Faculty Bibliography

For recipients of liver transplantations (LTs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), HCC recurrence after transplantation remains a major concern. Sirolimus (SRL), an immunosuppressant with anticarcinogenic properties, may reduce HCC recurrence and improve survival. In our study, the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was linked to pharmacy claims. For liver recipients transplanted for HCC, Cox regression was used to estimate associations of early SRL use with recurrence, cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality, adjusting for recipient ethnicity, calendar year of transplant, total tumor volume, alpha-fetoprotein, transplant center size, use of interleukin 2 induction therapy, and allocated and calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. We performed stratified analyses among recipients who met Milan criteria, among those without renal failure, among those with deceased liver donors, by age at transplantation, and by tumor size. Among the 3936 included HCC LTs, 234 (6%) were SRL users. In total, there were 242 recurrences and 879 deaths, including 261 cancer-related deaths. All-cause mortality was similar in SRL users and nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.39). HCC recurrence and cancer-specific mortality rates appeared lower in SRL users, but associations were not statistically significant (recurrence aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.45-1.65; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.43-1.50). Among recipients >55 years old, associations were suggestive of better outcomes for SRL users (all-cause mortality aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01; recurrence aHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19-1.44; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11-1.09), whereas among recipients ≤55 years old, SRL users had worse outcomes (all-cause mortality aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.12-2.75; recurrence aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.62-3.61; cancer-specific mortality aHR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.71-3.32). In conclusion, among HCC liver recipients overall, SRL did not appear beneficial in reducing all-cause mortality. However, there were suggestions of reductions in recurrence and cancer-specific mortality, and effects appeared to be modified by age at transplantation. Liver Transplantation 22 627-634 2016 AASLD.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the risk of liver-related events and death in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-exposed liver transplantation (LT) recipients. METHODS:Retrospective review was performed in all adults who underwent LT between January 1995 through December 2010 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Recipients with graft failure or death within 14 d of LT or missing HBV status were excluded, leaving 575 individuals for analysis. Patients were classified according to HBV exposure status: Unexposed, Resolved HBV, Chronic HBV, or hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) seropositive liver donor. RESULTS:Compared with HBV-unexposed patients, the relative hazard of combined liver-related events (rejection, cirrhosis, re-transplantation) and death after LT was not increased in patients with a baseline history of resolved HBV infection or chronic hepatitis B. Using anti-HBc seropositive donors also did not increase the risk of liver-related events, death, or composite events (all p ≥ 0.05). However, hepatitis C was associated with liver-related events [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-2.52], and blacks had a higher risk of death (aHR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.01-2.22). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:LT of patients with prior HBV exposure or use of anti-HBc seropositive donors is not associated with increased risk of liver-related events or death.

BACKGROUND:Midodrine is prescribed to prevent symptomatic hypotension and decrease complications associated with hypotension during dialysis. We hypothesized that midodrine use before kidney transplantation may be a novel marker for posttransplant risk. METHODS:We analyzed integrated national US transplant registry, pharmacy records, and Medicare claims data for 16 308 kidney transplant recipients transplanted 2006 to 2008, of whom 308 (1.9%) had filled midodrine prescriptions in the year before transplantation. Delayed graft function (DGF), graft failure, and patient death were ascertained from the registry. Posttransplant cardiovascular complications were identified using diagnosis codes on Medicare billing claims. Adjusted associations of pretransplant midodrine use with complications at 3 and 12 months posttransplant were quantified by multivariate Cox or logistic regression, including propensity for midodrine exposure. RESULTS:At 3 months, patients who used midodrine pretransplant had significantly (P < 0.05) higher rates of DGF, 32% versus 19%; hypotension, 14% versus 4%; acute myocardial infarction, 4% versus 2%; cardiac arrest, 2% versus 0.9%, graft failure, 5% versus 2%; and death, 4% versus 1% than nonusers. After multivariate adjustment including recipient and donor factors, as well as for the propensity of midodrine exposure, pretransplant midodrine use was independently associated with risks of DGF (adjusted odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.32), and 3 month death-censored graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.18-3.39), and death (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.95-6.24). Patterns were similar at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Although associations may in part reflect underlying conditions, the need for midodrine before kidney transplantation is a risk marker for complications including DGF, graft failure, and death.

The infrequent use of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation in the United States may reflect concern about the costs of necessary preconditioning and posttransplant care. Medicare data for 26 500 live donor kidney transplant recipients (2000 to March 2011), including 271 ABOi and 62 A2-incompatible (A2i) recipients, were analyzed to assess the impact of pretransplant, transplant episode and 3-year posttransplant costs. The marginal costs of ABOi and A2i versus ABO-compatible (ABOc) transplants were quantified by multivariate linear regression including adjustment for recipient, donor and transplant factors. Compared with ABOc transplantation, patient survival (93.2% vs. 88.15%, p = 0.0009) and death-censored graft survival (85.4% vs. 76.1%, p < 0.05) at 3 years were lower after ABOi transplant. The average overall cost of the transplant episode was significantly higher for ABOi ($65 080) compared with A2i ($36 752) and ABOc ($32 039) transplantation (p < 0.001), excluding organ acquisition. ABOi transplant was associated with high adjusted posttransplant spending (marginal costs compared to ABOc - year 1: $25 044; year 2: $10 496; year 3: $7307; p < 0.01). ABOi transplantation provides a clinically effective method to expand access to transplantation. Although more expensive, the modest increases in total spending are easily justified by avoiding long-term dialysis and its associated morbidity and cost.

BACKGROUND: A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear. METHODS: In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study. RESULTS: Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In December of 2014, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network implemented a new Kidney Allocation System (KAS) for deceased donor transplant, with increased priority for highly sensitized candidates (calculated panel-reactive antibody [cPRA] >99%). We used a modified version of the new KAS to address issues of access and equity for these candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:In a simulation, 10,988 deceased donor kidneys transplanted into waitlisted recipients in 2010 were instead allocated to candidates with cPRA≥80% (n=18,004). Each candidate's unacceptable donor HLA antigens had been entered into the allocation system by the transplant center. In simulated match runs, kidneys were allocated sequentially to adult ABO identical or permissible candidates with cPRA 100%, 99%, 98%, etc. to 80%. Allocations were restricted to donor/recipient pairs with negative virtual crossmatches. RESULTS:The simulation indicated that 2111 of 10,988 kidneys (19.2%) would have been allocated to patients with cPRA 100% versus 74 of 10,988 (0.7%) that were actually transplanted. Of cPRA 100% candidates, 74% were predicted to be compatible with an average of six deceased donors; the remaining 26% seemed to be incompatible with every deceased donor organ that entered the system. Of kidneys actually allocated to cPRA 100% candidates in 2010, 66% (49 of 74) were six-antigen HLA matched/zero-antigen mismatched (HLA-A, -B, and -DR) with their recipients versus only 11% (237 of 2111) in the simulation. The simulation predicted that 10,356 of 14,433 (72%) candidates with cPRA 90%-100% could be allocated an organ compared with 7.3% who actually underwent transplant. CONCLUSIONS:Data in this simulation are consistent with early results of the new KAS; specifically, nearly 20% of deceased donor kidneys were (virtually) compatible with cPRA 100% candidates. Although most of these candidates were predicted to be compatible with multiple donors, approximately one-quarter are unlikely to receive a single offer.

BACKGROUND:Evaluation of candidates to serve as living kidney donors relies on screening for individual risk factors for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). To support an empirical approach to donor selection, we developed a tool that simultaneously incorporates multiple health characteristics to estimate a person's probable long-term risk of ESRD if that person does not donate a kidney. METHODS:We used risk associations from a meta-analysis of seven general population cohorts, calibrated to the population-level incidence of ESRD and mortality in the United States, to project the estimated long-term incidence of ESRD among persons who do not donate a kidney, according to 10 demographic and health characteristics. We then compared 15-year projections with the observed risk among 52,998 living kidney donors in the United States. RESULTS:A total of 4,933,314 participants from seven cohorts were followed for a median of 4 to 16 years. For a 40-year-old person with health characteristics that were similar to those of age-matched kidney donors, the 15-year projections of the risk of ESRD in the absence of donation varied according to race and sex; the risk was 0.24% among black men, 0.15% among black women, 0.06% among white men, and 0.04% among white women. Risk projections were higher in the presence of a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher albuminuria, hypertension, current or former smoking, diabetes, and obesity. In the model-based lifetime projections, the risk of ESRD was highest among persons in the youngest age group, particularly among young blacks. The 15-year observed risks after donation among kidney donors in the United States were 3.5 to 5.3 times as high as the projected risks in the absence of donation. CONCLUSIONS:Multiple demographic and health characteristics may be used together to estimate the projected long-term risk of ESRD among living kidney-donor candidates and to inform acceptance criteria for kidney donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others.).

We examined United States Renal Data System registry records for Medicare-insured kidney transplant recipients in 2000-2011 to study the clinical and cost impacts of urinary tract infections (UTI), pneumonia, and sepsis in the first year post-transplant among a contemporary, national cohort. Infections were identified by billing diagnostic codes. Among 60 702 recipients, 45% experienced at least one study infection in the first year post-transplant, including UTI in 32%, pneumonia in 13%, and sepsis in 12%. Older recipient age, female sex, diabetic kidney failure, nonstandard criteria organs, sirolimus-based immunosuppression, and steroids at discharge were associated with increased risk of first-year infections. By time-varying, multivariate Cox regression, all study infections predicted increased first-year mortality, ranging from 41% (aHR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.56) for UTI alone, 6- to 12-fold risk for pneumonia or sepsis alone, to 34-fold risk (aHR 34.38, 95% CI 30.35-38.95) for those with all three infections. Infections also significantly increased first-year costs, from $17 691 (standard error (SE) $591) marginal cost increase for UTI alone, to approximately $40 000-$50 000 (SE $1054-1238) for pneumonia or sepsis alone, to $134 773 (SE $1876) for those with UTI, pneumonia, and sepsis. Clinical and economic impacts persisted in years 2-3 post-transplant. Early infections reflect important targets for management protocols to improve post-transplant outcomes and reduce costs of care.

Redistricting, which means sharing organs in novel districts developed through mathematical optimization, has been proposed to reduce pervasive geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation. The economic impact of redistricting was evaluated with two distinct data sources, Medicare claims and the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC). We estimated total Medicare payments under (i) the current allocation system (Share 35), (ii) full regional sharing, (iii) an eight-district plan, and (iv) a four-district plan for a simulated population of patients listed for liver transplant over 5 years, using the liver simulated allocation model. The model predicted 5-year transplant volumes (Share 35, 29,267; regional sharing, 29,005; eight districts, 29,034; four districts, 28,265) and a reduction in overall mortality, including listed and posttransplant patients, of up to 676 lives. Compared with current allocation, the eight-district plan was estimated to reduce payments for pretransplant care ($1638 million to $1506 million, p < 0.001), transplant episode ($5607 million to $5569 million, p < 0.03) and posttransplant care ($479 million to $488 million, p < 0.001). The eight-district plan was estimated to increase per-patient transportation costs for organs ($8988 to $11,874 per patient, p < 0.001) and UHC estimated hospital costs ($4699 per case). In summary, redistricting appears to be potentially cost saving for the health care system but will increase the cost of performing liver transplants for some transplant centers.