Faculty Bibliography

The Best Practice in Live Kidney Donation Consensus Conference held in June of 2014 included the Best Practices in Living Donor Education Workgroup, whose charge was to identify best practice strategies in education of living donors, community outreach initiatives, commercial media, solicitation, and state registries. The workgroup's goal was to identify critical content to include in living kidney donor education and best methods to deliver educational content. A detailed summary of considerations regarding educational content issues for potential living kidney donors is presented, including the consensus that was reached. Educational topics that may require updating on the basis of emerging studies on living kidney donor health outcomes are also presented. Enhancing the educational process is important for increasing living donor comprehension to optimize informed decision-making.

Kidney transplantation is a viable treatment for select patients with HIV and ESRD, but data are lacking regarding long-term outcomes and comparisons with appropriately matched HIV-negative patients. We analyzed data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR; 2002-2011): 510 adult kidney transplant recipients with HIV (median follow-up, 3.8 years) matched 1:10 to HIV-negative controls. Compared with HIV-negative controls, HIV-infected recipients had significantly lower 5-year (75.3% versus 69.2%) and 10-year (54.4% versus 49.8%) post-transplant graft survival (GS) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.15 to 1.64; P<0.001) that persisted when censoring for death (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.84; P=0.005). However, compared with HIV-negative/hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative controls, HIV monoinfected recipients had similar 5-year and 10-year GS, whereas HIV/HCV coinfected recipients had worse GS (5-year: 64.0% versus 52.0%, P=0.02; 10-year: 36.2% versus 27.0%, P=0.004 [HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.77; P=0.01]). Patient survival (PS) among HIV-infected recipients was 83.5% at 5 years and 51.6% at 10 years and was significantly lower than PS among HIV-negative controls (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.68; P<0.01). However, PS was similar for HIV monoinfected recipients and HIV-negative/HCV-negative controls at both times. HIV/HCV coinfected recipients had worse PS compared with HIV-negative/HCV-infected controls (5-year: 67.0% versus 78.6%, P=0.007; 10-year: 29.3% versus 56.23%, P=0.002 [HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.22; P=0.01]). In conclusion, HIV-negative and HIV monoinfected kidney transplant recipients had similar GS and PS, whereas HIV/HCV coinfected recipients had worse outcomes. Although encouraging, these results suggest caution in transplanting coinfected patients.

BACKGROUND:In response to recent studies, a better understanding of the risks of renal complications among African American and biologically related living kidney donors is needed. METHODS:We examined a database linking U.S. registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) to billing claims from a private health insurer (2000-2007 claims) to identify renal condition diagnoses categorized by International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision coding. Cox regression with left and right censoring was used to estimate cumulative incidence of diagnoses after donation and associations (adjusted hazards ratios, aHR) with donor traits. RESULTS:Among 4650 living donors, 13.1% were African American and 76.3% were white; 76.1% were first-degree relatives of their recipient. By 7 years post-donation, after adjustment for age and sex, greater proportions of African American compared with white donors had renal condition diagnoses: chronic kidney disease (12.6% vs 5.6%; aHR, 2.32; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.48-3.62), proteinuria (5.7% vs 2.6%; aHR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.32-3.89), nephrotic syndrome (1.3% vs 0.1%; aHR, 15.7; 95% CI, 2.97-83.0), and any renal condition (14.9% vs 9.0%; aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23-2.41). Although first-degree biological relationship to the recipient was not associated with renal risk, associations of African American race persisted for these conditions and included unspecified renal failure and reported disorders of kidney dysfunction after adjustment for biological donor-recipient relationship. CONCLUSIONS:African Americans more commonly develop renal conditions after living kidney donation, independent of donor-recipient relationship. Continued research is needed to improve risk stratification for renal outcomes among African American living donors.

Concerns have been raised that optimized redistricting of liver allocation areas might have the unintended result of shifting livers from better-performing to poorer-performing organ procurement organizations (OPOs). We used liver simulated allocation modeling to simulate a 5-year period of liver sharing within either 4 or 8 optimized districts. We investigated whether each OPO's net liver import under redistricting would be correlated with 2 OPO performance metrics (observed to expected liver yield and liver donor conversion ratio), along with 2 other potential correlates (eligible deaths and incident listings above a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 15). We found no evidence that livers would flow from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs in either redistricting scenario. Instead, under these optimized redistricting plans, our simulations suggest that livers would flow from OPOs with more-than-expected eligible deaths toward those with fewer-than-expected eligible deaths and that livers would flow from OPOs with fewer-than-expected incident listings to those with more-than-expected incident listings; the latter is a pattern that is already established in the current allocation system. Redistricting liver distribution to reduce geographic inequity is expected to align liver allocation across the country with the distribution of supply and demand rather than transferring livers from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs.

U.S. organ allocation policy sequesters livers from deceased donors within arbitrary geographic boundaries, frustrating the intent of those who wish to offer the livers to transplant candidates based on medical urgency. We used a zero-one integer program to partition 58 donor service areas into between four and eight sharing districts that minimize the disparity in liver availability among districts. Because the integer program necessarily suppressed clinically significant differences among patients and organs, we tested the optimized district maps with a discrete-event simulation tool that represents liver allocation at a per-person, per-organ level of detail. In April 2014, the liver committee of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) decided in a unanimous vote of 22-0-0 to write a policy proposal based on our eight-district and four-district maps. The OPTN board of directors could implement the policy after the proposal and public-comment period.Redistricting liver allocation would save hundreds of lives over the next five years and would attenuate the serious geographic inequity in liver transplant offers.

Life expectancy among HIV-infected (HIV+) individuals has improved dramatically with effective antiretroviral therapy. Consequently, chronic diseases such as end-stage liver and kidney disease are growing causes of morbidity and mortality. HIV+ individuals can have excellent outcomes after solid organ transplantation, and the need for transplantation in this population is increasing. However, there is a significant organ shortage, and HIV+ individuals experience higher mortality rates on transplant waitlists. In South Africa, the use of organs from HIV+ deceased donors (HIVDD) has been successful, but until recently federal law prohibited this practice in the United States. With the recognition that organs from HIVDD could fill a critical need, the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act was passed in November 2013, reversing the federal ban on the use of HIV+ donors for HIV+ recipients. In translating this policy into practice, the biologic risks of using HIV+ donors need to be carefully considered. In this mini-review, we explore relevant aspects of HIV virology, antiretroviral treatment, drug resistance, opportunistic infections and HIV-related organ dysfunction that are critical to a transplant team considering HIV-to-HIV transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-level risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF) have been well described. However, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network definition of DGF is based on dialysis in the first week, which is subject to center-level practice patterns. It remains unclear if there are center-level differences in DGF and if measurable center characteristics can explain these differences. METHODS: Using the 2003 to 2012 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we developed a hierarchical (multilevel) model to determine the association between center characteristics and DGF incidence after adjusting for known patient risk factors and to quantify residual variability across centers after adjustment for these factors. RESULTS: Of 82,143 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 27.0% developed DGF, with a range across centers of 3.2% to 63.3%. A center's proportion of preemptive transplants (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; per 5% increment; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.74-;0.93; P = 0.001) and kidneys with longer than 30 hr of cold ischemia time (CIT) (OR, 0.95; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 0.92-;0.98; P = 0.001) were associated with less DGF. A center's proportion of donation after cardiac death donors (OR, 1.12; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 1.03-;1.17; P < 0.001) and imported kidneys (OR, 1.06; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 1.03-;1.10; P < 0.001) were associated with more DGF. After patient-level and center-level adjustments, only 41.8% of centers had DGF incidences consistent with the national median and 28.2% had incidences above the national median. CONCLUSION: Significant heterogeneity in DGF incidences across centers, even after adjusting for patient-level and center-level characteristics, calls into question the generalizability and validity of the current DGF definition. Enhanced understanding of center-level variability and improving the definition of DGF accordingly may improve DGF's utility in clinical care and as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials.