Faculty Bibliography

Older compatible living donor kidney transplant (CLDKT) recipients have higher mortality and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) compared to younger recipients. These risks may be amplified in older incompatible living donor kidney transplant (ILDKT) recipients who undergo desensitization and intense immunosuppression. In a 25-center cohort of ILDKT recipients transplanted between September 24, 1997, and December 15, 2016, we compared mortality, DCGF, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and length of stay (LOS) between 234 older (age ≥60 years) and 1172 younger (age 18-59 years) recipients. To investigate whether the impact of age was different for ILDKT recipients compared to 17 542 CLDKT recipients, we used an interaction term to determine whether the relationship between posttransplant outcomes and transplant type (ILDKT vs CLDKT) was modified by age. Overall, older recipients had higher mortality (hazard ratio: _1.632.07_2.65, P < .001), lower DCGF (hazard ratio: _0.360.53_0.77, P = .001), and AR (odds ratio: _0.390.54_0.74, P < .001), and similar DGF (odds ratio: _0.461.03_2.33, P = .9) and LOS (incidence rate ratio: _0.880.98_1.10, P = 0.8) compared to younger recipients. The impact of age on mortality (interaction P = .052), DCGF (interaction P = .7), AR interaction P = .2), DGF (interaction P = .9), and LOS (interaction P = .5) were similar in ILDKT and CLDKT recipients. Age alone should not preclude eligibility for ILDKT.

The latent viral reservoir(LVR) remains a major barrier to HIV-1 curative strategies. It is unknown whether receiving a liver transplant from a donor with HIV might lead to an increase in the LVR since the liver is a large lymphoid organ. We found no differences in intact provirus, defective provirus, or the ratio of intact to defective provirus between recipients with ART-supporesed HIV who received a liver from a donor with(n = 19) or without HIV(n = 10). All measures remained stable from baseline by one-year post transplant. These data demonstrate that the LVR is stable after liver transplantation in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Living kidney donation is possible for people living with HIV (PLWH) in the United States within research studies under the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. There are concerns that donor nephrectomy may have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in PLWH due to HIV-associated kidney disease and antiretroviral therapy (ART) nephrotoxicity. Here we report the first 3 cases of living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Within the HOPE in Action Multicenter Consortium, we conducted a prospective study of living kidney donors with HIV. Pre-donation, we estimated the 9-year cumulative incidence of ESRD, performed genetic testing of apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), excluding individuals with high-risk variants, and performed pre-donation kidney biopsies (HOPE Act requirement). The primary endpoint was ≥grade 3 nephrectomy-related adverse events (AEs) in year one. Post-donation, we monitored glomerular filtration rate (measured by iohexol/Tc-99m DTPA [mGFR] or estimated with serum creatinine [eGFR]), HIV RNA, CD4 count, and ART. FINDINGS/UNASSIGNED: at two years (eGFR) in donor 3. HIV RNA remained <20 copies/mL and CD4 count remained stable in all donors. INTERPRETATION/UNASSIGNED:The first three living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States have had promising outcomes at two-four years, providing proof-of-concept to support living donation from PLWH to recipients with HIV. FUNDING/UNASSIGNED:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) require desensitization to facilitate transplantation, and this substantial upfront immunosuppression may result in serious complications, including cancer. Methods. To characterize cancer risk in ILDKTr, we evaluated 858 ILDKTr and 12 239 compatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (CLDKTr) from a multicenter cohort with linkage to the US transplant registry and 33 cancer registries (1997-2016). Cancer incidence was compared using weighted Cox regression. Results. Among ILDKTr, the median follow-up time was 6.7 y (maximum 16.1 y) for invasive cancers (ascertained via cancer registry linkage) and 5.0 y (maximum 16.1 y) for basal and squamous cell carcinomas (ascertained via the transplant registry and censored for transplant center loss to follow-up). Invasive cancers occurred in 53 ILDKTr (6.2%) and 811 CLDKTr (6.6%; weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.35). Basal and squamous cell carcinomas occurred in 41 ILDKTr (4.8%) and 737 CLDKTr (6.0%) (wHR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40). Cancer risk did not vary according to donor-specific antibody strength, and in an exploratory analysis, was similar between CLDKTr and ILDKTr for most cancer types and according to cancer stage, except ILDKTr had a suggestively increased risk of colorectal cancer (wHR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.23-8.71); however, this elevation was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Conclusions. These findings indicate that the risk of cancer is not increased for ILDKTr compared with CLDKTr. The possible elevation in colorectal cancer risk is unexplained and might suggest a need for tailored screening or prevention.

Repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) is the preferred treatment for patients with graft failure. Changing allocation policies, widening the risk profile of recipients, and improving dialysis care may have altered the survival benefit of a re-KT. We characterized trends in re-KT survival benefit over 3 decades and tested whether it differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, and panel reactive assay (PRA). By using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we identified 25 419 patients who underwent a re-KT from 1990 to 2019 and 25 419 waitlisted counterfactuals from the same year with the same waitlisted time following graft failure. In the adjusted analysis, a re-KT was associated with a lower risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.65). By using the 1990-1994 era as a reference (aHR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85), incremental improvements in the survival benefit were noted (1995-1999: aHR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78: 2000-2004: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.55-0.63: 2005-2009: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: 2010-2014: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62: 2015-2019: aHR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.73). The survival benefit of a re-KT was noted in both younger (age = 18-64 years: aHR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65) and older patients (age ≥65 years: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74; P_interaction = .45). Patients of all races/ethnicities demonstrated similar benefits with a re-KT. However, it varied by the sex of the recipient (female patients: aHR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: male patients: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68; P_interaction = .004) and PRA (0-20: aHR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74: 21-80: aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.57-0.66; P_interaction = .02; >80: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61; P_interaction< .001). Our findings support the continued practice of a re-KT and efforts to overcome the medical, immunologic, and surgical challenges of a re-KT.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Identifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population-level insight. METHODS:Adult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time-dependent Cox-regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk-adjusted short-term (0-90 days) and longer-term (90 days-5 years) outcomes. RESULTS:One-thousand five-hundred-and-sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk-adjusted short-term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer-term (90 days-5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS:For those receiving a DCD LT, longer-term post-transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.