Changes in Functional Status Among Kidney Transplant Recipients: Data From the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients

ABO-adjusted cPRA metric for kidney allocation in an Asian-predominant population

Recent studies showed that ABO-adjusted calculated panel reactive antibody (ABO-cPRA) may better reflect the histocompatibility level in a multi-ethnic population, but such data in Asians is not available. We developed an ABO-adjusted cPRA metric on a cohort of waitlist kidney transplant patients (n = 647, 99% Chinese) in Hong Kong, based on HLA alleles and ABO frequencies of local donors. The concordance between the web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and the impact on kidney allocation were evaluated. The blood group distribution for A, B, O and AB among waitlist kidney candidates were 26.2%, 27.5%, 40.1%, and 6.1%, and their chances of encountering incompatible blood group donors were 32.6%, 32.4%, 57.6%, and 0%, respectively. There is poor agreement between web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and our locally developed metrics. Over 90% of patients showed an increase in cPRA after ABO adjustment, most notably in those with cPRA between 70% and 79%. Blood group O patients had a much greater increase in cPRA scores after adjustment while patients of blood group A and B had similar increment. 10.6% of non-AB blood group waitlist patients had ABO-cPRA elevated to ≥80%. A local ABO-adjusted cPRA metric is required for Asian populations and may improve equity in kidney distribution for patients with disadvantageous blood groups. The result from the current study potentially helps other countries/localities in establishing their own unified ABO-cPRA metrics and predict the impact on kidney allocation.

Frailty assessment as part of transplant listing: yes, no or maybe?

Frailty, characterized by a decreased physiological reserve and an increased vulnerability to stressors, is common among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. In this review, we present and summarize the key arguments for and against the assessment of frailty as part of KT evaluation. The key arguments for including frailty were: (i) sheer prevalence and far-reaching consequences of frailty on KT, and (ii) the ability to conduct a more holistic and objective evaluation of candidates, removing the inaccuracy associated with 'eye-ball' assessments of transplant fitness. The key argument against were: (i) lack of agreement on the definition of frailty and which tools should be used in renal populations, (ii) a lack of clarity on how, by whom and how often frailty assessments should be performed, and (iii) a poor understanding of how acute stressors affect frailty. However, it is the overwhelming opinion that the time has come for frailty assessments to be incorporated into KT listing. Although ongoing areas of uncertainty exist and further evidence development is needed, the well-established impact of frailty on clinical and experiential outcomes, the invaluable information obtained from frailty assessments, and the potential for intervention outweigh these limitations. Proactive and early identification of frailty allows for individualized and improved risk assessment, communication and optimization of candidates.

Distinct Phenotypes of Kidney Transplant Recipients in the United States with Limited Functional Status as Identified through Machine Learning Consensus Clustering

Background: There have been concerns regarding increased perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, and rates of graft loss in kidney transplant recipients with functional limitations. The application of machine learning consensus clustering approach may provide a novel understanding of unique phenotypes of functionally limited kidney transplant recipients with distinct outcomes in order to identify strategies to improve outcomes. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 3205 functionally limited kidney transplant recipients (Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) < 40% at transplant) in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Posttransplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection were compared among the clusters Results: Consensus cluster analysis identified two distinct clusters that best represented the clinical characteristics of kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status prior to transplant. Cluster 1 patients were older in age and were more likely to receive deceased donor kidney transplant with a higher number of HLA mismatches. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were younger, had shorter dialysis duration, were more likely to be retransplants, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants from HLA mismatched donors. As such, cluster 2 recipients had a higher PRA, less cold ischemia time, and lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys. Despite having a low KPS, 5-year patient survival was 79.1 and 83.9% for clusters 1 and 2; 5-year death-censored graft survival was 86.9 and 91.9%. Cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and patient survival but higher acute rejection, compared to cluster 2. Conclusion: Our study used an unsupervised machine learning approach to characterize kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status into two clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes.

Transplant centers that assess frailty as part of clinical practice have better outcomes

BACKGROUND

Frailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years).

METHODS

In a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017-4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017-2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics.

RESULTS

Assessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84-0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91-0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85-0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74-0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73-0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77-0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87-0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88-0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87-0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72-0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54-0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76-1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.