Faculty Bibliography

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.

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: 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.

Rituximab has been used to increase the efficacy of desensitization protocols for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-incompatible kidney transplantation; however, controlled comparisons have not been reported. Here we examined 256 post-transplant HLA antibody levels in 25 recipients desensitized with and 25 without rituximab induction, to determine the impact of B-cell depletion. We found significantly less HLA antibody rebound in the rituximab-treated patients (7% of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) and 33% of non-DSAs) compared with a control cohort desensitized and transplanted without rituximab (32% DSAs and 55% non-DSAs). The magnitude of the increase was significantly larger among patients who did not receive rituximab. Interestingly, in rituximab-treated patients, of the 39 HLA antibodies that increased post transplant, 34 were specific for HLA mismatches present in previous allografts or pregnancies, implying limited efficacy in memory B-cell depletion. Compared with controls, rituximab-treated patients had a significantly greater mean reduction in DSA (-2505 vs. -292 mean fluorescence intensity), but a similar rate of DSA persistence (52% in rituximab treated-and 40% in non-treated recipients). Thus, rituximab induction in HLA-incompatible recipients reduced the incidence and magnitude of HLA antibody rebound, but did not affect DSA elimination, antibody-mediated rejection, or 5-year allograft survival when compared with recipients desensitized and transplanted without rituximab.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we present our experience with ureteral complications requiring revision surgery after renal transplantation and compare our results to a matched control population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of our database between 1997 and 2012. We divided the cases into early (<60 d) and late repairs. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare graft survival between the intervention cohort and controls generated from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set. RESULTS: Of 2671 kidney transplantations, 51 patients were identified as to having undergone 53 ureteral revision procedures; 43.4% of cases were performed within 60 d of the transplant and were all associated with urinary leaks, and 49% demonstrated ureteral stenosis. Reflux allograft pyelonephritis and ureterolithiasis were each the indication for intervention in 3.8%; 15.1% of the lesions were located at the anastomotic site, 37.7% in the distal segment, 7.5% in the middle segment, 5.7% proximal ureter, and 15.1% had a long segmental stenosis. In 18.9%, the location was not specified. Techniques used included ureterocystostomy (30.2%), ureteroureterostomy (34%), ureteropyelostomy (30.1%), pyeloileostomy (1.9%), and ureteroileostomy (3.8%). No difference in overall graft survival (HR 1.24 95% CI 0.33-4.64, p = 0.7) was detected when compared to the matched control group. CONCLUSION: Using a variety of techniques designed to re-establish effective urinary flow, we have been able to salvage a high percentage of these allografts. When performed by an experienced team, a ureteric complication does not significantly impact graft survival or function as compared to a matched control group.