Faculty Bibliography

Live kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) compared with nondonors; however, it is unknown whether undetected, subclinical kidney disease exists at donation that subsequently contributes to this risk. To indirectly test this hypothesis, the authors followed the donated kidneys, by comparing the outcomes of 257 recipients whose donors subsequently developed ESRD with a matched cohort whose donors remained ESRD free. The compared recipients were matched on donor (age, sex, race/ethnicity, donor-recipient relationship), transplant (HLA mismatch, peak panel-reactive antibody, previous transplantation, year of transplantation), and recipient (age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, cause of ESRD, and time on dialysis) risk factors. Median recipient follow-up was 12.5 years (interquartile range 7.4-17.9, maximum 20 years). Recipients of allografts from donors who developed ESRD had increased death-censored graft loss (74% versus 56% at 20 years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-2.0; p < 0.001) and mortality (61% versus 46% at 20 years; aHR 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-1.8; p < 0.001) compared with matched recipients of allografts from donors who did not develop ESRD. This association was similar among related, spousal, and unrelated nonspousal donors. These findings support a novel view of the mechanisms underlying donor ESRD: that of pre-donation kidney disease. However, biopsy data may be required to confirm this hypothesis.

The incidence of live donor transplantation has declined over the past decade, and waitlisted candidates report substantial barriers to identifying a live donor. Since asking someone to donate feels awkward and unfamiliar, candidates are hesitant to ask directly and may be more comfortable with a passive approach. In collaboration with Facebook leadership (Facebook Inc., Menlo Park, CA), we developed a mobile application-an app-that enables waitlisted candidates to create a Facebook post about their experience with organ failure and their need for a live donor. We conducted a single-center prospective cohort study of 54 adult kidney-only and liver-only waitlisted candidates using the Facebook app. Cox proportional hazards models were used to describe donor referral on behalf of candidates using the app compared with matched controls. The majority of candidates who used the app reported it to be "good" or "excellent" with regard to the installation process (82.9%), readability (88.6%), simplicity (70.6%), clarity (87.5%) and the information provided (85.3%). Compared with controls, candidates using the Facebook app were _2.43 6.61_17.98 times more likely to have a donor come forward on their behalf (p < 0.001). The Facebook app is an easy-to-use instrument that enables waitlisted candidates to passively communicate with their social network about their need for a live donor.

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: Frailty is associated with worse health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in older adults and worse clinical outcomes in adults of all ages with end stage renal disease (ESRD). It is unclear whether frail adults of all ages with ESRD are more likely to experience worse HRQOL. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify factors associated with worsening HRQOL in this population. DESIGN, SETTING AND MEASUREMENTS: We studied 233 adults of all ages with ESRD enrolled (11/2009-11/2013) in a longitudinal cohort study. Frailty status was measured at enrollment and HRQOL was reported (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor) at the initial assessment and follow-up (median follow-up 9.4 months). We studied factors associated with Fair/Poor HRQOL at follow-up using logistic regression and factors associated with HRQOL change using multinomial regression. All models were adjusted for age, sex, race, education, BMI, diabetes status, history of a previous transplant, type of dialysis and time between assessments. RESULTS: Fair/Poor HRQOL was reported by 28% at initial assessment and 33% at follow-up. 47.2% of participants had stable HRQOL, 22.8% better HRQOL, and 30.0% worse HRQOL at follow-up (P<0.001). In adjusted models, only frailty was associated with Fair/Poor HRQOL at follow-up (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.32-5.90) and worsening HRQOL at follow-up (RR: 2.91, 95%CI: 1.08-7.80). CONCLUSIONS: Frail adults of all ages with ESRD are more likely to experience fair/poor HRQOL and worsening HRQOL over time. Frailty represents a state of decreased physiologic reserve that impacts not only clinical outcomes but also the patient-centered outcome of HRQOL.

Redistricting, which means sharing organs in novel districts developed through mathematical optimization, has been proposed to reduce pervasive geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation. The economic impact of redistricting was evaluated with two distinct data sources, Medicare claims and the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC). We estimated total Medicare payments under (i) the current allocation system (Share 35), (ii) full regional sharing, (iii) an eight-district plan, and (iv) a four-district plan for a simulated population of patients listed for liver transplant over 5 years, using the liver simulated allocation model. The model predicted 5-year transplant volumes (Share 35, 29,267; regional sharing, 29,005; eight districts, 29,034; four districts, 28,265) and a reduction in overall mortality, including listed and posttransplant patients, of up to 676 lives. Compared with current allocation, the eight-district plan was estimated to reduce payments for pretransplant care ($1638 million to $1506 million, p < 0.001), transplant episode ($5607 million to $5569 million, p < 0.03) and posttransplant care ($479 million to $488 million, p < 0.001). The eight-district plan was estimated to increase per-patient transportation costs for organs ($8988 to $11,874 per patient, p < 0.001) and UHC estimated hospital costs ($4699 per case). In summary, redistricting appears to be potentially cost saving for the health care system but will increase the cost of performing liver transplants for some transplant centers.

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.