Faculty Bibliography

Cirrhosis is characterized by muscle wasting, malnutrition, and functional decline that confer excess mortality not well quantified by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Sodium (MELDNa) score. We aimed to develop a frailty index to capture these extrahepatic complications of cirrhosis and enhance mortality prediction in patients with cirrhosis. Consecutive outpatients listed for liver transplantation at a single transplant center without MELD exceptions were assessed with candidate frailty measures. Best subset selection analyses with Cox regression identified subsets of frailty measures that predicted waitlist mortality (=death or delisting because of sickness). We selected the frailty index by balancing statistical accuracy with clinical utility. The net reclassification index (NRI) evaluated the %patients correctly reclassified by adding the frailty index to MELDNa. Included were 536 patients with cirrhosis with median MELDNa of 18. One hundred seven (20%) died/were delisted. The final frailty index consisted of: grip strength, chair stands, and balance. The ability of MELDNa and the frailty index to correctly rank patients according to their 3-month waitlist mortality risk (i.e., concordance-statistic) was 0.80 and 0.76, respectively, but 0.82 for MELDNa+frailty index together. Compared with MELDNa alone, MELDNa+frailty index correctly reclassified 16% of deaths/delistings (P = 0.005) and 3% of nondeaths/delistings (P = 0.17) with a total NRI of 19% (P < 0.001). Compared to those with robust frailty index scores (<20th percentile), cirrhotics with poor frailty index scores (>80th percentile) were more impaired by gait speed, difficulty with Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, exhaustion, and low physical activity (P < 0.001 for each).

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Currently trials of immunosuppression in transplantation are in decline because their objectives remain focused on improving acute rejection rates and graft survival in the first 12 months. With 1 year renal graft survival rates of greater than 90% the best that can be hoped for is noninferiority trial outcomes compared with current standard of care. Current trial design is not leading to novel therapies improving long-term outcomes and safety, and hence important unmet clinical needs in transplantation remain unanswered. Issues that need to be addressed include but are not limited to: prevention of subclinical rejection in the first year, better 5- and 10-year graft outcomes, more effective treatment for high immunological risk and sensitized (including donor-specific antibody) patients, immunosuppressive combinations that are better tolerated by patients with fewer side effects and less morbidity and mortality. In September 2015, the Transplantation Society convened a group of transplant clinical trial experts to address these problems. The aims were to substantially realign the priorities of clinical trials for renal transplant immunosuppression with the current unmet needs and to propose new designs for clinical trials for transplant immunosuppression. Moving forward, the transplant community needs to provide trial data that will identify superior treatment options for patient subgroups and allow new agents to be evaluated for efficacy and safety and achieve timely regulatory approval. Trial designs for new transplant immunosuppression must be intelligently restructured to ensure that short- and long-term clinical outcomes continue to improve.

BACKGROUND:Annual visits with a primary care provider (PCP) are recommended for living kidney donors to monitor long-term health postdonation, yet adherence to this recommendation is unknown. METHODS:We surveyed 1170 living donors from our center from 1970 to 2012 to ascertain frequency of PCP visits pre- and postdonation. Interviews occurred median (IQR) 6.6 (3.8-11.0) years post-transplant. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between donor characteristics and PCP visit frequency. RESULTS:, P=.001). CONCLUSIONS:The importance of annual PCP visits should be emphasized to all living donors, especially those with less education, men (particularly single men), and donors who did not see their PCP annually before donation.

BACKGROUND:Living donor pancreas transplant is a potential treatment for diabetic patients with end-organ complications. Although early surgical risks of donation have been reported, long-term medical outcomes in living pancreas donors are not known. METHODS:We integrated national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (1987-2015) with records from a nationwide pharmacy claims warehouse (2005-2015) to examine prescriptions for diabetes medications and supplies as a measure of postdonation diabetes mellitus. To compare outcomes in controls with baseline good health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and year of donation. RESULTS:Among 73 pancreas donors in the study period, 45 were identified in the pharmacy database: 62% women, 84% white, and 80% relatives of the recipient. Over a mean postdonation follow-up period of 16.3 years, 26.7% of pancreas donors filled prescriptions for diabetes treatments, compared with 5.9% of kidney donors (odds ratio, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-8.93; P = 0.0003). Use of insulin (11.1% vs 0%) and oral agents (20.0% vs 5.9%; odds ratio, 4.50, 95% confidence interval, 2.09-9.68; P = 0.0001) was also higher in pancreas donors. CONCLUSIONS:Diabetes is more common after living pancreas donation than after living kidney donation, supporting clinical consequences from reduced endocrine reserve.

Kidney transplantation has become a routine procedure in the treatment of patients with kidney failure, and requires collaboration of experts from different disciplines, such as nephrology, surgery, immunology, pathology, infectious disease medicine, cardiology, and oncology. Grafts can be obtained from deceased or living donors, with different logistical requirements and implications for long-term graft patency. 1-year graft survival rates are greater than 95% in many centres but improvement of long-term function remains a challenge. New developments in molecular immunology and computational biology have increased precision of donor and recipient matching of HLA and non-HLA compatibility. Individual omics-wide molecular diagnostics, extracorporeal therapies, and drug developments allow for precise individual decision making and treatment. Tolerance induction by mixed chimerism without toxic conditioning and with a low risk of graft versus host disease is a visionary but realistic goal. Some of these innovations are already used in modern transplant centres and will allow advancement in long-term allograft preservation.

Older patients with ESRD who receive a kidney transplant (KT) may develop post-KT dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) associated with their long-standing kidney disease and/or neurotoxic immunosuppressant agents. To investigate this possibility, we studied 40,918 older (aged ≥55 years) KT recipients (January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2011) linked to Medicare claims through the US Renal Data System. We estimated dementia and AD risk (cumulative incidence) and studied factors associated with these sequelae using competing risks models. We estimated the risk of death-censored graft loss and mortality after developing dementia or the AD subtype of dementia, separately, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Older recipients had a 10-year dementia risk ranging from 5.1% for recipients aged 55-60 years to 17.0% for recipients aged ≥75 years; 10-year AD risk ranged from 1.0% to 6.7%, respectively. The strongest predictors for dementia and AD were older recipient age and pretransplant diabetes. The 10-year graft loss risk was 28.8% for those who did not develop dementia and 43.1% for those who did, and the corresponding mortality risks were 55.7% and 89.9%, respectively. Older recipients with dementia had a 1.52-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 1.68) increased risk of graft loss and a 2.38-fold (95% confidence interval, 2.26 to 2.49) increased risk of mortality. We observed similar results for AD. We conclude that older KT recipients have a high risk of post-KT dementia and AD, and these sequelae associate with a profound effect on patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND:Current clinical and economic consequences of cancer after kidney transplantation are incompletely defined. METHODS:We examined United States Renal Data System records of Medicare-insured kidney transplant recipients in 2000 to 2011 to determine clinical and economic impacts of cancer diagnosed within the first 3 years posttransplantation. Cancer diagnoses were identified using Medicare billing codes and categorized as nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), viral-linked and "other" cancers. Associations of cancers with mortality and graft loss were estimated by time-varying Cox regression. Impacts of cancer diagnoses on inpatient and outpatient costs within each year were quantified by multivariate linear regression modeling. RESULTS:Among 67 157 recipients, by 3 years posttransplant, NMSC was diagnosed in 5.7%, viral-linked cancer in 1.9%, and "other" cancers in 6.3%. Viral-linked cancer was associated with more than 3-fold increased risk in subsequent mortality until the third transplant anniversary, and nearly twice the mortality risk after year 3. "Other" cancers had similar associations with death and graft loss, whereas NMSC was associated with 33% higher mortality beyond the third year posttransplant. Viral-linked cancer had the largest inpatient and outpatient cost impacts per case, followed by "other" cancer, whereas NMSC impacted only outpatient costs. Care of new cancer diagnoses was generally more costly than care of previously established diagnoses. Cancer accounted for 3% to 5.5% of total inpatient Medicare expenditures and 1.5% to 3.3% of outpatient expenditures in the first 3 years posttransplant. CONCLUSIONS:Early posttransplant malignancy is an expensive and morbid condition that warrants attention in efforts to improve pretransplant screening and management protocols before and after transplant.