Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up. METHODS/DESIGN:We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION:Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

As the field of Vascular Composite Allotransplantation (VCA) grows, demand for VCA donations will increase. The public should be made aware of this treatment option to support patients' informed decision-making and authorization for deceased donation. We assessed the availability and quality of existing VCA public education materials from organ procurement organizations (OPOs), transplant centers, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Defense. A content analysis was performed to identify topics covered and important gaps. In total, 1314 public education materials were analyzed, including OPO Facebook posts (61.6%), OPO Twitter posts (29.9%), websites (6.4%), and written documents (eg, fact sheets, research reports) (2.1%). Upper extremity (34.7%) and face (34.5%) transplants were more commonly covered than reproductive (6.4%) or other VCA types (2.8%). Most materials (76.6%) referenced a specific VCA story. However, few materials described which patient population could benefit from VCA (eg, Veterans, amputees, burn victims, 16.4%), the authorization requirements for VCA donation (6.6%), or the appearance of transplanted VCA organs (1.2%). Current VCA public education materials do not adequately educate the public. More comprehensive education materials are needed to prepare the public to authorize VCA donation, become potential donors, or learn about transplant options.

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group.

BACKGROUND:HIV-infected (HIV+) donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation might improve access to transplantation for people living with HIV. However, it remains unknown whether transplant candidates living with HIV will accept the currently unknown risks of HIV D+/R+ transplantation. METHODS:We surveyed transplant candidates living with HIV from 9 US transplant centers regarding willingness to accept HIV+ donor organs. RESULTS:Among 116 participants, the median age was 55 years, 68% were men, and 78% were African American. Most were willing to accept HIV+ living donor organs (87%), HIV+ deceased donor organs (84%), and increased infectious risk donor organs (70%). Some (30%) were concerned about HIV superinfection; even among these respondents, 71% were willing to accept an HIV D+ organ. Respondents from centers that had already performed a transplant under an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were more willing to accept HIV+ deceased donor organs (89% vs. 71%, P = 0.04). Respondents who chose not to enroll in an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were less likely to believe that HIV D+/R+ transplantation was safe (45% vs. 77%, P = 0.02), and that HIV D+ organs would work similar to HIV D- organs (55% vs. 77%, P = 0.04), but more likely to believe they would receive an infection other than HIV from an HIV D+ organ (64% vs. 13%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Willingness to accept HIV D+ organs among transplant candidates living with HIV does not seem to be a major barrier to HIV D+/R+ transplantation and may increase with growing HIV D+/R+ transplantation experience.

Simple (Bosniak I) renal cysts are considered acceptable in living kidney donor selection in terms of cancer risk. However, they tend to increase in number and size over time and might compromise renal function in donors. To clarify their implications for long-term renal function, we characterized the prevalence of renal cysts in 454 individuals who donated at our center from 2000 to 2007. We estimated the association between the presence of cysts in the kidney remaining after nephrectomy (ie, retained cysts) and postdonation eGFR trajectory using mixed-effects linear regression. Donors with retained cysts (N = 86) were older (P < .001) and had slightly lower predonation eGFR (median 94 vs 98 mL/min/1.73 m² , P < .01) than those without cysts. Over a median 7.8 years, donors with retained cysts had lower baseline eGFR (_-8.7 -5.6 _-2.3  mL/min/1.73 m² , P < .01) but similar yearly change in eGFR (_-0.4 0.02 _0.4  mL/min/1.73 m² , P = .2) compared to those without retained cysts. Adjusting for predonation characteristics, there was no difference in baseline eGFR (P = .6) or yearly change in eGFR (P > .9). There continued to be no evidence of an association when we considered retained cyst(s) ≥10 mm or multiple retained cysts (all P > .05). These findings reaffirm current practices of accepting candidates with simple renal cysts for donor nephrectomy.

Importance:Predialysis nephrology care is associated with better survival among patients with end-stage kidney disease. Objective:To examine national trends in racial/ethnic disparities in receipt of predialysis nephrology care at least 1 year before dialysis initiation in the United States from 2005 to 2015. Design, Setting, and Participants:This national registry study assessed US registry data of 1 000 390 adults in the US Renal Data System who initiated maintenance dialysis treatment from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2015, in multiple cross-sectional analyses. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine national trends in racial/ethnic disparities in receipt of predialysis nephrology care with adjustments for potential confounders. Data were analyzed April 17, 2020. Exposure:Race/ethnicity of the patients. Main Outcomes and Measures:Receipt of at least 12 months of predialysis nephrology care as determined by clinician-based documentation on the End Stage Renal Disease Medical Evidence Report Form CMS 2728. Results:Among 1 000 390 adults (57.2% male; 54.6% White, 27.8% Black, 14.0% Hispanic, and 3.6% Asian; mean [SD] age, 62.4 [15.6] years) who initiated maintenance dialysis in the United States from 2005 to 2015, 310 743 (31.1%) received at least 12 months of predialysis nephrology care. In 2005 to 2007, compared with White adults, the adjusted odds ratio for receipt of at least 12 months of predialysis nephrology care was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84) among Black adults, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65-0.69) among Hispanic adults, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89) among Asian adults; in 2014 to 2015, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.78) among Black adults, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.63) among Hispanic adults, and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95) among Asian adults. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cross-sectional study of more than 1 million US adults with end-stage kidney disease, racial and ethnic disparities in predialysis nephrology care did not substantially improve from 2005 to 2015. Study findings suggest that national strategies to address racial/ethnic disparities in predialysis nephrology care are needed.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors. Methods/UNASSIGNED:To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT. Results/UNASSIGNED: = 0.3). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

Importance:Living kidney donation is associated with increased long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). An early postdonation marker of ESRD risk could improve postdonation risk assessment and counseling for kidney donors and allow early intervention for donors at increased risk. Objective:To determine the association between renal function in the first 6 months postdonation and subsequent risk of ESRD in kidney donors. Design, Setting, and Participants:This secondary analysis of a prospective national cohort uses a population-based registry of all living kidney donors in the United States between October 26, 1999, and January 1, 2018, with follow-up through December 31, 2018. All kidney donors who had donated in the date range and had serum creatinine measured at 6 months (±3 months) postdonation were included. Exposures:Renal function as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate 6 months after donation (eGFR6). Main Outcomes and Measures:End-stage renal disease, ascertained via linkage to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. Results:A total of 71 468 living kidney donors were included (of 109 065 total donors over this period). Their median (interquartile range) eGFR6 was 63 (54-74) mL/min/1.73 m2. Cumulative incidence of ESRD at 15 years postdonation ranged from 11.7 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values greater than 70 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 33.1 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values of 50 mL/min/1.73 m2 or less. Adjusting for age, race, sex, body mass index, and biological relationship, every 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 reduction in eGFR6 was associated with a 28% increased risk of ESRD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.54]; P = .009). The association between predonation eGFR and ESRD was not significant and was fully mediated by eGFR6 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.17]; P = .97). The postdonation eGFR value was a better marker of ESRD than eGFR decline after donation or the ratio of eGFR6 to predonation eGFR, as determined by the Akaike information criterion (in which a lower value indicates a better model fit; eGFR6, 1495.61; predonation eGFR - eGFR6, 1503.58; eGFR6 / predonation eGFR, 1502.30). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, there was an independent association of eGFR6 with subsequent ESRD risk in living kidney donors, even after adjusting for predonation characteristics. The findings support measurement of early postdonation serum creatinine monitoring in living kidney donors, and the use of these data to help identify donors who might need more careful surveillance and early intervention.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017. EXPOSURE:Biological relationship of donor and recipient. OUTCOME:ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome. ANALYTIC APPROACH:Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used. RESULTS:Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6). LIMITATIONS:Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.