New national allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States and possible effect on patient outcomes

Are We Ready for Epitope-Based HLA Matching in Clinical Organ Transplantation?

This overview describes recent developments demonstrating the significance of epitopes in HLA antibody responses and matching for organ transplantation. HLA epitopes are defined by molecular modeling and amino acid comparisons between HLA alleles and the HLAMatchmaker algorithm considers eplets as essential components. Each allele represents a distinct string of eplets and matching is done by aligning donor and recipient strings. Evidence is summarized how mismatched eplet loads affect antibody responses and transplant outcomes. Epitope-based matching has been applied not only to identify acceptable mismatches for sensitized transplant candidates but also to identify more suitably mismatched donors for nonsensitized patients. Three recently proposed theories will further our understanding of the immunogenicity of individual HLA eplets.It has become apparent that epitope-based matching is superior to antigen matching; we should be ready soon to apply this principle in the clinical transplant setting very soon.

The New Kidney Donor Allocation System and Implications for Anesthesiologists

Given potential disparity and limited allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation, a new federal kidney allocation system was implemented in 2014. Donor organ function and estimated recipient survival in this system has implications for perioperative management of kidney transplant recipients. Early analysis suggests that many of the anticipated goals are being attained. For anesthesiologists, implications of increased dialysis duration and burdens of end-stage renal disease include increased cardiopulmonary disease, challenging fluid, hemodynamic management, and central vein access. With no recent evidence to guide anesthesia care within this new system, we describe the kidney allocation system, summarize initial data, and briefly review organ systems of interest to anesthesiologists. As additional invasive and echocardiographic monitoring may be indicated, one consideration may be development of a dedicated anesthesiology team experienced in management and monitoring of complex patients, in a similar manner as has been done for liver transplant recipients.

Outcomes of Deceased Donor Kidney Offers to Patients at the Top of the Waiting List

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Transplant centers may accept or refuse deceased-donor kidneys that are offered to their patients at the top of the waiting list. We sought to determine the outcomes of deceased-donor kidney offers and their association with characteristics of waitlisted patients and organ donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We examined all 7 million deceased-donor adult kidney offers in the United States from 2007 to 2012 that led to eventual transplantation. Data were obtained from the national organ allocation system through the United Network of Organ Sharing. The study cohort consisted of 178,625 patients waitlisted for a deceased-donor kidney transplant and 31,230 deceased donors. We evaluated offers made to waitlisted patients and their outcomes (transplantation or specific reason for refusal).

RESULTS

Deceased-donor kidneys were offered a median of seven times before being accepted for transplantation. The most common reasons for refusal of an offer were donor-related factors, e.g., age or organ quality (3.2 million offers, 45.0%), and transplant center bypass, e.g., minimal acceptance criteria not met (3.2 million offers, 44.0%). After adjustment for characteristics of waitlisted patients, organ donors, and transplant centers, male (odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.91 to 0.95) and Hispanic (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99) waitlisted patients were less likely to have an offer accepted than female and white patients, respectively. The likelihood of offer acceptance varied greatly across transplant centers (interquartile ratio, 2.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant centers frequently refuse deceased-donor kidneys. Such refusals differ by patient and donor characteristics, may contribute to disparities in access to transplantation, and vary greatly across transplant centers.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2017_07_27_Huml.mp3.

Contemporary Issues in Lung Transplant Allocation Practices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the current state of donor lung allocation in the United States, and future opportunities to increase the efficiency of donor lung allocation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current donor lung allocation system prioritizes clinical acuity by use of the Lung Allocation Score (LAS) which has reduced waitlist mortality since its implementation in 2005. Access to donor lungs can be further improved through policy changes using broader geographic sharing, and developing new technology such as ex vivo lung perfusion to recover marginal donor lungs.

SUMMARY

The number of lung transplants in the U.S. continues to increase annually. However, the demand for donor lungs continues to be outpaced by an ever growing waitlist. Efficient allocation can be achieved through improved allocation policies and new technology.

Selection of Patients for Initial Clinical Trials of Solid Organ Xenotransplantation

Several groups have reported extended survival of genetically engineered pig organs in nonhuman primates, varying from almost 10 months for life-supporting kidney grafts and more than 2 years for non-life-supporting heart grafts to less than 1 month for life-supporting liver and lung grafts. We have attempted to define groups of patients who may not have an option to wait for an allograft. These include kidney, heart, and lung candidates who are highly-allosensitized. In addition, some kidney candidates (who have previously lost at least 2 allografts from rapid recurrence of native kidney disease) have a high risk of further recurrence and will not be offered a repeat allotransplant. Patients with complex congenital heart disease, who may have undergone previous palliative surgical procedures, may be unsuitable for ventricular assist device implantation. Patients dying of fulminant hepatic failure, for whom no alternative therapy is available, may be candidates for a pig liver, even if only as a bridge until an allograft becomes available. When the results of pig organ xenotransplantation in nonhuman primates suggest a realistic potential for success of a pilot clinical trial, highly selected patients should be offered participation.

Outcomes of Pediatric Kidney Transplantation in Recipients of a Previous Non-Renal Solid Organ Transplant

Children who receive a non-renal solid organ transplant may develop secondary renal failure requiring kidney transplantation. We investigated outcomes of 165 pediatric kidney transplant recipients who previously received a heart, lung, or liver transplant using data from 1988 to 2012 reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Patient and allograft survival were compared with 330 matched primary kidney transplant (PKT) recipients. Kidney transplantation after solid organ transplant (KASOT) recipients experienced similar allograft survival: 5- and 10-year graft survival was 78% and 60% in KASOT recipients, compared to 80% and 61% in PKT recipients (p = 0.69). However, KASOT recipients demonstrated worse 10-year patient survival (75% KASOT vs. 97% PKT, p < 0.001). Competing risks analysis indicated that KASOT recipients more often experienced graft loss due to patient death (p < 0.001), whereas allograft failure per se was more common in PKT recipients (p = 0.01). To study more recent outcomes, kidney transplants performed from 2006 to 2012 were separately investigated. Since 2006, KASOT and PKT recipients had similar 5-year graft survival (82% KASOT vs. 83% PKT, p = 0.48), although 5-year patient survival of KASOT recipients remained inferior (90% KASOT vs. 98% PKT, p < 0.001). We conclude that despite decreased patient survival, kidney allograft outcomes in pediatric KASOT recipients are comparable to those of PKT recipients.

Survival Benefit of Transplantation with a Deceased Diabetic Donor Kidney Compared with Remaining on the Waitlist

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Use of diabetic donor kidneys has been a necessary response to the donor organ shortage. Recipients of diabetic donor kidneys have higher mortality risk compared with recipients of nondiabetic donor kidneys. However, the survival benefit of transplantation with diabetic donor kidneys over remaining on the waitlist has not been previously evaluated.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed an observational cohort study of 437,619 kidney transplant candidates from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, including 8101 recipients of diabetic donor kidneys and 126,560 recipients of nondiabetic donor kidneys. We used time-varying Cox proportional hazards modeling to assess the mortality risk of accepting a diabetic donor kidney compared with remaining on the waitlist or receiving a nondiabetic donor kidney.

RESULTS

Among transplant recipients, median follow-up was 8.9 years and mortality rate was 35 deaths per 1000 person-years. Recipients of diabetic donor kidneys had 9% lower mortality compared with remaining on the waitlist or transplantation with a nondiabetic donor kidney (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 0.98). Although recipients of nondiabetic donor kidneys with a Kidney Donor Profile Index score >85% had lower mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 0.91), recipients of diabetic donor kidneys with an index score >85% did not show any difference (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.22). Patients aged <40 years attained no survival benefit from transplantation with diabetic donor kidneys; diabetic patients at centers with long waitlist times attained the greatest survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic donor kidneys appear associated with higher mortality risk compared with nondiabetic donor kidneys, but offer greater survival benefit compared with remaining on the waitlist for many candidates. Patients with high risk of mortality on the waitlist at centers with long wait times appear to benefit most from transplantation with diabetic donor kidneys.

[New scores in renal transplantation: How can we use them?]

In renal transplant medicine, several scores have been recently developed in order to help decision-making in clinical practice. The aim of this update is to focus on these new scores that allow to better estimate the quality of the renal transplant, to refine the allocation policy, to help registration of old recipients on the waiting list, or to evaluate the risk to develop end-stage renal failure after living donation.

Effect of Replacing Race With Apolipoprotein L1 Genotype in Calculation of Kidney Donor Risk Index

Renal allografts from deceased African American donors with two apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) renal-risk variants fail sooner than kidneys from donors with fewer variants. The Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) was developed to evaluate organ offers by predicting allograft longevity and includes African American race as a risk factor. Substituting APOL1 genotype for race may refine the KDRI. For 622 deceased African American kidney donors, we applied a 10-fold cross-validation approach to estimate contribution of APOL1 variants to a revised KDRI. Cross-validation was repeated 10 000 times to generate distribution of effect size associated with APOL1 genotype. Average effect size was used to derive the revised KDRI weighting. Mean current-KDRI score for all donors was 1.4930 versus mean revised-KDRI score 1.2518 for 529 donors with no or one variant and 1.8527 for 93 donors with two variants. Original and revised KDRIs had comparable survival prediction errors after transplantation, but the spread in Kidney Donor Profile Index based on presence or absence of two APOL1 variants was 37 percentage points. Replacing donor race with APOL1 genotype in KDRI better defines risk associated with kidneys transplanted from deceased African American donors, substantially improves KDRI score for 85-90% of kidneys offered, and enhances the link between donor quality and recipient need.

Beyond "Median Waiting Time": Development and Validation of a Competing Risk Model to Predict Outcomes on the Kidney Transplant Waiting List

BACKGROUND

Median historical time to kidney transplant is misleading because it does not convey the competing risks of death or removal from the waiting list. We developed and validated a competing risk model to calculate likelihood of outcomes for kidney transplant candidates and demonstrate how this information differs from median time to transplant.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The retrospective cohort included 163 636 adults listed for kidney transplant before December 31, 2011. Predictors were age, sex, blood type, calculated panel-reactive antibodies, donation service area, dialysis duration, comorbid conditions, and body mass index. Outcomes were deceased or living donor transplant, death or removal from the list due to deteriorating medical condition, or removal due to other reasons. We calculated hazards for the possible outcomes, then the cumulative incidence function for a given candidate using competing risk methodology. Discrimination and calibration were assessed through C statistics and calibration plots for each cause-specific Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

C statistics ranged from 0.64 to 0.73. Calibration plots showed good calibration. The competing risk model shows probability of all possible outcomes for up to 12 years given a candidate's characteristics, contrasted with the median waiting time for that candidate's donation service area.

CONCLUSIONS

A competing risk model conveys more relevant information than the median waiting time for a given transplant center. This model will be updated to create a calculator reflecting the most recent outcomes and changes in allocation policy. It illustrates the conversations that should be initiated with transplant candidates.

Strategies for long-term preservation of kidney graft function

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.

Strategies for an Expanded Use of Kidneys From Elderly Donors

The old-for-old allocation policy used for kidney transplantation (KT) has confirmed the survival benefit compared to remaining listed on dialysis. Shortage of standard donors has stimulated the development of strategies aimed to expand acceptance criteria, particularly of kidneys from elderly donors. We have systematically reviewed the literature on those different strategies. In addition to the review of outcomes of expanded criteria donor or advanced age kidneys, we assessed the value of the Kidney Donor Profile Index policy, preimplantation biopsy, dual KT, machine perfusion and special immunosuppressive protocols. Survival and functional outcomes achieved with expanded criteria donor, high Kidney Donor Profile Index or advanced age kidneys are poorer than those with standard ones. Outcomes using advanced age brain-dead or cardiac-dead donor kidneys are similar. Preimplantation biopsies and related scores have been useful to predict function, but their applicability to transplant or refuse a kidney graft has probably been overestimated. Machine perfusion techniques have decreased delayed graft function and could improve graft survival. Investing 2 kidneys in 1 recipient does not make sense when a single KT would be enough, particularly in elderly recipients. Tailored immunosuppression when transplanting an old kidney may be useful, but no formal trials are available.Old donors constitute an enormous source of useful kidneys, but their retrieval in many countries is infrequent. The assumption of limited but precious functional expectancy for an old kidney and substantial reduction of discard rates should be generalized to mitigate these limitations.

Kidney Donor Risk Index as the Predictor for the Short-term Clinical Outcomes After Kidney Transplant From Deceased Donor With Acute Kidney Injury

BACKGROUND

The Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) scoring system for deceased donors has been widely introduced for postoperative evaluation of graft function. We analyzed the usefulness of the KDRI in deceased donors with acute kidney injury (AKI).

METHODS

Forty-nine recipients from deceased donors with AKI between January 2009 and December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Data collected from donor medical records included age, height, weight, hypertension or diabetes history, cause of death, serum creatinine (sCr), and donation after cardiac death. Graft function data including sCr, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and acute rejection episodes were monitored for 1 year. Correlations between KDRI score and factors indicating graft function were analyzed. A cutoff value for KDRI score was calculated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for significant graft function.

RESULTS

The mean ages of donors and recipients were 46.81 ± 13.13 and 47.69 ± 11.43, respectively. The mean KDRI score was 1.24 ± 0.40. Univariable analysis of KDRI score and factors indicating graft function indicated that sCr at 6 to 12 months, eGFR at 1 year, and slow graft function (SGF) had statistical significance. The ROC curve of KDRI score for SGF showed an optimal cutoff value of 1.20, with sensitivity of 69.2% and specificity of 69.4% (area under the curve = 0.75) in deceased donors with AKI.

CONCLUSIONS

KDRI score in deceased donors with AKI was correlated with postoperative graft values including eGFR and SGF. KDRI could be used as a predictor for the short-term clinical outcome after kidney transplant from deceased donor with AKI.

First-Year Waitlist Hospitalization and Subsequent Waitlist and Transplant Outcome

Frailty is associated with inferior survival and increased resource requirements among kidney transplant candidates, but assessments are time-intensive and costly and require direct patient interaction. Waitlist hospitalization may be a proxy for patient fitness and could help those at risk of poor outcomes. We examined United States Renal Data System data from 51 111 adult end-stage renal disease patients with continuous Medicare coverage who were waitlisted for transplant from January 2000 to December 2011. Heavily admitted patients had higher subsequent resource requirements, increased waitlist mortality and decreased likelihood of transplant (death after listing: 1-7 days: hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.28; 8-14 days: HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.42-1.56; ≥15 days: HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.99-2.15; vs. 0 days). Graft and recipient survival was inferior, with higher admissions, although survival benefit was preserved. A model including waitlist admissions alone performed better (C statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.74-0.80) in predicting postlisting mortality than estimated posttransplant survival (C statistic 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.73). Although those with a heavy burden of admissions may still benefit from kidney transplant, less utility is derived from allografts placed in this population. Current kidney allocation policy, which is based in part on longevity matching, could be significantly improved by consideration of hospitalization records of transplant candidates.

GFR Evaluation in Living Kidney Donor Candidates

Evaluation of GFR, required in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates, is now receiving increasing emphasis because recent data demonstrate increased risk of kidney disease after donation, including a small increase in the risk of kidney failure. The international guideline development group, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, recently published a comprehensive set of recommendations for living donor evaluation, with three recommendations regarding GFR. (1) Donor candidacy is evaluated in light of long-term risk, in which GFR is one of many factors. ESRD is considered a central outcome, and a method for estimating long-term risk of ESRD in donor candidates is described. (2) Two GFR thresholds are used for decision-making: a high threshold (≥90 ml/min per 1.73 m2) to accept and a low threshold (<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2) to decline, with 60-89 ml/min per 1.73 m2 as an intermediate range in which the decision to accept or decline is made on the basis of factors in addition to GFR. (3) GFR is evaluated using several methods available at the transplant center, including estimating equations and clearance measurements. We review the rationale for the guideline recommendations, principles of GFR measurement and estimation, and our suggestions for implementation.

Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002-2003 and 2011-2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney-only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death-censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.

Kidney paired exchange and desensitization: Strategies to transplant the difficult to match kidney patients with living donors

With organs in short supply, only a limited number of kidney transplants can be performed a year. Live donor donation accounts for 1/3rd of all kidney transplants performed in the United States. Unfortunately, not every donor recipient pair is feasible because of Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization and ABO incompatibility. To overcome these barriers to transplant, strategies such as kidney paired donation (KPD) and desensitization have been developed. KPD is the exchange of donors between at least two incompatible donor-recipient pairs such that they are now compatible. Desensitization is the removal of circulating donor specific antibodies to prevent graft rejection. Regardless of the treatment strategy, highly sensitized patients whose calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) is ≥95% remain difficult to transplant with match rates as low as 15% in KPD pools. Desensitization has proved to be difficult in those with high antibody titers. A novel approach is the combination of both KPD and desensitization to facilitate compatible and successful transplantation. A highly sensitized patient can be paired with a better immunological match in the KPD pool and subsequently desensitized to a lesser degree. This article reviews the current progress in KPD and desensitization and their use as a combined therapy.

Moving Biomarkers toward Clinical Implementation in Kidney Transplantation

Long-term kidney transplant outcomes remain suboptimal, delineating an unmet medical need. Although current immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients is effective, dosing is conventionally adjusted empirically on the basis of time after transplant or altered in response to detection of kidney dysfunction, histologic evidence of allograft damage, or infection. Such strategies tend to detect allograft rejection after significant injury has already occurred, fail to detect chronic subclinical inflammation that can negatively affect graft survival, and ignore specific risks and immune mechanisms that differentially contribute to allograft damage among transplant recipients. Assays and biomarkers that reliably quantify and/or predict the risk of allograft injury have the potential to overcome these deficits and thereby, aid clinicians in optimizing immunosuppressive regimens. Herein, we review the data on candidate biomarkers that we contend have the highest potential to become clinically useful surrogates in kidney transplant recipients, including functional T cell assays, urinary gene and protein assays, peripheral blood cell gene expression profiles, and allograft gene expression profiles. We identify barriers to clinical biomarker adoption in the transplant field and suggest strategies for moving biomarker-based individualization of transplant care from a research hypothesis to clinical implementation.

Banff Histopathological Consensus Criteria for Preimplantation Kidney Biopsies

The Banff working group on preimplantation biopsy was established to develop consensus criteria (best practice guidelines) for the interpretation of preimplantation kidney biopsies. Digitally scanned slides were used (i) to evaluate interobserver variability of histopathologic findings, comparing frozen sections with formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue of wedge and needle core biopsies, and (ii) to correlate consensus histopathologic findings with graft outcome in a cohort of biopsies from international medical centers. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) and univariable and multivariable statistical analyses were performed. Good to fair reproducibility was observed in semiquantitative scores for percentage of glomerulosclerosis, arterial intimal fibrosis and interstitial fibrosis on frozen wedge biopsies. Evaluation of frozen wedge and core biopsies was comparable for number of glomeruli, but needle biopsies showed worse ICCs for glomerulosclerosis, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy. A consensus evaluation form is provided to help standardize the reporting of histopathologic lesions in donor biopsies. It should be recognized that histologic parameters may not correlate with graft outcome in studies based on organs deemed to be acceptable after careful clinical assessment. Significant limitations remain in the assessment of implantation biopsies.

Older candidates for kidney transplantation: Who to refer and what to expect?

The number of older end-stage renal disease patients being referred for kidney transplantation continues to increase. This rise is occurring alongside the continually increasing prevalence of older end-stage renal disease patients. Although older kidney transplant recipients have decreased patient and graft survival compared to younger patients, transplantation in this patient population is pursued due to the survival advantage that it confers over remaining on the deceased donor waiting list. The upper limit of age and the extent of comorbidity and frailty at which transplantation ceases to be advantageous is not known. Transplant physicians are therefore faced with the challenge of determining who among older patients are appropriate candidates for kidney transplantation. This is usually achieved by means of an organ systems-based medical evaluation with particular focus given to cardiovascular health. More recently, global measures of health such as functional status and frailty are increasingly being recognized as potential tools in risk stratifying kidney transplant candidates. For those candidates who are deemed eligible, living donor transplantation should be pursued. This may mean accepting a kidney from an older living donor. In the absence of any living donor, the choice to accept lesser quality kidneys should be made while taking into account the organ shortage and expected waiting times on the deceased donor list. Appropriate counseling of patients should be a cornerstone in the evaluation process and includes a discussion regarding expected outcomes, expected waiting times in the setting of the new Kidney Allocation System, benefits of living donor transplantation and the acceptance of lesser quality kidneys.

Outcome disparities between African Americans and Caucasians in contemporary kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Racial disparities in African-American (AA) kidney transplant have persisted for nearly 40 years, with limited data available on the scope of this issue in the contemporary era of transplantation.

METHODS

Descriptive retrospective cohort study of US registry data including adult solitary kidney transplants between Jan 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2009.

RESULTS

60,695 recipients were included; 41,426 Caucasians (68%) and 19,269 AAs (32%). At baseline, AAs were younger, had lower college graduation rates, were more likely to be receiving public health insurance and have diabetes. At one-year post-transplant, AAs had 62% higher risk of graft loss (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.50-1.75) which increased to 93% at five years (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.85-2.01). Adjusted risk of graft loss, accounting for baseline characteristics, was 60% higher in AAs (HR 1.61 [1.52-1.69]). AAs had significantly higher risk of acute rejection and delayed graft function.

CONCLUSION

AAs continue to experience disproportionately high rates of graft loss within the contemporary era of transplant, which are related to a convergence of an array of socioeconomic and biologic risk factors.

The new kidney allocation system does not equally advantage all very high cPRA candidates - A single center analysis

The new UNOS kidney allocation system awards very high points to candidates with cPRA 99% and 100%, and allows for national sharing for cPRA 100% candidates. We sought to determine the effect of this new kidney allocation system on candidates who are very highly sensitized (90-98% cPRA) but not eligible for very high points or national sharing by examining offers to these candidates for 5months pre-implementation and two consecutive 5month periods post-implementation and comparing them to cPRA⩾99% candidates. We found that the cPRA⩾99% candidates received significantly more offers and transplants after implementation, while offers and transplants to the 90-98% candidates decreased. A slight adjustment to the allocation system may be needed to provide more equitable distribution of kidneys to all high cPRA candidates.

Should epitope-based HLA compatibility be used in the kidney allocation system?

The new kidney allocation system (KAS) still applies donor-recipient HLA compatibility mostly at the antigen level and although some four-digit alleles have been included. This system is used to record unacceptable mismatches for sensitized transplant candidates with serum HLA antibodies. Since the reactivities of such antibodies are specifically associated with epitopes rather than HLA antigens, a more scientifically accurate assessment of mismatch acceptability could be based on epitopes. HLA class I and class II epitope specificity analyses can now be readily performed with serum antibody assays with single allele panels. This report describes an epitope-based HLA compatibility system for KAS and involves recipient and donor HLA typing at the four-digit allele level. It focuses on sensitized patients who have serum antibodies specific for HLA epitopes that can be entered as unacceptable mismatches in the transplant candidate database. Newly developed software programs could readily identify compatible HLA types.

[Deceased donation in renal transplantation]

OBJECTIVES

To review epidemiologic data's and medical results of deceased donation in renal transplantation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Relevant publications were identified through Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) database using the following keywords, alone or in association, "brain death; cardiac arrest; deceased donation; organ procurement; transplantation". Articles were selected according to methods, language of publication and relevance. The reference lists were used to identify additional historical studies of interest. Both prospective and retrospective series, in French and English, as well as review articles and recommendations were selected. In addition, French national transplant and health agencies (http://www.agence-biomedecine.fr and http://www.has-sante.fr) databases were screened using identical keywords. A total of 2498 articles, 8 official reports and 17 newspaper articles were identified; after careful selection 157 publications were eligible for our review.

RESULTS

Deceased donation may involve either brain death or non-heartbeating donors (NHBD). Organ shortage led to the procurement of organs from expanded-criteria donors, with an increased age at donation and extended vascular disease, leading to inferior results after transplantation and underlining the need for careful donor management during brain death or cardiac arrest. Evolution of French legislation covering bioethics allowed procurement from Maastricht categories II and recently III non-heartbeating donors.

CONCLUSION

The increase of organ shortage emphasizes the need for a rigorous surgical technique during procurement to avoid loss of transplants. A history or current neoplasm in deceased-donors, requires attention to increase the pool of organs without putting the recipients at risk for cancer transmission. French NHBD program, especially from Maastricht category III, may stand for a potential source of valuable organs.

The coordination of allocation: Logistics of kidney organ allocation to highly sensitized patients

Since implementation, the new UNOS OPTN kidney allocation system (KAS) has drastically expanded the pool of available kidneys to candidates that may have previously waited extended periods for an organ offer. This is particularly true for highly sensitized patients. The changes to the KAS have had ramifications throughout the transplant process, including for organ procurement organizations (OPO) and local transplant hospital call centers. Here, we will examine the impact of the new KAS on the organ donation process and highlight the necessary interactions between the OPO and transplant centers to best match donor kidneys and highly sensitized recipients.

Current Status of Kidney Transplant Outcomes: Dying to Survive

Kidney transplantation is associated with improved survival compared with maintenance dialysis. In the United States, post-transplant outcomes have steadily improved over the last several decades, with current 1-year allograft and patient survival rates well over 90%. Although short-term outcomes are similar to those in the international community, long-term outcomes appear to be inferior to those reported by other countries. Differences in recipient case mix, allocation polices, and health care coverage contribute to the long-term outcome disparity. This review presents the current status of kidney transplant outcomes in the United States and compares them with the most recent outcomes from Australia and New Zealand, Europe, and Canada. In addition, early trends after implementation of the new kidney allocation system in the United States and its potential impact on post-transplant outcomes are discussed.

Estimating Waiting Time for Deceased Donor Renal Transplantion in the Era of New Kidney Allocation System

BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2014, a new deceased donor kidney allocation system (KAS) was implemented. The KAS was designed to improve organ equity and graft-recipient longevity matching. However, estimated wait-time to deceased donor transplantation is difficult to predict post-KAS.

METHODS

Using the Kidney-Pancreas Simulated Allocation Model software (KPSAM), a program that the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network uses to assess policy proposals, we compared the kidney allocations of both the new (post-KAS) and old policies (pre-KAS) (10 iterations for each group; total N = 204,148) and estimated wait-time based on blood type, duration of dialysis exposure, and calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA).

RESULTS

The simulations revealed that estimated median (25(th) and 75(th) percentile) waiting time in transplanted recipients decreased from 2.3 (1.2, 3.8) years in the old allocation to 1.8 (0.8, 3.4) years in the new allocation system. The rate of transplantations performed within the first year of wait-listing increased from 20.7% to 31.3%. The KPSAM resulted in more transplantations in recipients with more than 5 years of dialysis exposure (26.5% to 37.4%), longevity matching (12.2% to 17.5%), blood group B (12.6% to 17.2%), and high CPRA ≥98% (1.9% to 4.3%) in post-KAS compared with pre-KAS simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the KPSAM results, it was projected that post-KAS wait-time in transplanted recipients might decrease approximately 6 months (22%) across all CPRA categories. It might be related to the KAS awarding waiting time points for prelisting dialysis time and priority points awarded based on CPRA (bolus effect).

Old versus new: Progress in reaching the goals of the new kidney allocation system

As demand for kidney transplant continues to grow faster than organ availability, appropriate allocation of deceased donor kidneys is an acute priority. Increased longevity matching is central to this effort. To foster equitable and efficient utilization of deceased donor kidneys, a new kidney allocation system (KAS) was introduced in December 2014. Major achievements in the 1year after its implementation include a reduction in age-mismatch and an increase in access to transplant for historically disadvantaged candidates, such as those with very high levels of panel-reactive antibodies or long dialysis duration. However, the rate of discarded kidneys has not decreased, and an increase in A2/A2B transplants has yet to be realized. Organs are now shared more often at the regional and national levels, with some regions experiencing an increase in transplants and other a decrease. While implementation of the KAS has been associated with the attainment of key goals, the kidney transplant community must remain vigilant about potential untoward consequences, including reductions in transplant rates for specific groups such as pediatric patients. More time is required before firm conclusions about the long-term effects of the new KAS can be rendered.

Current status on the evaluation and management of the highly sensitized kidney transplant recipient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In light of the recent changes to the kidney allocation system (KAS) and the observed increase in the rate of transplantation of the highly sensitized kidney transplant candidate, the evaluation and care of this population is a timely topic.

RECENT FINDINGS

In its first year, the new KAS has already realized one goal of improving the chances of transplanting the most highly sensitized patients in the waiting list. This has brought to the forefront the need for recipient readiness in this special population, as well as the need for histocompatibility labs and kidney transplant programs to align themselves with each other, and also with the requirements of the United Network for Organ Sharing, and increase proficiency in testing and data interpretation. This manuscript is a review of the literature as well as practice patterns as they relate to the changes in KAS and the observed outcome since the activation of the new KAS, with the ultimate goal of aiding in the development of a more unified approach in the care of this specialized population which will allow for interdisciplinary and cross centre dialogue to optimize long term care and outcomes.

SUMMARY

Here we will review the changes to the KAS as they affect the highly sensitized kidney transplant recipient, and additional considerations in the evaluation and management of these patients.

Risk Factors for BK Polyoma Virus Treatment and Association of Treatment With Kidney Transplant Failure: Insights From a Paired Kidney Analysis

BACKGROUND

Identification of risk factors for BK polyoma virus (BKPyV) without confounding by donor factors and era effects in paired analysis may inform strategies to prevent BKPyV.

METHODS

In this analysis of 21,575 mate kidney pairs in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2004 and 2010, the presence of a treatment code for BKPyV virus in follow-up forms was used to identify pairs in which 1 of 2 mate kidneys was treated (discordant treatment) or both mate kidneys were treated (concordant treatment).

RESULTS

Among 1975 discordant pairs, younger than 18 years or 60 years or older, male sex, HLA mismatch or 4 greater, acute rejection, and depleting antibody induction had a higher odds of treatment, whereas diabetes and sirolimus had a lower odds of treatment, and treatment was associated with a higher risk of allograft failure (hazards ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-2.48). The rate of concordant treatment (0.81%) was 2.8 times higher than expected. Concordant treatment was associated with nonwhite donor ethnicity, donation after circulatory death, transplantation after 2008, and transplantation of mate kidneys in the same center.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of kidneys from the same donor in which only 1 transplant was treated for BKPyV identifies specific risk factors (age <18 or ≥ 60 years, male sex, depleting antibody, HLA mismatch ≥ 4) for BKPyV and provides an estimate of the BKPyV-associated risk of allograft failure (hazards ratio = 2.01) without confounding by donor factors or era effects. The higher than expected rate of concordant treatment suggests the importance of donor factors in BKPyV pathogenesis and warrants further study.

Multiorgan transplantation

Kidney transplantation has proven to be the gold standard therapy for severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to multiple etiologies in individuals deemed eligible from a surgical standpoint. While kidney transplantation is traditionally considered in conditions of native kidney disease such as diabetes and immunological or inherited causes of kidney disease, an increasing indication for kidney transplantation is kidney dysfunction in the setting of other severe organ dysfunction that requires transplant, such as severe liver or heart disease. In these settings, multiorgan transplantation is now commonly performed, with controversy regarding the appropriate utilization of kidneys transplanted both from a physiological perspective (distinguishing those who require a kidney transplant) and also from an ethical perspective (allocation of a scarce resource to a more morbid population). These issues persist in the setting of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPK), in which utilization for patients with type 1 diabetes has been historically accepted. Questions of physiological benefit persist, and utilization is waning despite broader allocation policies that encourage SPK, including consideration for patients with type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this review will be to summarize the physiological data regarding multiorgan transplantation and place these into context while reviewing current allocation policy in the United States.

HLA Matching Trumps Donor Age: Donor-Recipient Pairing Characteristics That Impact Long-Term Success in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in the Era of Paired Kidney Exchange

BACKGROUND

We sought to identify donor characteristics influencing long-term graft survival, expressed by a novel measure, kidney life years (KLYs), in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

METHODS

Cox and multiple regression analyses were applied to data from the Scientific Registry for Transplant Research from 1987 to 2015. Dependent variable was KLYs.

RESULTS

Living donor kidney transplantation (129 273) were performed from 1987 to 2013 in the United States. To allow sufficient time to assess long-term results, outcomes of LDKTs between 1987 and 2001 were analyzed. After excluding cases where a patient died with a functioning graft (8301) or those missing HLA data (9), 40 371 cases were analyzed. Of 18 independent variables, the focus became the 4 variables that were the most statistically and clinically significant in that they are potentially modifiable in donor selection (P <0.0001; ie, HLA match points, donor sex, donor biological sibling and donor age). HLA match points had the strongest relationship with KLYs, was associated with the greatest tendency toward graft longevity on Cox regression, and had the largest increase in KLYs (2.0 year increase per 50 antigen Match Points) based on multiple regression.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases when a patient has multiple potential donors, such as through paired exchange, graft life might be extended when a donor with favorable matching characteristics is selected.

A Risk Index for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

Choosing between multiple living kidney donors, or evaluating offers in kidney paired donation, can be challenging because no metric currently exists for living donor quality. Furthermore, some deceased donor (DD) kidneys can result in better outcomes than some living donor kidneys, yet there is no way to compare them on the same scale. To better inform clinical decision-making, we created a living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI, using Cox regression and adjusting for recipient characteristics. Donor age over 50 (hazard ratio [HR] per 10 years = 1.15 1.241.33 ), elevated BMI (HR per 10 units = 1.01 1.091.16 ), African-American race (HR = 1.15 1.251.37 ), cigarette use (HR = 1.09 1.161.23 ), as well as ABO incompatibility (HR = 1.03 1.271.58 ), HLA B (HR = 1.03 1.081.14 ) mismatches, and DR (HR = 1.04 1.091.15 ) mismatches were associated with greater risk of graft loss after living donor transplantation (all p < 0.05). Median (interquartile range) LKDPI score was 13 (1-27); 24.2% of donors had LKDPI < 0 (less risk than any DD kidney), and 4.4% of donors had LKDPI > 50 (more risk than the median DD kidney). The LKDPI is a useful tool for comparing living donor kidneys to each other and to deceased donor kidneys.

Changes in Discard Rate After the Introduction of the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI)

Since March 26, 2012, the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) has been provided with all deceased-donor kidney offers, with the goal of improving the expanded criteria donor (ECD) indicator. Although an improved risk index may facilitate identification and transplantation of marginal yet viable kidneys, a granular percentile system may reduce provider-patient communication flexibility, paradoxically leading to more discards ("labeling effect"). We studied the discard rates of the kidneys recovered for transplantation between March 26, 2010 and March 25, 2012 ("ECD era," N = 28 636) and March 26, 2012 and March 25, 2014 ("KDPI era," N = 29 021) using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data. There was no significant change in discard rate from ECD era (18.1%) to KDPI era (18.3%) among the entire population (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.97 1.041.10 , p = 0.3), or in any KDPI stratum. However, among kidneys in which ECD and KDPI indicators were discordant, "high risk" standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys (with KDPI > 85) were at increased risk of discard in the KDPI era (aOR = 1.07 1.421.89 , p = 0.02). Yet, recipients of these kidneys were at much lower risk of death (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR] = 0.56 0.770.94 at 2 years posttransplant) compared to those remaining on dialysis waiting for low-KDPI kidneys. Our findings suggest that there might be an unexpected, harmful labeling effect of reporting a high KDPI for SCD kidneys, without the expected advantage of providing a more granular risk index.

APOL1 Polymorphisms in a Deceased Donor and Early Presentation of Collapsing Glomerulopathy and Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis in Two Recipients

Two common polymorphisms in APOL1 (G1 and G2) are conserved in persons of African ancestry, and the presence of two polymorphisms (commonly referred to as risk variants) has been identified as a risk factor for chronic kidney disease and focal seg-mental glomerulosclerosis. In kidney transplantation, deceased donors with two APOL1 risk variants carry an increased risk of renal allograft failure in the recipient. An emerging question is whether these data should influence deceased donor assessment or be used to refine prediction of allograft survival. We present the first detailed report of two cases of recipient glomerular disease in the first year following transplant from a deceased donor later defined as carrying two APOL1 risk variants. A possible "second hit" predisposing to renal disease in these recipients is discussed, one with active cytomegalovirus infection concurrent with collapsing glomerulopathy and renal failure and the other with chronic, slowly healing wound infection and focal segmental glomeru-losclerosis but stable renal function. In retrospect, awareness of the donor APOL1 risk alleles would not have influenced donor selection and ultimately did not influence posttransplant management. These case reports inform further discussion of the value of APOL1 testing for deceased donors.

Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Sensitized Nonhuman Primates: Modeling Human Biology

We have established a model of sensitization in nonhuman primates and tested two immunosuppressive regimens. Animals underwent fully mismatched skin transplantation, and donor-specific antibody (DSA) response was monitored by flow cross-match. Sensitized animals subsequently underwent kidney transplantation from their skin donor. Immunosuppression included tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and methylprednisolone. Three animals received basiliximab induction; compared with nonsensitized animals, they showed a shorter mean survival time (4.7 ± 3.1 vs. 187 ± 88 days). Six animals were treated with T cell depletion (anti-CD4/CD8 mAbs), which prolonged survival (mean survival time 21.6 ± 19.0 days). All presensitized animals showed antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). In two of three basiliximab-injected animals, cellular rejection (ACR) was prominent. After T cell depletion, three of six monkeys experienced early acute rejection within 8 days with histological evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy and AMR. The remaining three monkeys survived 27-44 days, with mixed AMR and ACR. Most T cell-depleted animals experienced a rebound of DSA that correlated with deteriorating kidney function. We also found an increase in proliferating memory B cells (CD20(+) CD27(+) IgD(-) Ki67(+) ), lymph node follicular helper T cells (ICOS(+) PD-1(hi) CXCR5(+) CD4(+) ), and germinal center (GC) response. Depletion controlled cell-mediated rejection in sensitized nonhuman primates better than basiliximab, yet grafts were rejected with concomitant DSA rise. This model provides an opportunity to test novel desensitization strategies.

Changes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation One Year After KAS Implementation

After over a decade of discussion, analysis, and consensus-building, a new kidney allocation system (KAS) was implemented on December 4, 2014. Key goals included improving longevity matching between donor kidneys and recipients and broadening access for historically disadvantaged subpopulations, in particular highly sensitized patients and those with an extended duration on dialysis but delayed referral for transplantation. To evaluate the early impact of KAS, we compared Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data 1 year before versus after implementation. The distribution of transplants across many recipient characteristics has changed markedly and suggests that in many ways the new policy is achieving its goals. Transplants in which the donor and recipient age differed by more than 30 years declined by 23%. Initial, sharp increases in transplants were observed for Calculated Panel-Reactive Antibody 99-100% recipients and recipients with at least 10 years on dialysis, with a subsequent tapering of transplants to these groups suggesting bolus effects. Although KAS has arguably increased fairness in allocation, the potential costs of broadening access must be considered. Kidneys are more often being shipped over long distances, leading to increased cold ischemic times. Delayed graft function rates have increased, but 6-month graft survival rates have not changed significantly.

Evaluation of Changes in New Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody Adopting HLA-Cw, DR51/52/53, and DQ Antigens in Koreans

BACKGROUND

Calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) (%) is percentage of donors that would be incompatible with the candidate, based on the candidate's unacceptable HLA antigens. cPRA based on antigen frequencies of HLA-A, B, and DR has been used in Korea. We developed new cPRA including HLA-Cw, DR51/52/53, and DQ. Changes in new-cPRA were evaluated.

METHODS

We analyzed the differences between cPRA based on HLA-A, -B, and -DR antigens (old-cPRA) from cPRA based on HLA-A, -B, -Cw, -DR, -DR51/52/53, and -DQ antigens (new-cPRA) on 125 waitlisted candidates for renal transplantation in Seoul National University Hospital. cPRA for unacceptable antigens was calculated according to 3 different cut-off values (MFI <1000, 3000, and 10000 for cPRAw, cPRAm, and cPRAs, respectively).

RESULTS

For HLA class I, cPRAw and cPRAm were significantly increased in new-cPRA compared to old-cPRA (median 78.3% vs 71.7%, P < .001; 34.0% vs 23.5%, P = .029, respectively). For HLA class II, cPRAw, cPRAm, and cPRAs were significantly increased in new-cPRA compared to old-cPRA (median 86.8% vs 42.6%; 58.0% vs 0.0%; 0.0% vs 0.0%, P < .001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

cPRA (%) including HLA-Cw, -DR51/52/53, and -DQ showed remarkable increase, especially in HLA class II antigens. The meaning of this should be carefully interpreted through further studies considering clinical outcomes.