Kidney exchange match rates in a large multicenter clearinghouse

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.

Patient and Graft Survival After A1/A2-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

ABO type B and O kidney transplant candidates have increased difficulty identifying a compatible donor for living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and are harder to match in kidney paired donation registries. A2-incompatible (A2i) LDKT increases access to LDKT for these patients. To better inform living donor selection, we evaluated the association between A2i LDKT and patient and graft survival.

Methods

We used weighted Cox regression to compare mortality, death-censored graft failure, and all-cause graft loss in A2i versus ABO-compatible (ABOc) recipients.

Results

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2000-2019, we identified 345 A2i LDKT recipients. Mortality was comparable among A2i and ABOc recipients; weighted 1-/5-/10-y mortality was 0.9%/6.5%/24.2%, respectively, among A2i LDKT recipients versus 1.4%/7.7%/22.2%, respectively, among ABOc LDKT recipients (weighted hazard ratio [wHR], _0.811.04_1.33; P = 0.8). However, A2i recipients faced higher risk of death-censored graft failure; weighted 1-/5-/10-y graft failure was 5.7%/11.6%/22.4% for A2i versus 1.7%/7.5%/17.2% for ABOc recipients (wHR in year 1 = _2.243.56_5.66; through year 5 = _1.251.78_2.53; through year 10 = _1.151.55_2.07). By comparison, 1-/5-/10-y wHRs for A1-incompatible recipients were _0.631.96_6.08/_0.390.94_2.27/_0.390.83_1.74.

Conclusions

A2i LDKT is generally safe, but A2i donor/recipient pairs should be counseled about the increased risk of graft failure and be monitored as closely as their A1-incompatible counterparts posttransplant.

Imlifidase-generated Single-cleaved IgG: Implications for Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Imlifidase is an immunoglobulin G (IgG)-specific protease conditionally approved in the EU for desensitization in highly sensitized crossmatch positive kidney transplant patients. Imlifidase efficiently cleaves both heavy chains of IgG in a 2-step process. However, low levels of the intermediate cleavage product, single-cleaved IgG (scIgG), may persist in the circulation. The study objective was to investigate Fc-mediated effector functions of scIgG and its potential impact on common clinical immunologic assays used to assess transplant eligibility.

METHODS

Imlifidase-generated scIgG, obtained by in vitro cleavage of HLA-sensitized patient serum or selected antibodies, was investigated in different complement- and FcγR-dependent assays and models, including clinical tests used to evaluate HLA-specific antibodies.

RESULTS

ScIgG had significantly reduced Fc-mediated effector function compared with intact IgG, although some degree of activity in complement- and FcγR-dependent models was still detectable. A preparation of concentrated scIgG generated from a highly HLA-sensitized individual gave rise to a positive signal in the anti-HLA IgG LABScreen, which uses anti-Fc detection, but was entirely negative in the C1qScreen. The same high-concentration HLA-binding scIgG preparation also generated positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity responses against 80%-100% of donor T and B cells, although follow-up titrations demonstrated a much lower intrinsic activity than for intact anti-HLA IgG.

CONCLUSIONS

ScIgG has a significantly reduced capacity to mediate Fc-dependent effector functions. However, remaining HLA-reactive scIgG in plasma after imlifidase treatment can cause positive assay results equivalent to intact IgG in clinical assays. Therefore, complete IgG cleavage after imlifidase treatment is essential to allow correct decision-making in relation to transplant eligibility.

In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program

Background

Live donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the best option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, this may not be the best option if a patient's donor is older and considerably smaller in weight. Patient (A) with a less than ideal donor (Donor A) might enter into a live donor paired exchange (LDPE) program with the hopes of swapping for a better-quality organ. A second patient (B) who is in the LDPE may or may not benefit from this exchange with Donor A.

Methods

This medical decision analysis examines the conditions that favor Patient A entering into the LDPE compared to directly accepting a kidney from their intended donor, as well as the circumstances where Patient B also benefits by accepting a lower-quality organ.

Results

Under select circumstances, a paired exchange could benefit both Patients A and B. For example, a 30-year-old Patient A with a lower-quality donor might gain _1.201.52_1.84 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by entering into a LDPE for a better-quality kidney, whereas a 60-year-old Patient B might gain _0.931.03_1.13 QALYs by accepting Donor A's kidney rather than waiting longer in the LDPE. The net benefit (or loss) of entering the LDPE differs by recipient age, donor organ quality, likelihood of Patient B being transplanted in LDPE, and likelihood of Patient A finding an ideal donor in the LDPE.

Conclusion

This study shows there are ways to increase live donor utilization and effectiveness that require further research and potentially changes to the LDPE process.

Quantifying infection risks in incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = _0.77 1.40_2.56 ,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = _0.88 1.35_2.06 ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = _1.33 2.22_3.72 ,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = _2.62 3.57_4.88 , P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = _1.15 4.01_13.95 ,P = .03). Post-KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients.

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.

Early graft losses in paired kidney exchange: Experience from 10 years of the National Kidney Registry

Cooperative kidney paired donation (KPD) networks account for an increasing proportion of all living donor kidney transplants in the United States. There are sparse data on the rate of primary nonfunction (PNF) losses and their consequences within KPD networks. We studied National Kidney Registry (NKR) transplants (February 14, 2009 to December 31, 2017) and quantified PNF, graft loss within 30 days of transplantation, and graft losses in the first-year posttransplant and assessed potential risk factors. Of 2364 transplants, there were 38 grafts (1.6%) lost within the first year, 13 (0.5%) with PNF. When compared to functioning grafts, there were no clinically significant differences in blood type compatibility, degree of HLA mismatch, number of veins/arteries, cold ischemia, and travel times. Of 13 PNF cases, 2 were due to early venous thrombosis, 2 to arterial thrombosis, and 2 to failure of desensitization and development of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Given the low rate of PNF, the NKR created a policy to allocate chain-end kidneys to recipients with PNF following event review and attributable to surgical issues of donor nephrectomy. It is expected that demonstration of low incidence of poor early graft outcomes and the presence of a "safety net" would further encourage program participation in national KPD.

The impact of belatacept on third-party HLA alloantibodies in highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients

Recent evidence suggests that belatacept reduces the durability of preexisting antibodies to class I and class II human leukocyte antigens (HLAs). In this case series of 163 highly sensitized kidney transplant candidates whose calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) activity was ≥98% to 100%, the impact of belatacept on preexisting HLA antibodies was assessed. Of the 163 candidates, 72 underwent transplantation between December 4, 2014 and April 15, 2017; 60 of these transplanted patients remained on belatacept consecutively for at least 6 months. We observed a decrease in the breadth and/or strength of HLA class I antibodies as assessed by FlowPRA in belatacept-treated patients compared to controls who did not receive belatacept. Specifically, significant HLA antibody reduction was evident for class I (P < .0009). Posttransplant belatacept-treated patients also had a clinically significant reduction in their cPRA compared to controls (P < .01). Collectively, these findings suggest belatacept can reduce HLA class I antibodies in a significant proportion of highly sensitized recipients and could be an option to improve pretransplant compatibility with organ donors.

Patient and Kidney Allograft Survival with National Kidney Paired Donation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the United States, kidney paired donation networks have facilitated an increasing proportion of kidney transplants annually, but transplant outcome differences beyond 5 years between paired donation and other living donor kidney transplant recipients have not been well described.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using registry-linked data, we compared National Kidney Registry (n=2363) recipients to control kidney transplant recipients (n=54,497) (February 2008 to December 2017). We estimated the risk of death-censored graft failure and mortality using inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression. The parsimonious model adjusted for recipient factors (age, sex, black, race, body mass index ≥30 kg/m², diabetes, previous transplant, preemptive transplant, public insurance, hepatitis C, eGFR, antibody depleting induction therapy, year of transplant), donor factors (age, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, body mass index ≥30 kg/m²), and transplant factors (zero HLA mismatch).

RESULTS

National Kidney Registry recipients were more likely to be women, black, older, on public insurance, have panel reactive antibodies >80%, spend longer on dialysis, and be previous transplant recipients. National Kidney Registry recipients were followed for a median 3.7 years (interquartile range, 2.1-5.6; maximum 10.9 years). National Kidney Registry recipients had similar graft failure (5% versus 6%; log-rank P=0.2) and mortality (9% versus 10%; log-rank P=0.4) incidence compared with controls during follow-up. After adjustment for donor, recipient, and transplant factors, there no detectable difference in graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.18; P=0.6) or mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.07; P=0.2) between National Kidney Registry and control recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after transplanting patients with greater risk factors for worse post-transplant outcomes, nationalized paired donation results in equivalent outcomes when compared with control living donor kidney transplant recipients.

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

Deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) rates for highly sensitized (HS) candidates increased early after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in 2014. However, this may represent a bolus effect, and a granular investigation of the current state of DDKT for HS candidates remains lacking. We studied 270 722 DDKT candidates from the SRTR from 12/4/2011 to 12/3/2014 ("pre-KAS") and 12/4/2014 to 12/3/2017 ("post-KAS"), analyzing DDKT rates for HS candidates using adjusted negative binomial regression. Post-KAS, candidates with the highest levels of sensitization had an increased DDKT rate compared with pre-KAS (cPRA 98% adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]:1.27 1.772.46 P = .001, cPRA 99% aIRR:3.18 4.365.98 P < .001, cPRA 99.5-99.9% aIRR:16.91 24.2934.89 P < .001, and cPRA 99.9%+ aIRR:8.79 11.5815.26 P < .001). To determine whether these changes produced more equitable access to DDKT, we compared DDKT rates of HS to non-HS candidates (cPRA 0-79%). Post-KAS, cPRA, 98% candidates had an equivalent DDKT rate (aIRR:0.65 0.941.36 , P = .8) to non-HS candidates, whereas 99% candidates had a higher DDKT rate (aIRR:1.19 1.682.38 , P = .02). Although cPRA 99.5-99.9% candidates had an increased DDKT rate (aIRR:2.46 3.504.98 , P < .001) compared to non-HS candidates, cPRA 99.9%+ candidates had a significantly lower DDKT rate (aIRR:0.29 0.400.56 , P < .001). KAS has improved access to DDKT for HS candidates, although substantial imbalance exists between cPRA 99.5-99.9% and 99.9%+ candidates.

The 6-year clinical outcomes for patients registered in a multiregional United States Kidney Paired Donation program - a retrospective study

We examined what happened during a 6-year period to 1121 end-stage renal disease patients who registered with their willing/incompatible living donors for kidney exchanges with the Alliance for Paired Donation (APD). Of all patients, 65% were transplanted: 37% in kidney paired donation (APD-KPD, APD-other-KPD); 10% with compatible live donors (APD-LD); and 18% with deceased donors (APD-DD). The remaining patients were withdrawn (sick/died/others; 15%), or were still waiting (20%). For those patients with a cPRA 0-94%, 72% received a transplant. In contrast, only 49% of very highly sensitized (VHS; cPRA 95-100%) were transplanted. Of the VHS patients, 50% were transplanted by KPD/APD-LD while 50% benefited through prioritization of deceased donors in the modified kidney allocation system (KAS introduced in 2014). All APD transplanted groups had similar death-censored 4-year graft survivals as their relevant Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) groups. It is noteworthy that VHS graft and patient survival results were comparable to less sensitized and nonsensitized patients. All patients should be encouraged to search for compatible donors through different options. Expanding the donor pool through KPD and the new KAS of the OPTN increases the likelihood of transplantation for VHS patients.

Transplantation in highly sensitized patients: challenges and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Highly sensitized patients awaiting a kidney transplant accrue on the transplant waiting list. The breadth of HLA antibodies in this subpopulation of patients precludes receiving a compatible organ offer through regular allocation within an acceptable time-frame. Areas covered: Several alternative options to receive a transplant exist for these patients, including additional priority in regular allocation, special programs based on allocation through acceptable antigens, kidney paired donation programs, desensitization protocols, or a combination of the latter two. In this review, these options and their outcomes are discussed as well as some possibilities to further enhance transplantation of this disadvantaged group of patients. Expert commentary: For highly sensitized patients, special attention is required, for which several strategies may apply. A step-wise approach may be the optimal strategy to facilitate successful transplantation of highly sensitized patients.