 kidney transplantation recipients. Time-to-MDR was quantified using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS:By 2 years after transplantation, 54% of frail recipients and 45% of nonfrail recipients experienced MDR; by 4 years, incidence was 67% and 51%. Frail recipients were 1.29 times (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.01-1.66; P = 0.04) more likely to experience MDR, as were deceased donor recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.44-2.54, P < 0.001) and older adults (age ≥ 65 vs <65; aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.10-1.96, P = 0.01). Mycophenolate mofetil dose reduction was independently associated with a substantially increased risk of death-censored graft loss (aHR, 5.24; 95% CI, 1.97-13.98, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A better understanding of risk factors for MMF intolerance might help in planning alternate strategies to maintain adequate immunosuppression and prolong allograft survival.