Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Maternal micronutrient deficiencies may adversely affect fetal and infant health, yet there is insufficient evidence of effects on these outcomes to guide antenatal micronutrient supplementation in South Asia. OBJECTIVE:To assess effects of antenatal multiple micronutrient vs iron-folic acid supplementation on 6-month infant mortality and adverse birth outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Cluster randomized, double-masked trial in Bangladesh, with pregnancy surveillance starting December 4, 2007, and recruitment on January 11, 2008. Six-month infant follow-up ended August 30, 2012. Surveillance included 127,282 women; 44,567 became pregnant and were included in the analysis and delivered 28,516 live-born infants. Median gestation at enrollment was 9 weeks (interquartile range, 7-12). INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Women were provided supplements containing 15 micronutrients or iron-folic acid alone, taken daily from early pregnancy to 12 weeks postpartum. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/METHODS:The primary outcome was all-cause infant mortality through 6 months (180 days). Prespecified secondary outcomes in this analysis included stillbirth, preterm birth (<37 weeks), and low birth weight (<2500 g). To maintain overall significance of α = .05, a Bonferroni-corrected α = .01 was calculated to evaluate statistical significance of primary and 4 secondary risk outcomes (.05/5). RESULTS:Among the 22,405 pregnancies in the multiple micronutrient group and the 22,162 pregnancies in the iron-folic acid group, there were 14,374 and 14,142 live-born infants, respectively, included in the analysis. At 6 months, multiple micronutrients did not significantly reduce infant mortality; there were 764 deaths (54.0 per 1000 live births) in the iron-folic acid group and 741 deaths (51.6 per 1000 live births) in the multiple micronutrient group (relative risk [RR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86-1.06). Multiple micronutrient supplementation resulted in a non-statistically significant reduction in stillbirths (43.1 vs 48.2 per 1000 births; RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99; P = .02) and significant reductions in preterm births (18.6 vs 21.8 per 100 live births; RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91; P < .001) and low birth weight (40.2 vs 45.7 per 100 live births; RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:In Bangladesh, antenatal multiple micronutrient compared with iron-folic acid supplementation did not reduce all-cause infant mortality to age 6 months but resulted in a non-statistically significant reduction in stillbirths and significant reductions in preterm births and low birth weight. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00860470.

Recent allocation policy changes have increased the sharing of deceased donor livers across local boundaries, and sharing even broader than this has been proposed as a remedy for persistent geographic disparities in liver transplantation. It is possible that broader sharing may increase cold ischemia times (CITs) and thus harm recipients. We constructed a detailed model of transport modes (car, helicopter, and fixed-wing aircraft) and transport times between all hospitals, and we investigated the relationship between the transport time and the CIT for deceased donor liver transplants. The median estimated transport time was 2.0 hours for regionally shared livers and 1.0 hour for locally allocated livers. The model-predicted transport mode was flying for 90% of regionally shared livers but for only 22% of locally allocated livers. The median CIT was 7.0 hours for regionally shared livers and 6.0 hours for locally allocated livers. Variation in the transport time accounted for only 14.7% of the variation in the CIT, and the transport time on average composed only 21% of the CIT. In conclusion, nontransport factors play a substantially larger role in the CIT than the transport time. Broader sharing will have only a marginal impact on the CIT but will significantly increase the fraction of transplants that are transported by flying rather than driving.

The Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) has been introduced as an aid to evaluating deceased donor kidney offers, but the relative benefit of high-KDPI kidney transplantation (KT) versus the clinical alternative (remaining on the waitlist until receipt of a lower KDPI kidney) remains unknown. Using time-dependent Cox regression, we evaluated the mortality risk associated with high-KDPI KT (KDPI 71-80, 81-90 or 91-100) versus a conservative, lower KDPI approach (remain on waitlist until receipt of KT with KDPI 0-70, 0-80 or 0-90) in first-time adult registrants, adjusting for candidate characteristics. High-KDPI KT was associated with increased short-term but decreased long-term mortality risk. Recipients of KDPI 71-80 KT, KDPI 81-90 KT and KDPI 91-100 KT reached a "break-even point" of cumulative survival at 7.7, 18.0 and 19.8 months post-KT, respectively, and had a survival benefit thereafter. Cumulative survival at 5 years was better in all three high-KDPI groups than the conservative approach (p < 0.01 for each comparison). Benefit of high-KDPI KT was greatest in patients age >50 years and patients at centers with median wait time ≥33 months. Recipients of high-KDPI KT can enjoy better long-term survival; a high-KDPI score does not automatically constitute a reason to reject a deceased donor kidney.

The impact of kidney donation on the ability to change or initiate health or life insurance following donation is unknown. To quantify this risk, we surveyed 1046 individuals who donated a kidney at our center between 1970 and 2011. Participants were asked whether they changed or initiated health or life insurance after donation, and if they had any difficulty doing so. Among 395 donors who changed or initiated health insurance after donation, 27 (7%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 15 were denied altogether, 12 were charged a higher premium and 8 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. Among 186 donors who changed or initiated life insurance after donation, 46 (25%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 23 were denied altogether, 27 were charged a higher premium and 17 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. In this single-center study, a high proportion of kidney donors reported difficulty changing or initiating insurance, particularly life insurance. These practices by insurers create unnecessary burden and stress for those choosing to donate and could negatively impact the likelihood of live kidney donation among those considering donation.

The field of organ transplantation benefits from large, comprehensive, transplant-specific national data sets available to researchers. In addition to the widely used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)-based registries (the United Network for Organ Sharing and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data sets) and United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data sets, there are other publicly available national data sets, not specific to transplantation, which have historically been underutilized in the field of transplantation. Of particular interest are the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and State Inpatient Databases, produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The USRDS database provides extensive data relevant to studies of kidney transplantation. Linkage of publicly available data sets to external data sources such as private claims or pharmacy data provides further resources for registry-based research. Although these resources can transcend some limitations of OPTN-based registry data, they come with their own limitations, which must be understood to avoid biased inference. This review discusses different registry-based data sources available in the United States, as well as the proper design and conduct of registry-based research.

Incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) offers a survival advantage over dialysis to patients with anti-HLA donor-specific antibody (DSA). Program-specific reports (PSRs) fail to account for ILDKT, placing this practice at regulatory risk. We collected DSA data, categorized as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF) (n = 185), positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC) (n = 536) or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC) (n = 304), from 22 centers. We tested associations between DSA, graft loss and mortality after adjusting for PSR model factors, using 9669 compatible patients as a comparison. PLNF patients had similar graft loss; however, PFNC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-2.23, p = 0.007) and PCC (aHR = 5.01, 95% CI: 3.71-6.77, p < 0.001) were associated with increased graft loss in the first year. PLNF patients had similar mortality; however, PFNC (aHR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.28-3.26; p = 0.003) and PCC (aHR = 4.59; 95% CI: 2.98-7.07; p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality. We simulated Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services flagging to examine ILDKT's effect on the risk of being flagged. Compared to equal-quality centers performing no ILDKT, centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PFNC had a 1.19-, 1.33- and 1.73-fold higher odds of being flagged. Centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PCC had a 2.22-, 4.09- and 10.72-fold higher odds. Failure to account for ILDKT's increased risk places centers providing this life-saving treatment in jeopardy of regulatory intervention.

IMPORTANCE: Risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in kidney donors has been compared with risk faced by the general population, but the general population represents an unscreened, high-risk comparator. A comparison to similarly screened healthy nondonors would more properly estimate the sequelae of kidney donation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of ESRD in kidney donors with that of a healthy cohort of nondonors who are at equally low risk of renal disease and free of contraindications to live donation and to stratify these comparisons by patient demographics. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 96,217 kidney donors in the United States between April 1994 and November 2011 and a cohort of 20,024 participants of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) were linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to ascertain development of ESRD, which was defined as the initiation of maintenance dialysis, placement on the waiting list, or receipt of a living or deceased donor kidney transplant, whichever was identified first. Maximum follow-up was 15.0 years; median follow-up was 7.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9-11.5 years) for kidney donors and 15.0 years (IQR, 13.7-15.0 years) for matched healthy nondonors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative incidence and lifetime risk of ESRD. RESULTS: Among live donors, with median follow-up of 7.6 years (maximum, 15.0), ESRD developed in 99 individuals in a mean (SD) of 8.6 (3.6) years after donation. Among matched healthy nondonors, with median follow-up of 15.0 years (maximum, 15.0), ESRD developed in 36 nondonors in 10.7 (3.2) years, drawn from 17 ESRD events in the unmatched healthy nondonor pool of 9364. Estimated risk of ESRD at 15 years after donation was 30.8 per 10,000 (95% CI, 24.3-38.5) in kidney donors and 3.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.8-8.9) in their matched healthy nondonor counterparts (P < .001). This difference was observed in both black and white individuals, with an estimated risk of 74.7 per 10,000 black donors (95% CI, 47.8-105.8) vs 23.9 per 10,000 black nondonors (95% CI, 1.6-62.4; P < .001) and an estimated risk of 22.7 per 10,000 white donors (95% CI, 15.6-30.1) vs 0.0 white nondonors (P < .001). Estimated lifetime risk of ESRD was 90 per 10,000 donors, 326 per 10,000 unscreened nondonors (general population), and 14 per 10,000 healthy nondonors. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with matched healthy nondonors, kidney donors had an increased risk of ESRD over a median of 7.6 years; however, the magnitude of the absolute risk increase was small. These findings may help inform discussions with persons considering live kidney donation.