Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Approximately 30% of kidney transplant recipients undergo early steroid withdrawal (ESW) for maintenance immunosuppression. However, there is no consensus on which patients are suitable for ESW, and transplant centers may disagree on how various clinical factors characterize individual recipients' suitability for ESW. METHODS:To examine center-level variation in the association of clinical factors with the choice of ESW, we studied 206 544 kidney transplant recipients from 278 centers in 2002-2017 using SRTR data. We conducted multi-level logistic regressions to characterize the association of clinical factors with the choice of ESW at each transplant center. RESULTS:). When estimated at each center, this odds ratio was significantly lower than the population odds ratio at 48 (17.3%) centers and significantly higher at 28 (10.1%) centers. CONCLUSIONS:We have observed apparent inconsistencies across transplant centers in the practice of tailoring ESW to the recipient's risk profile. Standardized guidelines for ESW tailoring are needed.

BACKGROUND:Although the population of older transplant recipients has increased dramatically, there are limited data describing the impact of immunosuppression regimen choice on outcomes in this recipient group. METHODS:National data for US Medicare-insured adult kidney recipients (N = 67 362; 2005-2016) were examined to determine early immunosuppression regimen and associations with acute rejection, death-censored graft failure, and mortality using multivariable regression analysis in younger (18-64 y) and older (>65 y) adults. RESULTS:The use of antithymocyte globulin (TMG) or alemtuzumab (ALEM) induction with triple maintenance immunosuppression (reference) was less common in older compared with younger (36.9% versus 47.0%) recipients, as was TMG/ALEM + steroid avoidance (19.2% versus 20.1%) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi)-based (6.7% versus 7.7%) treatments. Conversely, older patients were more likely to receive interleukin (IL)-2-receptor antibody (IL2rAb) + triple maintenance (21.1% versus 14.7%), IL2rAb + steroid avoidance (4.1% versus 1.8%), and cyclosporine-based (8.3% versus 6.6%) immunosuppression. Compared with older recipients treated with TMG/ALEM + triple maintenance (reference regimen), those managed with TMG/ALEM + steroid avoidance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.440.520.61) and IL2rAb + steroid avoidance (aOR, 0.390.550.79) had lower risk of acute rejection. Older patients experienced more death-censored graft failure when managed with Tac + antimetabolite avoidance (adjusted hazard [aHR], 1.411.782.25), mTORi-based (aHR, 1.702.142.71), and cyclosporine-based (aHR, 1.411.782.25) regimens, versus the reference regimen. mTORi-based and cyclosporine-based regimens were associated with increased mortality in both older and younger patients. CONCLUSIONS:Lower-intensity immunosuppression regimens (eg, steroid-sparing) appear beneficial for older kidney transplant recipients, while mTORi and cyclosporine-based maintenance immunosuppression are associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplant recipients have higher risk of infectious diseases due to their reliance on immunosuppression. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, some clinicians might have opted for less potent immunosuppressive agents to counterbalance the novel infectious risk. We conducted a nationwide study to characterize immunosuppression use and subsequent clinical outcomes during the first 5 months of COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS:Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied all kidney-only recipients in the United States from January 1, 2017, to March 12, 2020 ("prepandemic" era; n = 64 849) and from March 13, 2020, to July 31, 2020 ("pandemic" era; n = 5035). We compared the use of lymphocyte-depleting agents (versus basiliximab or no induction) and maintenance steroids (versus steroid avoidance/withdrawal) in the pandemic era compared with the prepandemic era. Then, we compared early posttransplant outcomes by immunosuppression regimen during the pandemic era. RESULTS:Recipients in the pandemic era were substantially less likely to receive lymphocyte-depleting induction agents compared with their prepandemic counterparts (aOR = 0.400.530.69); similar trends were found across subgroups of state-level COVID-19 incidence, donor type, and recipient age. However, lymphocyte-depleting induction agents were associated with decreased rejection during admission (aOR = 0.110.230.47) but not with increased mortality in the pandemic era (aHR = 0.130.471.66). On the other hand, the use of maintenance steroids versus early steroid withdrawal remained similar (aOR = 0.711.071.62). CONCLUSIONS:The use of lymphocyte-depleting induction agents has decreased in favor of basiliximab and no induction during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this shift might have resulted in increases in rejection with no clear reductions in posttransplant mortality.

BACKGROUND:Physical frailty phenotype is characterized by decreased physiologic reserve to stressors and associated with poor outcomes, such as delirium and mortality, that may result from post-kidney transplant (KT) inflammation. Despite a hypothesized underlying pro-inflammatory state, conventional measures of frailty typically do not incorporate inflammatory biomarkers directly. Among KT candidates and recipients, we evaluated the inclusion of inflammatory biomarkers with traditional physical frailty phenotype components. METHODS:Among 1154 KT candidates and recipients with measures of physical frailty phenotype and inflammation (interleukin 6 [IL6], tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNFα], C-reactive protein [CRP]) at 2 transplant centers (2009-2017), we evaluated construct validity of inflammatory-frailty using latent class analysis. Inflammatory-frailty measures combined 5 physical frailty phenotype components plus the addition of an individual inflammatory biomarkers, separately (highest tertiles) as a sixth component. We then used Kaplan-Meier methods and adjusted Cox proportional hazards to assess post-KT mortality risk by inflammatory-frailty (n = 378); Harrell's C-statistics assessed risk prediction (discrimination). RESULTS:Based on fit criteria, a 2-class solution (frail vs nonfrail) for inflammatory-frailty was the best-fitting model. Five-year survival (frail vs nonfrail) was: 81% versus 93% (IL6-frailty), 87% versus 89% (CRP-frailty), and 83% versus 91% (TNFα-frailty). Mortality was 2.07-fold higher for IL6-frail recipients (95% CI: 1.03-4.19, p = .04); there were no associations between the mortality and the other inflammatory-frailty indices (TNFα-frail: 1.88, 95% CI: 0.95-3.74, p = .07; CRP-frail: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.52-2.03, p = .95). However, none of the frailty-inflammatory indices (all C-statistics = 0.71) improved post-KT mortality risk prediction over the physical frailty phenotype (C-statistics = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS:Measurement of IL6-frailty at transplantation can inform which patients should be targeted for pre-KT interventions. However, the traditional physical frailty phenotype is sufficient for post-KT mortality risk prediction.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Frailty, as measured by the Liver Frailty Index (LFI), is associated with liver transplant (LT) waitlist mortality. We sought to identify an optimal LFI cutoff that predicts waitlist mortality. APPROACH AND RESULTS:Adults with cirrhosis awaiting LT without hepatocellular carcinoma at nine LT centers in the United States with LFI assessments were included. Multivariable competing risk analysis assessed the relationship between LFI and waitlist mortality. We identified a single LFI cutoff by evaluating the fit of the competing risk models, searching for the cutoff that gave the best model fit (as judged by the pseudo-log-likelihood). We ascertained the area under the curve (AUC) in an analysis of waitlist mortality to find optimal cutoffs at 3, 6, or 12 months. We used the AUC to compare the discriminative ability of LFI+Model for End Stage Liver Disease-sodium (MELDNa) versus MELDNa alone in 3-month waitlist mortality prediction. Of 1,405 patients, 37 (3%), 82 (6%), and 135 (10%) experienced waitlist mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. LFI was predictive of waitlist mortality across a broad LFI range: 3.7-5.2. We identified an optimal LFI cutoff of 4.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-4.8) for 3-month mortality, 4.2 (95% CI, 4.1-4.4) for 6-month mortality, and 4.2 (95% CI, 4.1-4.4) for 12-month mortality. The AUC for prediction of 3-month mortality for MELDNa was 0.73; the addition of LFI to MELDNa improved the AUC to 0.79. CONCLUSIONS:LFI is predictive of waitlist mortality across a wide spectrum of LFI values. The optimal LFI cutoff for waitlist mortality was 4.4 at 3 months and 4.2 at 6 and 12 months. The discriminative performance of LFI+MELDNa was greater than MELDNa alone. Our data suggest that incorporating LFI with MELDNa can more accurately represent waitlist mortality in LT candidates.

BACKGROUND:Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) affects nearly all patients on maintenance dialysis therapy. SHPT treatment options have considerably evolved over the past 2 decades, but vary in degree of improvement in SHPT. Therefore, we hypothesize that the risks of adverse outcomes after kidney transplantation (KT) may differ by SHPT treatment. METHODS:Using the SRTR and Medicare claims data, we identified 5,094 adults (age≥18) treated with cinacalcet or parathyroidectomy for SHPT prior to receiving KT between 2007-2016. We quantified the association between SHPT treatment and delayed graft function and acute rejection using adjusted logistic models and tertiary hyperparathyroidism (THPT), graft failure, and death using adjusted Cox proportional hazards; we tested whether these associations differed by patient characteristics. RESULTS:Of 5094 KT recipients who were treated for SHPT while on dialysis, 228 (4.5%) underwent parathyroidectomy and 4866 (95.5%) received cinacalcet. There was no association between treatment of SHPT and posttransplant delayed graft function, graft failure or death. However, compared to patients treated with cinacalcet, those treated with parathyroidectomy had a lower risk of developing THPT (aHR=0.56, 95%CI: 0.35-0.89) post-KT. Furthermore, this risk differed by dialysis vintage (pinteraction=0.039). Among patients on maintenance dialysis therapy for ≥3 years prior to KT (n=3,477, 68.3%), the risk of developing THPT was lower when treated with parathyroidectomy (aHR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.24-0.79). CONCLUSIONS:Parathyroidectomy should be considered as treatment for SHPT, especially in KT candidates on maintenance dialysis for ≥3 years. Additionally, patients treated with cinacalcet for SHPT should undergo close surveillance for development of tertiary hyperparathyroidism post-KT.

BACKGROUND:Placing an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in older hemodialysis patients at great risk of primary failure leads to prolonged dependency on central venous catheter (CVC). A model which accurately predicts AVF maturation can facilitate better clinical determination for AVF placement. METHODS:We assembled a retrospective cohort of 14 892 patients aged 67 years and older who started hemodialysis with a CVC between 7/1/2010 and 6/30/2012 and had a subsequent, incident AVF placement from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). We used random survival forests (RSF) with competing risks to identify important predictors for AVF maturation. RESULTS:Approximately 49.7% patients achieved AVF maturation and 13.6% had a competing event. The median time to maturation was 4 (IQR: 3-5) months. Patient's gender had the highest variable importance (VIMP, 0.0027), followed by race, being institutionalized, days on hemodialysis without an AVF, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and body mass index with borderline importance (VIMP ≥0.0005). The out-of-bag (OOB) error rate of the RSF was 45.3% and 45.8% for AVF maturation in the training and validation data sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Predictors in USRDS data have limited ability to predict AVF maturation. Patient's gender might be considered as the most important predictor for AVF maturation.