The national landscape of deceased donor kidney transplantation for the highly sensitized: Transplant rates, waitlist mortality, and posttransplant survival under KAS

Posttransplant Outcomes for cPRA-100% Recipients Under the New Kidney Allocation System

BACKGROUND

There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization.

METHODS

To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.

Outcomes of cPRA 100% deceased donor kidney transplant recipients under the new Kidney Allocation System: A single-center cohort study

In light of changes in donor/recipient case-mix and increased cold ischemia times under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS), there is some concern that cPRA 100% recipients might be doing poorly under KAS. We used granular, single-center data on 109 cPRA 100% deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients to study post-KAS posttransplant outcomes not readily available in national registry data. We found that 3-year patient (96.4%) and death-censored graft survival (96.8%) was excellent. We also found that cPRA 100% recipients had a relatively low incidence of T cell-mediated rejection (9.2%) and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (13.8%). T cell-mediated rejection episodes tended to be relatively mild-50% (5 episodes) were grade 1, 50% (5 episodes) were grade 2, and none were grade 3. Only 1 episode was associated with graft loss, but this was in the context of a mixed rejection. Although only 15 recipients (13.8%) developed an AMR episode, 2 of these were associated with a graft loss. Despite the rejection episodes, the vast majority of recipients had excellent graft function 3 years posttransplant (median serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL). In conclusion, cPRA 100% DDKT recipients are doing well under KAS, although every effort should be made to prevent AMR to ensure long-term outcomes remain excellent.

Decreased graft loss following implementation of the kidney allocation score (KAS)

BACKGROUND

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was developed to improve equity and utility in organ allocation. We examine the effect of this change on kidney graft distribution and survival.

METHODS

UNOS data was used to identify first-time adult recipients of a deceased donor kidney-alone transplant pre-KAS (Jan 2012-Dec 2014, n = 26,612) and post-KAS (Jan 2015-Dec 2017, n = 30,701), as well as grafts recovered Jan 2012-Jun 2019.

RESULTS

Post-KAS, kidneys were more likely to experience cold ischemia time >24 h (20.0% vs. 18.8%, p < 0.001) and experienced more delayed graft function, though competing risks modeling demonstrated a lower hazard of graft loss post-KAS, HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.97, p = 0.007). Post-policy, KDPI >85% kidneys were more likely to be shared regionally (37% vs. 14%), and more likely to be discarded (60.6% vs. 54.9%) after the policy change. KDPI >85% graft and patient survival did not change.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the KAS has increased sharing of high-KDPI kidneys and has decreased the hazard of graft loss without an impact on patient survival.

Changes in offer and acceptance patterns for pediatric kidney transplant candidates under the new Kidney Allocation System

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding decreased deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rates for pediatric candidates under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). To better understand what might be driving this, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients kidney offer data for 3642 pediatric (age <18 years) kidney-only transplant candidates between December 31, 2012 to December 3, 2014 (pre-KAS) and December 4, 2014 to January 6, 2017 (post-KAS). We used negative binomial regression and multilevel logistic regression to compare offer and acceptance rates pre- and post-KAS. We stratified by donor age (<18, 18-34, and 35+ years) and KDPI (<35% and ≥35%) to reflect differing allocation prioritization pre-KAS and post-KAS. As might be expected from prioritization changes, post-KAS candidates were less likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old with KDPI ≥ 35% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 0.18 0.210.25 , P < .001), and more likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% (aIRR: 1.12 1.201.29 , P < .001). However, offer acceptance practices also changed post-KAS: kidneys from donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% were 23% less likely to be accepted post-KAS (adjusted odds ratio: 0.61 0.770.98 , P = .03). Using kidneys from donors 18-34 years old with KDPI < 35% post-KAS to the same extent they were used pre-KAS might be an effective strategy to mitigate any decrease in DDKT rates for pediatric candidates.

How do highly sensitized patients get kidney transplants in the United States? Trends over the last decade

Prioritization of highly sensitized (HS) candidates under the kidney allocation system (KAS) and growth of large, multicenter kidney-paired donation (KPD) clearinghouses have broadened the transplant modalities available to HS candidates. To quantify temporal trends in utilization of these modalities, we used SRTR data from 2009 to 2017 to study 39 907 adult HS (cPRA ≥ 80%) waitlisted candidates and 19 003 recipients. We used competing risks regression to quantify temporal trends in likelihood of DDKT, KPD, and non-KPD LDKT for HS candidates (Era 1: January 1, 2009-December 31, 2011; Era 2: January 1, 2012-December 3, 2014; Era 3: December 4, 2014-December 31, 2017). Although the likelihood of DDKT and KPD increased over time for all HS candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] Era 3 vs 1 for DDKT: 1.74 1.851.97 , P < .001 and for KPD: 1.70 2.202.84 , P < .001), the likelihood of non-KPD LDKT decreased (aSHR: 0.69 0.820.97 , P = .02). However, these changes affected HS recipients differently based on cPRA. Among recipients, more cPRA 98%-99.9% and 99.9%+ recipients underwent DDKT (96.2% in Era 3% vs 59.1% in Era 1 for cPRA 99.9%+), whereas fewer underwent non-KPD LDKT (1.9% vs 30.9%) or KPD (2.0% vs 10.0%). Although KAS increased DDKT likelihood for the most HS candidates, it also decreased the use of non-KPD LDKT to transplant cPRA 98%+ candidates.

Association between Allosensitization and Waiting List Outcomes among Adult Lung Transplant Candidates in the United States

Rationale: Allosensitization may be a barrier to lung transplant. Currently, consideration is not given to allosensitization when assigning priority on the lung transplant waiting list. Objectives: We aimed to examine the association between allosensitization and waiting list outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study of adults listed for lung transplant at our center between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2016. We screened candidates for human leukocyte antigen antibodies before listing and examined the association between allosensitization and waiting list outcomes, including likelihood of transplant and death on the waiting list, using a competing risk model. Calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA) was used as a continuous measure of allosensitization. Results: Among 746 candidates who were listed for lung transplant during the study period, 263 (35%) were allosensitized, and 483 (65%) were not. In unadjusted analysis, allosensitized candidates had a decreased likelihood of transplant compared with nonallosensitized candidates (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.83; P < 0.001) and were more likely to die on the waiting list (sHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.08-2.58; P < 0.001). In multivariable modeling, increasing CPRA was associated with an increased risk of death and a decreased likelihood of transplant (sHR for death, 1.15 per 10% increase in CPRA; 95% CI, 1.07-1.22; P < 0.001; sHR for transplant, 0.89 per 10% increase in CPRA; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Broad allosensitization was associated with longer waiting times, decreased likelihood of transplant, and increased risk of death among candidates on the waiting list for lung transplant. Consideration of allosensitization in organ allocation strategies might help mitigate this increased risk in highly allosensitized candidates.

Clinical Pig Kidney Xenotransplantation: How Close Are We?

Patients with ESKD who would benefit from a kidney transplant face a critical and continuing shortage of kidneys from deceased human donors. As a result, such patients wait a median of 3.9 years to receive a donor kidney, by which time approximately 35% of transplant candidates have died while waiting or have been removed from the waiting list. Those of blood group B or O may experience a significantly longer waiting period. This problem could be resolved if kidneys from genetically engineered pigs offered an alternative with an acceptable clinical outcome. Attempts to accomplish this have followed two major paths: deletion of pig xenoantigens, as well as insertion of "protective" human transgenes to counter the human immune response. Pigs with up to nine genetic manipulations are now available. In nonhuman primates, administering novel agents that block the CD40/CD154 costimulation pathway, such as an anti-CD40 mAb, suppresses the adaptive immune response, leading to pig kidney graft survival of many months without features of rejection (experiments were terminated for infectious complications). In the absence of innate and adaptive immune responses, the transplanted pig kidneys have generally displayed excellent function. A clinical trial is anticipated within 2 years. We suggest that it would be ethical to offer a pig kidney transplant to selected patients who have a life expectancy shorter than the time it would take for them to obtain a kidney from a deceased human donor. In the future, the pigs will also be genetically engineered to control the adaptive immune response, thus enabling exogenous immunosuppressive therapy to be significantly reduced or eliminated.

Relationship between bovine carotid artery grafts for hemodialysis access and human leukocyte antigen sensitization

INTRODUCTION

Bovine carotid artery (BCA) Artegraft is a biologic graft that can be utilized as a conduit for permanent hemodialysis access and has been shown to outperform polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. However, concern regarding immunologic sensitization may limit the use of BCA in the transplant candidate. Panel reactive antibody (PRA) is an immunological test utilized in transplant recipient selection whereas increases in PRA limit access to transplantation. The purpose of our study was to determine whether BCA graft placement was adversely associated with increases in PRA.

METHODS

Of patients listed for kidney transplant at our institution, we identified 10 patients who underwent BCA placement for hemodialysis access and a matched cohort of 10 patients who underwent native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation between 2014 and 2017. The PRA value nearest to the surgery date was compared to postsurgery PRA value for the BCA and AVF patients using a paired t test. Presurgery PRAs were also compared to the maximum PRA at 0 to 6, 6 to 12, 12 to 18, and 18 to 24 months postsurgery.

FINDINGS

Prior to the dialysis access operation, the mean PRA was 14.1% ± 23.5% vs. 17.1% ± 29.0% (P = 0.76) and the median postsurgery follow-up time was 16 and 15 months for BCA and AVF cohorts, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between presurgery and postsurgery PRA for BCA and AVF patients, regardless of time interval postsurgery. The difference in presurgery/postsurgery PRA change between cohorts was not statistically significant for PRAs closest to surgery (0.2% ± 40.6% vs. 1.0% ± 2.8%, P = 0.95, at a median 4 and 3 months postsurgery, respectively) or when using the maximum in any postsurgery interval. Prior to their dialysis access surgery, there were 16 sensitizing events in 5 patients in the BCA group compared to 10 events in 5 patients in the AVF group (P = 0.20). Only 1 of the 10 patients in the BCA group had a clinically relevant and sustained increase in PRA following their dialysis access operation vs. no patients in the AVF group (P > 0.99). However, this patient had a known sensitizing event (blood transfusion) between the BCA surgery and the postoperative PRA. Three of 10 patients in the BCA cohort vs. 5 of 10 patients in the AVF cohort went on to have successful kidney transplants (P = 0.65).

DISCUSSION

The utilization of BCA for dialysis access was not associated with statistically significant changes in PRA. These data suggest that implantation of BCA will not affect access to organ transplantation.

Parsing the 100% calculated panel reactive antibody kidney transplant candidates: Who gets transplanted?

The new kidney allocation system in the United States has improved deceased donor transplant rates among candidates with high calculated panel reactive antibodies (CPRAs). Probability analysis predicts a very low transplant rate as the CPRA approaches 100%. This study sought to determine if the rate of deceased donor kidney transplant based on the actual CPRA in the cohort of 100% qualifying candidates behaved as predicted by probability analysis. Nine thousand two hundred and twenty eight patients were identified on the waiting list on or after December 2014 that had at least one CPRA greater than or equal to 99.5%. The distribution of the 100% CPRA group was highly skewed toward 100% (Median CPRA 99.98%). The decile group within the 100% CPRA qualifying population was by far the most important factor determining kidney transplantation. The highest two deciles of CPRA had a very low rate of transplantation. Options to improve the prospects of deceased donor transplant include intelligently lowering the CPRA by reducing unacceptable antigens, expanding the donor pool by listing candidates for higher risk donors, or through desensitization. The CPRA calculator should display the non-integer CPRA out to several decimal points so that informed decisions can be made for these candidates regarding their prospects of receiving a deceased donor offer.

Does the Canadian allocation system for highly sensitized patients work?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of sensitized heart transplant candidates is rising. Highly sensitized patients are disadvantaged because they encounter longer waiting times to heart transplant. Strategies to reduce their waiting times include waitlist prioritization and desensitization therapies. The purpose of this review is to describe the listing category for highly sensitized patients in the Canadian allocation system, examine the advantages and limitations of this strategy and provide an approach to the management of the highly sensitized patient awaiting heart transplant.

RECENT FINDINGS

Analysis of data from the United Network of Organ Sharing shows that the incidence of death or removal from the waitlist in patients listed for heart transplant increases as the calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) increases and is independent of medical urgency. In the Canadian allocation system, patients with cPRA more than 80% have a similar incidence of death on the waitlist as less sensitized patients, suggesting they survive to be transplanted. Furthermore, prioritizing and transplanting highly sensitized patients has been associated with acceptable post-transplant outcomes.

SUMMARY

The Canadian allocation system prioritizes highly sensitized patients to increase equity and access to transplantation while maintaining good post-transplant outcomes. Not all highly sensitized patients can wait for an organ, even if prioritized. A pragmatic individualized approach would consider the medical stability of the patient, the likelihood of transplant with a negative crossmatch and then determine whether waitlist prioritization or desensitization is the more appropriate strategy.

Assessing the outcome of organ allocation: choosing metrics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Organ allocation is a highly complex process with significant impact on outcomes of donor organs and end-stage organ disease patients. Policies governing allocation must incorporate numerous factors to meet stated objective. There have been significant alterations and ongoing discussion about changes in allocation policy for all solid organs in the United States. As with any policy change, rigorous evaluation of the impact of changes is important.

RECENT FINDINGS

This manuscript discusses metrics to consider to evaluate the impact of organ allocation policy that may be monitored on an ongoing basis including examples of research evaluating current policies. Potential metrics to evaluate allocation policy include the effectiveness, efficiency, equity, costs, donor rates, and transparency associated with the system.

SUMMARY

Ultimately, policies will often need to adapt to secular changes in donor and patient characteristics, clinical and technological advances, and overarching healthcare polices. Providing objective empirical evaluation of the impact of policies is a critical component for assessing quality of the allocation system and informing the effect of changes. The foundation of organ transplantation is built upon public trust and the dependence on the gift of donor organs, as such the importance of the most appropriate organ allocation policies cannot be overstated.