Faculty Bibliography

Hypertension guidelines recommend calcium channel blockers (CCBs), thiazide diuretics, and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs) as first-line agents to treat hypertension. Hypertension is common among kidney transplant (KTx) recipients, but data are limited regarding patterns of antihypertensive medication (AHM) use in this population. We examined a novel database that links national registry data for adult KTx recipients (age > 18 years) with AHM fill records from a pharmaceutical claims warehouse (2007-2016) to describe use and correlates of AHM use during months 7-12 post-transplant. For patients filling AHMs, individual agents used included: dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs, 55.6%; beta-blockers (BBs), 52.8%; diuretics, 30.0%; ACEi/ARBs, 21.1%; non-DHP CCBs, 3.0%; and others, 20.1%. Both BB and ACEi/ARB use were significantly lower in the time period following the 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guidelines (2014-2016), compared with an earlier period (2007-2013). The median odds ratios generated from case-factor adjusted models supported variation in use of ACEi/ARBs (1.51) and BBs (1.55) across transplant centers. Contrary to hypertension guidelines for the general population, KTx recipients are prescribed relatively more BBs and fewer ACEi/ARBs. The clinical impact of this AHM prescribing pattern warrants further study.

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non-SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005-2007:_13.15 15.28_17.74 ; 2008-2011:_11.77 13.41_15.29 ; 2012-2014:_9.87 11.37_13.10 ; 2015-2017:_7.79 8.89_10.15 , P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: _0.43 0.54_0.68 , P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: _0.42 0.53_0.67 , P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.21 , P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.20 , P = .6) to recipients of non-SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool.

BACKGROUND:Delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with inferior posttransplant outcomes in kidney transplantation. Given these adverse outcomes, we sought to determine the incidence, unique risk factors, and posttransplant outcomes for simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) transplant recipients developing DGF. METHODS:We studied 6214 adult SLK recipients from March 2002 to February 2017 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We determined associations between risk factors and DGF using Poisson multivariate regression and between DGF and graft failure and mortality using Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS:The overall rate of DGF was 21.8%. Risk factors for DGF in the hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipient population included pretransplant dialysis (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 3.26, P = 0.004), donor body mass index (aIRR 1.25 per 5 kg/m, P = 0.01), and transplantation with a donation after circulatory death (aIRR 5.38, P = 0.001) or imported donor organ (regional share aIRR 1.69, P = 0.03; national share aIRR 4.82, P < 0.001). DGF was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in kidney graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.63, P < 0.001), 1.6-fold increase in liver graft failure (aHR 1.62, P < 0.001), and 1.6-fold increase in mortality (aHR 1.62, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In HCV-negative SLK recipients, recipient pretransplant dialysis and components of kidney graft quality comprise significant risk factors for DGF. Regardless of HCV status, DGF is associated with inferior posttransplant outcomes. Understanding these risk factors during clinical decision-making may improve prevention of DGF and may represent an opportunity to improve posttransplant outcomes.

BACKGROUND:End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients are living longer, often into older age, and commonly pursue kidney transplantation. Successful aging, a multidimensional construct of physical and social wellbeing, has been expanded and adapted for patients with chronic disease. However, perceptions of, barriers to, and experiences with successful aging among adults with ESKD are unclear and likely differ based on whether they have received a kidney transplant. METHODS:Ten focus groups were held with 39 total ESKD patients aged ≥50 years (19 transplant candidates, 20 transplant recipients). Transcriptions were analyzed thematically by 2 independent coders using an inductive, constant comparative approach. RESULTS:The mean age was 64.8 (SD = 7.5); 51% were African American and 64% were males. Six themes were identified: familiarity with successful aging, perceptions of successful aging after ESKD diagnosis, barriers to successful aging, experiences with successful aging among transplant candidates, experiences with successful aging among transplant recipients, and suggested interventions. While all participants sought to achieve successful aging while living with ESKD, experiences with successful aging differed between candidates and recipients. Candidates struggled with the limitations of dialysis; some viewed transplantation as an opportunity to age successfully, while others were resigned to the drawbacks of dialysis. In contrast, transplant recipients were optimistic about their ability to age successfully, believing their transplant facilitated successful aging. Participants believed support groups for adults with ESKD and more thoughtful health care for aging adults would promote successful aging. CONCLUSIONS:Adults with ESKD may benefit from discussions with their clinicians and caregivers about goals, barriers, and strategies regarding successful aging.

BACKGROUND:Observed long-term outcomes no longer reflect the survival trajectory facing pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients today. We aimed to use national registry data and parametric models to project 20- and 30-year post-transplant outcomes for recently transplanted pediatric LT recipients. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 13,442 first-time pediatric (age <18) LT recipients using 1987 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We validated the proposed method (ie, to project long-term patient and graft survival using parametric survival models and short-term data) in 2 historic cohorts (1987-1996 and 1997-2006) and estimated long-term projections among patients transplanted between 2007 and 2018. Projections were stratified by raft type, recipient age, and indication for transplant. RESULTS:Parsimonious parametric models with Weibull distribution can be applied to post-transplant data and used to project long-term outcomes for pediatric LT recipients beyond observed data. Projected 20-year patient survival for pediatric LT recipients transplanted in 2007 to 2018 was 84.0% (95% confidence interval 81.5-85.8), compared to observed 20-year survival of 72.8% and 63.6% among those transplanted in 1997 to 2006 and 1987 to 1996, respectively. Projected 30-year survival for pediatric LT recipients in 2007 to 2018 was 80.1% (75.2-82.7), compared to projected 30-year survival of 68.6% (66.1-70.9) in the 1997 to 2006 cohort and observed 30-year survival of 57.5% in the 1987 to 1996 cohort. Twenty- and 30-year patient and graft survival varied slightly by recipient age, graft type, and indication for transplant. CONCLUSIONS:Projected long-term outcomes for recently transplanted pediatric LT recipients are excellent, reflective of substantial improvements in medical care, and informative for physician-patient education and decision making in the current era.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:In the United States, kidney paired donation networks have facilitated an increasing proportion of kidney transplants annually, but transplant outcome differences beyond 5 years between paired donation and other living donor kidney transplant recipients have not been well described. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:), and transplant factors (zero HLA mismatch). RESULTS:=0.2) between National Kidney Registry and control recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Even after transplanting patients with greater risk factors for worse post-transplant outcomes, nationalized paired donation results in equivalent outcomes when compared with control living donor kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND:Given the potential utility of frailty, a clinical phenotype of decreased physiologic reserve and resistance to stressors, to predict postkidney transplant (KT) outcomes, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices regarding frailty measurement in US KT programs. METHODS:Surveys were emailed to American Society of Transplantation Kidney/Pancreas Community of Practice members and 202 US transplant programs (November 2017 to April 2018). Program characteristics were gleaned from Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. RESULTS:The 133 responding programs (response rate = 66%) represented 77% of adult KTs and 79% of adult KT candidates in the United States. Respondents considered frailty to be a useful concept in evaluating candidacy (99%) and endorsed a need to develop a frailty measurement specific to KT (92%). Frailty measurement was more common during candidacy evaluation (69%) than during KT admission (28%). Of the 202 programs, 38% performed frailty assessments in all candidates while 23% performed assessments only for older candidates. There was heterogeneity in the frailty assessment method; 18 different tools were utilized to measure frailty. The most common tool was a timed walk test (19%); 67% reported performing >1 tool. Among programs that measure frailty, 53% reported being less likely to list frail patients for KT. CONCLUSIONS:Among US KT programs, frailty is recognized as a clinically relevant construct and is commonly measured at evaluation. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the tools used to measure frailty. Efforts to identify optimal measurement of frailty using either an existing or a novel tool and subsequent standardization of its measurement and application across KT programs should be considered.

We represent a group of investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01AI120938, U01AI134591, U01AI138897) to conduct a prospective multicenter study of the landscape of HIV-infected (HIV+) donors and two prospective multicenter trials comparing outcomes between HIV+ recipients of HIV+ and non-HIV+ donor kidneys and livers. These clinical trials are ongoing (NCT02602262, NCT03500315, NCT03734393).

BACKGROUND:Evidence about the reliability of pre-implantation biopsy is still conflicting, depending on both biopsy type and pathologist's expertise. Aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement of general v specialist pathologists and to compare scores on biopsy and whole organs in a set of discarded kidneys. METHODS:46 discarded kidneys were identified with their corresponding biopsies. The biopsies were reviewed by three general and two specialist pathologists, blinded to the original report, according to Remuzzi score. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both groups. Discarded kidneys were scored according to Remuzzi score by a single specialist pathologist. Biopsies and organs were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted κ coefficients between biopsy and organ scores were also calculated. RESULTS:Specialist pathologists achieved higher values of ICC, reaching excellent or good agreement in most of the parameters, while general pathologists values were mainly fair or good. On whole organs, scores were consistently lower than biopsies, with a significant difference in most of the parameters. Weighted κ coefficient was slight or fair for most of the parameters. CONCLUSIONS:Our data suggests that the creation of a pool of specialist pathologists would improve organ utilization. Moreover, biopsies are not representative of the whole organ. As the Remuzzi score on biopsy is a major reasons for discard, a quota of transplantable kidneys may be erroneously discarded. Refinement in Remuzzi cut-offs based on expert reporting and recognition of sampling error of biopsies in correlation with clinical outcome data should be undertaken.