Faculty Bibliography

Low T cell counts and acute rejection are associated with increased cardiovascular events (CVEs); T cell-depleting agents decrease both. Thus, we aimed to characterize the risk of CVEs by using an induction agent used in kidney transplant recipients. We conducted a secondary data analysis of patients who received a kidney transplant and used Medicare as their primary insurance from 1999 to 2010. Outcomes of interest were incident CVE, all-cause mortality, CVE-related mortality, and a composite outcome of mortality and CVE. Of 47 258 recipients, 29.3% received IL-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2RA), 33.3% received anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), 7.3% received alemtuzumab, and 30.0% received no induction. Compared with IL-2RA, there was no difference in the risk of CVE in the ATG (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.05) and alemtuzumab group (aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89-1.16), but slightly higher in the no induction group (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Acute rejection did not modify this association in the latter group but did increase CVE by 46% in the alemtuzumab group. There was no difference in the hazard of all-cause or CVE-related mortality. Only in the ATG group, a 7% lower hazard of the composite outcome of mortality and CVE was noted. Induction agents are not associated with incident CVE, although prospective trials are needed to determine a personalized approach to prevention.

In the United States, kidney donation from international (noncitizen/nonresident) living kidney donors (LKDs) is permitted; however, given the heterogeneity of healthcare systems, concerns remain regarding the international LKD practice and recipient outcomes. We studied a US cohort of 102 315 LKD transplants from 2000-2016, including 2088 international LKDs, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. International LKDs were more tightly clustered among a small number of centers than domestic LKDs (Gini coefficient 0.76 vs 0.58, P < .001). Compared with domestic LKDs, international LKDs were more often young, male, Hispanic or Asian, and biologically related to their recipient (P < .001). Policy-compliant donor follow-up was substantially lower for international LKDs at 6, 12, and 24 months postnephrectomy (2015 cohort: 45%, 33%, 36% vs 76%, 71%, 70% for domestic LKDs, P < .001). Among international LKDs, Hispanic (aOR = _0.23 0.36_0.56 , P < .001) and biologically related (aOR = _0.39 0.59_0.89 , P < .01) donors were more compliant in donor follow-up than white and unrelated donors. Recipients of international living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) had similar graft failure (aHR = _0.78 0.89_1.02 , P = .1) but lower mortality (aHR = _0.53 0.62_0.72 , P < .001) compared with the recipients of domestic LDKT after adjusting for recipient, transplant, and donor factors. International LKDs may provide an alternative opportunity for living donation. However, efforts to improve international LKD follow-up and engagement are warranted.

BACKGROUND:Every year, more than 5500 healthy people in the United States donate a kidney for the medical benefit of another person. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) requires transplant hospitals to monitor living kidney donors (LKDs) for 2 years postdonation. However, the majority (115/202, 57%) of transplant hospitals in the United States continue to fail to meet nationally mandated requirements for LKD follow-up. A novel method for collecting LKD follow-up is needed to ease both the transplant hospital-level and patient-level burden. We built mKidney-a mobile health (mHealth) system designed specifically to facilitate the collection and reporting of OPTN-required LKD follow-up data. The mKidney mobile app was developed on the basis of input elicited from LKDs, transplant providers, and thought leaders. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the mKidney smartphone app on LKD follow-up rates. METHODS:We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with LKDs who undergo LKD transplantation at Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. Eligible participants will be recruited in-person by a study team member at their 1-week postdonation clinical visit and randomly assigned to the intervention or control arm (1:1). Participants in the intervention arm will receive the mHealth intervention (mKidney), and participants in the control arm will receive the current standard of follow-up care. Our primary outcome will be policy-defined complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after the expected visit date) submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year visits. Our secondary outcome will be hospital-level compliance with OPTN reporting requirements at each visit. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Additionally, we will collect quantitative and qualitative process data regarding the implementation of the mKidney system. RESULTS:We began recruitment for this RCT in May 2018. We plan to enroll 400 LKDs over 2 years and follow participants for the 2-year mandated follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS:This pilot RCT will evaluate the impact of the mKidney system on rates of LKD and hospital compliance with OPTN-mandated LKD follow-up at a large LKD transplant hospital. It will provide valuable information on strategies for implementing such a system in a clinical setting and inform effect sizes for future RCT sample size calculations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)/UNASSIGNED:DERR1-10.2196/11000.

Importance:In light of the growing population of older adults in the United States, older donors (aged ≥70 years) represent an expansion of the donor pool; however, their organs are underused. Liver grafts from older donors were historically associated with poor outcomes and higher discard rates, but clinical protocols, organ allocation, and the donor pool have changed in the past 15 years. Objective:To evaluate trends in demographics, discard rates, and outcomes among older liver donors and transplant recipients of livers from older donors in a large national cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants:Prospective cohort study of 4127 liver grafts from older donors and 3350 liver-only recipients of older donor grafts and 78 990 liver grafts from younger donors (aged 18-69 years) and 64 907 liver-only recipients of younger donor grafts between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016, in the United States. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which includes data on all transplant recipients in the United States that are submitted by members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, was used. Exposures:Year of liver transplant and age of liver donor. Main Outcomes and Measures:Odds of graft discard and posttransplant outcomes of all-cause graft loss and mortality. Results:In this study, 4127 liver grafts from older donors were recovered for liver transplant across the study period (2003-2016); 747 liver grafts from older donors were discarded, and 3350 liver grafts from older donors were used for liver-only recipients. After adjusting for donor characteristics other than age and accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation, liver grafts from older donors were more likely to be discarded compared with liver grafts from younger donors in 2003-2006 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31), 2007-2009 (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.17-3.01), 2010-2013 (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68-2.46), and 2013-2016 (aOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.96-2.86) (P < .001 for all). Transplants of liver grafts from older donors represented a progressively lower proportion of all adult liver transplants, from 6.0% (n = 258 recipients) in 2003 to 3.2% (n = 211 recipients) in 2016 (P = .001). However, outcomes in recipients of grafts from older donors improved over time, with 40% lower graft loss risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .001) and 41% lower mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68; P < .001) in 2010 through 2016 vs 2003 through 2009; these results were beyond the general temporal improvements in graft loss (interaction P = .03) and mortality risk (interaction P = .04) among recipients of liver grafts from younger donors. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings show that from 2003 to 2016, liver graft loss and mortality among recipients of liver grafts from older donors improved; however, liver graft discard from older donors remained increased and the number of transplants performed with liver grafts from older donors decreased. Expansion of the donor pool through broader use of liver grafts from older donors might be reasonable.

BACKGROUND:Kidneys from infectious risk donors (IRD) confer substantial survival benefit in adults, yet the benefit of IRD kidneys to pediatric candidates remains unclear in the context of high waitlist prioritization. METHODS:Using 2010-2016 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we studied 2417 pediatric candidates (age <18 y) who were offered an IRD kidney that was eventually used for transplantation. We followed candidates from the date of first IRD kidney offer until the date of death or censorship and used Cox regression to estimate mortality risk associated with IRD kidney acceptance versus decline, adjusting for age, sex, race, diagnosis, and dialysis time. RESULTS:Over the study period, 2250 (93.1%) pediatric candidates declined and 286 (11.8%) accepted an IRD kidney offer; 119 (41.6%) of the 286 had previously declined a different IRD kidney. Cumulative survival among those who accepted versus declined the IRD kidney was 99.6% versus 99.4% and 96.3% versus 97.8% 1 and 6 years post decision, respectively (P = 0.1). Unlike the substantial survival benefit seen in adults (hazard ratio = 0.52), among pediatric candidates, we did not detect a survival benefit associated with accepting an IRD kidney (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.791.723.73, P = 0.2). However, those who declined IRD kidneys waited a median 9.6 months for a non-IRD kidney transplant (11.2 mo among those <6 y, 8.8 mo among those on dialysis). Kidney donor profile index (KDPI) of the eventually accepted non-IRD kidneys (median = 13, interquartile range = 6-23) was similar to KDPI of the declined IRD kidneys (median = 16, interquartile range = 9-28). CONCLUSIONS:Unlike in adults, IRD kidneys conferred no survival benefit to pediatric candidates, although they did reduce waiting times. The decision to accept IRD kidneys should balance the advantage of faster transplantation against the risk of infectious transmission.

BACKGROUND:The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented Share 35 on June 18, 2013, to broaden deceased donor liver sharing within regional boundaries. We investigated whether increased sharing under Share 35 impacted geographic disparity in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) across donation service areas (DSAs). METHODS:Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients June 2009 to June 2017, we identified 86 083 adult liver transplant candidates and retrospectively estimated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-adjusted DDLT rates using nested multilevel Poisson regression with random intercepts for DSA and transplant program. From the variance in DDLT rates across 49 DSAs and 102 programs, we derived the DSA-level median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of DDLT rates. MIRR is a robust metric of heterogeneity across each hierarchical level; larger MIRR indicates greater disparity. RESULTS:MIRR was 2.18 pre-Share 35 and 2.16 post-Share 35. Thus, 2 candidates with the same MELD in 2 different DSAs were expected to have a 2.2-fold difference in DDLT rate driven by geography alone. After accounting for program-level heterogeneity, MIRR was attenuated to 2.10 pre-Share 35 and 1.96 post-Share 35. For candidates with MELD 15-34, MIRR decreased from 2.51 pre- to 2.27 post-Share 35, and for candidates with MELD 35-40, MIRR increased from 1.46 pre- to 1.51 post-Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity in DDLT. DSA-level heterogeneity in DDLT rates was greater than program-level heterogeneity pre- and post-Share 35. CONCLUSIONS:Geographic disparity substantially impacted DDLT rates before and after Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity and particularly for candidates with MELD 35-40. Despite broader sharing, geography remains a major determinant of access to DDLT.

Several single-center reports of using HCV-viremic organs for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV- recipients (HCV D+/R-) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015-December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center-level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R- KTs and LTs. HCV-viremic (NAT+) D+/R- KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV-aviremic (Ab+/NAT-) D+/R- KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2-1.6) and 1.6 (0.4-3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5-4.0) among HCV D-/R-. HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21-30) and 25 (21-32) at transplantation versus 29 (23-36) among HCV D-/R-. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R- transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R- transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R- transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R- transplantation.

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates often have multiple potential living donors (LDs); no evidence-based tool exists to compare potential LDs, or to decide between marginal LDs and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation (KT). We developed a pediatric living kidney donor profile index (P-LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI by using Cox regression to model the risk of all-cause graft loss as a function of living donor characteristics and DD KDPI. HLA-B mismatch (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per mismatch = _1.04 1.27_1.55 ), HLA-DR mismatch (aHR per mismatch = _1.02 1.23_1.49 ), ABO incompatibility (aHR = _1.20 3.26_8.81 ), donor systolic blood pressure (aHR per 10 mm Hg = _1.01 1.07_1.18 ), and donor estimated GFR (eGFR; aHR per 10 mL/min/1.73 m² = _0.88 0.94_0.99 ) were associated with graft loss after LDKT. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) P-LKDPI was -25 (-56 to 12). 68% of donors had P-LKDPI <0 (less risk than any DD kidney) and 25% of donors had P-LKDPI >14 (more risk than median DD kidney among pediatric KT recipients during the study period). Strata of LDKT recipients of kidneys with higher P-LKDPI had a higher cumulative incidence of graft loss (39% at 10 years for P-LDKPI ≥20, 28% for 20> P-LKDPI ≥-20, 23% for -20 > P-LKDPI ≥-60, 19% for P-LKDPI <-60 [log rank P < .001]). The P-LKDPI can aid in organ selection for pediatric KT recipients by allowing comparison of potential LD and DD kidneys.

The number of live kidney donors has declined since 2005. This decline parallels the evolving knowledge of risk for biologically related, black, and younger donors. To responsibly promote donation, we sought to identify declining low-risk donor subgroups that might serve as targets for future interventions. We analyzed a national registry of 77 427 donors and quantified the change in number of donors per 5-year increment from 2005 to 2017 using Poisson regression stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity. Among related donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors declined by 21%, 29%, and 3%; black donors declined by 30%, 31%, and 12%; Hispanic donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years declined by 18% and 15%, and those aged ≥50 increased by 10%. Conversely, among unrelated donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors increased by 12%, 4%, and 24%; black donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years did not change but those aged ≥50 years increased by 34%; Hispanic donors increased by 16%, 21%, and 46%. Unlike unrelated donors, related donors were less likely to donate in recent years across race/ethnicity. Although this decline might be understandable for related younger donors, it is less understandable for lower-risk related older donors (≥50 years). Biologically related older individuals are potential targets for interventions to promote donation.