Faculty Bibliography

The required intensity of monitoring for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) after of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation is not clearly formulized. We retrospectively evaluated a single-center cohort of 115 ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplant recipients, of which 32% were also HLA-incompatible (ABOi/HLAi) with their donors. We used an adjusted negative binomial model to evaluate risk factors for late AMR. Using this model, we risk-stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups for the development of late AMR. 26% of patients had at least one AMR episode. 49% of AMR episodes occurred within 30-days after transplant and were considered early AMR. Patients with an early AMR episode had a 5.5-fold greater incidence of developing late AMR (IRR=5.5,[95%CI:1.5-19.3],p=0.01). ABOi/HLAi recipients trended towards increased late AMR risk (IRR=1.9,[95%CI:0.5-6.6],p=0.3). High-risk recipients (those with an early AMR or those who were ABOi/HLAi) had a 6-fold increased incidence of late AMR (IRR=6.3,[95%CI:1.6-24.6],p=0.008) versus low-risk recipients. The overall incidence of late AMR was 20.8% versus 1.5% in low-risk recipients. Changes in anti-A/B titer did not correlate with late AMR (IRR=0.9 per log titer increase, p=0.7). This risk-stratification scheme uses information available within 30-days of ABOi transplantation to determine risk for late AMR and can help direct longitudinal follow-up for individual patients

BACKGROUND:Frailty increases early hospital readmission and mortality risk among kidney transplantation (KT) recipients. Although frailty represents a high-risk state for this population, the correlates of frailty, the patterns of the 5 frailty components, and the risk associated with these patterns are unclear. METHODS:Six hundred sixty-three KT recipients were enrolled in a cohort study of frailty in transplantation (12/2008-8/2015). Frailty, activities of daily living (ADL)/instrumental ADL (IADL) disability, Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale depression, education, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were measured. We used multinomial regression to identify frailty correlates. We identified which patterns of the 5 components were associated with mortality using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS:Frailty prevalence was 19.5%. Older recipients (adjusted prevalence ratio [PR], 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-4.07) were more likely to be frail. The only other factors that were independently associated with frailty were IADL disability (PR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.72-6.06), depressive symptoms (PR, 11.31; 95% CI, 4.02-31.82), less than a high school education (PR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.30-7.36), and low HRQOL (fair/poor: PR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.48-9.31). The most common pattern was poor grip strength, low physical activity, and slowed walk speed (19.4%). Only 2 patterns of the 5 components emerged as having an association with post-KT mortality. KT recipients with exhaustion and slowed walking speed (hazards ratio = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.17-5.03) and poor grip strength, exhaustion, and slowed walking speed (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.14-5.97) were at increased mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS:Age was the only conventional factor associated with frailty among KT recipients; however, factors rarely measured as part of clinical practice, namely, HRQOL, IADL disability, and depressive symptoms, were significant correlates of frailty. Redefining the frailty phenotype may be needed to improve risk stratification for KT recipients.

Studies have estimated the average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personalized estimation on the basis of donor characteristics remains unavailable. We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, with ESRD ascertainment via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services linkage, using Cox regression with late entries. Black race (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.25 to 3.89; P<0.001) and male sex (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.35; P<0.001) was associated with higher risk of ESRD in donors. Among nonblack donors, older age was associated with greater risk (HR per 10 years, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.59; P<0.001). Among black donors, older age was not significantly associated with risk (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.09; P=0.3). Greater body mass index was associated with higher risk (HR per 5 kg/m², 1.61; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.00; P<0.001). Donors who had a first-degree biological relationship to the recipient had increased risk (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.34; P<0.01). C-statistic of the model was 0.71. Predicted 20-year risk of ESRD for the median donor was only 34 cases per 10,000 donors, but 1% of donors had predicted risk exceeding 256 cases per 10,000 donors. Risk estimation is critical for appropriate informed consent and varies substantially across living kidney donors. Greater permissiveness may be warranted in older black candidate donors; young black candidates should be evaluated carefully.

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.