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

Characterizing the risk of human leukocyte antigen-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation in older recipients

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: 1.632.072.65, P < .001), lower DCGF (hazard ratio: 0.360.530.77, P = .001), and AR (odds ratio: 0.390.540.74, P < .001), and similar DGF (odds ratio: 0.461.032.33, P = .9) and LOS (incidence rate ratio: 0.880.981.10, 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.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Paired kidney donation: are we going beyond reasonable limits in living-donor transplantation?

The growing demand for transplant kidneys requires strategies to increase organ supply and avoid long waiting periods on the list. The increase in the number of transplants from living donors involves the growth in the use of unrelated donors and paired kidney donation. Most of these transplants are performed in the USA, where they already represent, respectively, 34% and 16% of total transplants from living donors. In Latin America, and especially in Brazil, there is no collective enthusiasm for these modalities, either at the request of transplanters or that of the community, with the region's priority being to increase transplants from deceased donors, which growth can be up to three-fold. Concerning transplants from matched donors, the possible conflicting results between donors can generate public challenges and they risk compromise the concepts of equal opportunities for transplant candidates, with the possibility of generating resistance to organ donation, especially in regions with socioeconomic limitations and disparities in access to qualified health care and education. This donation model involves challenging ethical and logistical issues, which are subject to questionings, starting with an act of exchange between two pairs until reaching embarrassing proposals, which can compromise the altruistic character of organ donation, and thus not be universally incorporated.

Creating Options for Difficult-to-match Kidney Transplant Candidates

BACKGROUND

Most transplantation centers recognize a small patient population that unsuccessfully participates in all available, both living and deceased donor, transplantation programs for many years: the difficult-to-match patients. This population consists of highly immunized and/or ABO blood group O or B patients.

METHODS

To improve their chances, Computerized Integration of Alternative Transplantation programs (CIAT) were developed to integrate kidney paired donation, altruistic/unspecified donation, and ABO and HLA desensitization. To compare CIAT with reality, a simulation was performed, including all patients, donors, and pairs who participated in our programs in 2015-2016. Criteria for inclusion as difficult-to-match, selected-highly immunized (sHI) patient were as follows: virtual panel reactive antibody >85% and participating for 2 years in Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program. sHI patients were given priority, and ABO blood group incompatible (ABOi) and/or HLA incompatible (HLAi) matching with donor-specific antigen-mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) <8000 were allowed. For long-waiting blood group O or B patients, ABOi matches were allowed.

RESULTS

In reality, 90 alternative program transplantations were carried out: 73 compatible, 16 ABOi, and 1 both ABOi and HLAi combination. Simulation with CIAT resulted in 95 hypothetical transplantations: 83 compatible (including 1 sHI) and 5 ABOi combinations. Eight sHI patients were matched: 1 compatible, 6 HLAi with donor-specific antigen-MFI <8000 (1 also ABOi), and 1 ABOi match. Six/eight combinations for sHI patients were complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match negative.

CONCLUSIONS

CIAT led to 8 times more matches for difficult-to-match sHI patients. This offers them better chances because of a more favorable MFI profile against the new donor. Besides, more ABO compatible matches were found for ABOi couples, while total number of transplantations was not hampered. Prioritizing difficult-to-match patients improves their chances without affecting the chances of regular patients.

A Europe wide acceptable mismatch program will enable transplantation of long waiting highly sensitised patients with a compatible donor

Immunisation against Human Leucocyte Antigens (HLA) can be caused by pregnancy, blood transfusion, or organ transplants. The HLA antibody status of a given patient significantly influences their access and waiting time to transplant. For some highly sensitised patients (HSP) there is hardly any suitable donor available in the deceased donor pool of their allocation organisation and therefore they wait a very long time before being offered a kidney for transplant. Especially patients with rare HLA phenotypes in relation to the actual donor pool are waiting extremely long. As HLA phenotypes are different in the various European populations, we hypothesized that extension of the donor pool outside the respective allocation system will increase the chance of receiving a compatible transplant for this subgroup of highly sensitised patients. One of the objectives of the EUROSTAM project, (a Europe-wide Strategy to enhance Transplantation of highly sensitised patients on the basis of Acceptable HLA Mismatches) was to develop a tool to compare the chance of transplanting HSP in different European populations with donor organs from within and outside their own donor pool. Information on the HLA type and ABO blood group of the actual donor population, as well as the acceptable mismatches of long waiting HSP were obtained from the EUROSTAM partner organizations i.e. Eurotransplant (ET), UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), Barcelona, Prague and Athens. Results from simulations using the newly developed tool shows that 195 (27%) of the 724 long waiting highly sensitised patients registered at each partner organisation have increased chances of transplant in a different European donor pool. This makes a strong case for sharing kidneys between European countries for selected difficult to transplant patients.

Preoperative carfilzomib and lulizumab based desensitization prolongs graft survival in a sensitized non-human primate model

Sensitized patients are difficult to transplant due to pre-formed anti-donor immunity. We have previously reported successful desensitization using carfilzomib and belatacept in a non-human primate (NHP) model. Here we evaluated selective blockade of the co-stimulatory signal (CD28-B7) with Lulizumab, which preserves the co-inhibitory signal (CTLA4-B7). Five maximally MHC-mismatched pairs of NHPs were sensitized to each other with two sequential skin transplants. Individuals from each pair were randomized to either desensitization with once-weekly Carfilzomib (27mg/m² IV) and Lulizumab (12.5mg/kg SC) over four weeks, or no desensitization (Control). NHPs then underwent life-sustaining kidney transplantation from their previous skin donor. Rhesus-specific anti-thymocyte globulin was used as induction therapy and immunosuppression maintained with tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and methylprednisolone. Desensitized subjects demonstrated a significant reduction in donor-specific antibody, follicular helper T cells (CD4⁺PD-1⁺ICOS⁺), and proliferating B cells (CD20⁺Ki67⁺) in the lymph nodes. Interestingly, regulatory T cell (CD4⁺CD25⁺CD127^lo) frequency was maintained after desensitization in addition to increased frequency of naïve CD4 T cells (CCR7⁺CD45RA⁺) and naïve B cells (IgD⁺CD27^-CD20⁺) in circulation. This was associated with significant prolongation in graft survival (MST = 5.8 ± 4.0 vs. 64.8 ± 36.3; p<0.05) and lower antibody-mediated rejection scores compared to control animals. However, all desensitized animals eventually developed AMR and graft failure. Desensitization with CFZ and Lulizumab improves allograft survival in allosensitized NHPs, by transient control of the germinal center and shifting of the immune system to a more naive phenotype. This regimen may translate into clinical practice to improve outcomes of highly sensitized transplant patients.

Mitigating Racial and Sex Disparities in Access to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Impact of the Nation's Longest Single-center Kidney Chain

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we sought to assess likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) within a single-center kidney transplant waitlist, by race and sex, after implementation of an incompatible program.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Disparities in access to LDKT exist among minority women and may be partially explained by antigen sensitization secondary to prior pregnancies, transplants, or blood transfusions, creating difficulty finding compatible matches. To address these and other obstacles, an incompatible LDKT program, incorporating desensitization and kidney paired donation, was created at our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed among our kidney transplant waitlist candidates (n = 8895). Multivariable Cox regression was utilized, comparing likelihood of LDKT before (era 1: 01/2007-01/2013) and after (era 2: 01/2013-11/2018) implementation of the incompatible program. Candidates were stratified by race [white vs minority (nonwhite)], sex, and breadth of sensitization.

RESULTS

Program implementation resulted in the nation's longest single-center kidney chain, and likelihood of LDKT increased by 70% for whites [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.99] and more than 100% for minorities (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.62). Improvement in access to LDKT was greatest among sensitized minority women [calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 11%-49%: aHR 4.79; 95% CI, 2.27-10.11; cPRA 50%-100%: aHR 4.09; 95% CI, 1.89-8.82].

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an incompatible program, and the resulting nation's longest single-center kidney chain, mitigated disparities in access to LDKT among minorities, specifically sensitized women. Extrapolation of this success on a national level may further serve these vulnerable populations.

Renal Transplantation in High Immunological Risk Patients: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Renal transplantation (RT) in high-risk patients is increasingly performed due to an inadequate organ pool and increased rate of RT after a failed transplantation. Safety and prognosis of RT in such patients with high risk is an ongoing debate. Herein we aimed to present our single-center experience on RT of high-risk patients.

METHODS

A total of 89 consecutive RT patients were included into this study in a 10-month period. Patients were divided into 3 groups: the low-risk group (n = 47) with negative panel reactive antibody (PRA), medium-risk group (n = 18) with positive PRA but mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) < 2000, and high-risk group (n = 24) with positive PRA and MFI >2000 or donor specific antibody (DSA) positivity. Groups were compared in terms of demographic features, serum creatinine levels, acute rejection rates, delayed graft function (DGF), and patient or graft loss.

RESULTS

Age of the recipients were similar between the groups. Desensitization (7% vs 11% vs 42%, respectively, in low-, medium-, and high-risk groups; P = .001), plasmapheresis (6% vs 11% vs 46%, respectively, P < .001), and rituximab treatments (0% vs 0% vs 25%, respectively, P < .001) were significantly more frequently performed in high-risk patients. Serum creatinine levels at 1 month and 6 months after RT were similar between the groups (P = .43 and P = .71, respectively). Rates of acute rejection (6% vs 6% vs 16%, respectively, P = .52) and DGF (9% vs 11% vs 29%, respectively, P = .15) were similar between the groups. Frequencies of loss of patient or graft were also similar (0% vs 6% vs 4%, P = .15).

CONCLUSION

RT may be successfully performed in high-risk patients without an increase in the risk of acute rejection, DGF, or patient/graft loss.

KPDGUI: An interactive application for optimization and management of a virtual kidney paired donation program

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim in kidney paired donation (KPD) is typically to maximize the number of transplants achieved through the exchange of donors in a pool comprising incompatible donor-candidate pairs and non-directed (or altruistic) donors. With many possible options in a KPD pool at any given time, the most appropriate set of exchanges cannot be determined by simple inspection. In practice, computer algorithms are used to determine the optimal set of exchanges to pursue. Here, we present our software application, KPDGUI (Kidney Paired Donation Graphical User Interface), for management and optimization of KPD programs.

METHODS

While proprietary software platforms for managing KPD programs exist to provide solutions to the standard KPD problem, our application implements newly investigated optimization criteria that account for uncertainty regarding the viability of selected transplants and arrange for fallback options in cases where potential exchanges cannot proceed, with intuitive resources for visualizing alternative optimization solutions.

RESULTS

We illustrate the advantage of accounting for uncertainty and arranging for fallback options in KPD using our application through a case study involving real data from a paired donation program, comparing solutions produced under different optimization criteria and algorithmic priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

KPDGUI is a flexible and powerful tool for offering decision support to clinicians and researchers on possible KPD transplant options to pursue under different user-specified optimization schemes.

A review of the possibility of adopting financially driven live donor kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation for end-stage renal disease remains the preferred solution due to its survival advantage, enhanced quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The main obstacle worldwide with this modality of treatment is the scarcity of organs. The demand has always exceeded the supply resulting in different types of donations. Kidney donation includes pure living related donors, deceased donors, living unrelated donors (altruistic), paired kidney donation and more recently compensated kidney donation. Ethical considerations in live donor kidney transplantation have always created a debate especially when rewarding unrelated donors. In this paper, we examine the problems of financially driven kidney transplantation, the ethical legitimacy of this practice, and propose some innovative methods and policies that could be adopted to ensure a better practice with accepted ethical guidelines.

Living Kidney Donation: Strategies to Increase the Donor Pool

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a significant health care burden. Although kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment modality, less than 25% of waiting list patients are transplanted because of organ shortage. Living kidney donation can lead to better recipient and graft survival and increase the number of donors. Not all ESRD patients have potential living donors, and not all living donors are a compatible match to recipients. Kidney paired exchanges allow incompatible pairs to identify compatible living donors for living donor kidney transplants for multiple recipients. Innovative modifications of kidney paired donation can increase the number of kidney transplants, with excellent outcomes.

Ethical and Logistical Issues Raised by the Advanced Donation Program "Pay It Forward" Scheme

The advanced donation program was proposed in 2014 to allow an individual to donate a kidney in order to provide a voucher for a kidney in the future for a particular loved one. In this article, we explore the logistical and ethical issues that such a program raises. We argue that such a program is ethical in principle but there are many logistical issues that need to be addressed to ensure that the actual program is fair to both those who do and do not participate in this program.

Landscape of ABO-Incompatible Live Donor Kidney Transplantation in the US

BACKGROUND

Widespread implementation of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) has been proposed as a means to partially ameliorate the national shortage of deceased donor kidneys. Acceptance of this practice has been encouraged by reports from experienced centers demonstrating acute rejection (AR) rates similar to those obtained with ABO-compatible (ABOc) LDKT. Acute rejection rate and graft survival after ABOi LDKT on a national level have yet to be fully determined.

STUDY DESIGN

We studied adult (>18 years) LDKT recipients, from 2000 to 2015, reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Acute rejection rates in the first post-transplant year (modified Poisson regression) and graft survival (Cox proportional hazards) were assessed by ABO compatibility status (ABOi: 930; ABOc: 89,713).

RESULTS

Patients undergoing ABOi LDKT had an AR rate of 19.4% compared with 10.5% for ABOc recipients (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for recipient- and donor-related risk factors, patients undergoing ABOi LDKT were found to have a 1.76-fold greater risk for AR within 1 year of transplantation compared with ABOc LDKT recipients (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.76; 95% CI 1.54 to 2.01). Moreover, there was a 2.34-fold greater risk of death-censored graft loss at 1-year post-transplant among ABOi vs ABOc LDKT recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.34; 95% CI 1.85 to 2.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, the low rates of AR and excellent short-term graft survival presented in single center series may not be sustainable on a national level. These findings highlight the potential utility for identification of centers of excellence and regionalization of ABOi LDKT.