Center and Individual Willingness to Consider Heart and Lung Offers From Donors With Hepatitis C.

INTRODUCTION: Transplants with hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV D+) have been proven safe and effective since development of direct-acting antivirals, yet the presence of HCV + persists as a reason to decline organs. METHODS: We identified adult candidates listed January 1, 2015-March 8, 2023 for heart or lung transplant using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We identified individual-level and center-level characteristics associated with listing to consider HCV D+ offers using multilevel logistic regression in a multivariable framework. RESULTS: Over the study period, the annual percentage of candidates willing to consider HCV D+ offers increased for both heart (9.5%-74.3%) and lung (7.8%-59.5%), as did the percentage of centers listing candidates for HCV D+ heart (52.9%-91.1%) and lung (32.8%-82.8%) offers. Candidates at centers with more experience with HCV D+ transplants were more likely to consider HCV D+ organ offers. After adjustment, listing center explained 70% and 78% of the residual variance in willingness to consider HCV D+ hearts and lungs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although listing for consideration of HCV D+ offers has increased, it varies by transplant center. Center-level barriers to consideration of HCV D+ organs reduce recipients' transplant access.

Influence of induction therapy and antiretroviral regimen on outcomes in kidney transplant recipients living with human immunodeficiency.

PURPOSE: Kidney transplantation has a survival benefit for people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and end-stage kidney disease, however increased rates of rejection remain an issue. Questions remain regarding the impact of induction immunosuppression therapy and antiretroviral (ARV) choice on long-term outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of outcomes in recipients with HIV who received kidneys from donors without HIV transplanted between 2004 and 2019. The association between induction and ARV regimens and long-term outcomes including rejection, graft, and recipient survival over 5 years was investigated using Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: Seventy-eight kidney transplants (KT) performed in 77 recipients at five US transplant centers were included, with median follow up of 7.1 (4.3-10.7) years. Overall recipient and graft survival were 83% and 67%, respectively. Rejection occurred in 37% (29/78). Recipients with rejection were more likely to be younger, recipients of deceased donor organs, and Black. Receipt of rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) induction without protease-inhibitor (PI)-based ARVs was associated with 83% lower risk of rejection (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.17 (95% CI 0.05-0.63), p =.007) and a non-statistically significantly lower risk of graft failure (aHR 0.18 (0.03-1.16), p =.07) when compared to those who received other induction and ARV combinations. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we found a trend toward lower rejection and improved graft survival among those who received both rATG for induction and PI-sparing ARVs.

HOPE in action: A prospective multicenter pilot study of liver transplantation from donors with HIV to recipients with HIV.

Liver transplantation (LT) from donors-with-HIV to recipients-with-HIV (HIV D+/R+) is permitted under the HOPE Act. There are only three international single-case reports of HIV D+/R+ LT, each with limited follow-up. We performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ to donors-without-HIV to recipients-with-HIV (HIV D-/R+) LT. We quantified patient survival, graft survival, rejection, serious adverse events (SAEs), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) breakthrough, infections, and malignancies, using Cox and negative binomial regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Between March 2016-July 2019, there were 45 LTs (8 simultaneous liver-kidney) at 9 centers: 24 HIV D+/R+, 21 HIV D-/R+ (10 D- were false-positive). The median follow-up time was 23 months. Median recipient CD4 was 287 cells/µL with 100% on antiretroviral therapy; 56% were hepatitis C virus (HCV)-seropositive, 13% HCV-viremic. Weighted 1-year survival was 83.3% versus 100.0% in D+ versus D- groups (p = .04). There were no differences in one-year graft survival (96.0% vs. 100.0%), rejection (10.8% vs. 18.2%), HIV breakthrough (8% vs. 10%), or SAEs (all p > .05). HIV D+/R+ had more opportunistic infections, infectious hospitalizations, and cancer. In this multicenter pilot study of HIV D+/R+ LT, patient and graft survival were better than historical cohorts, however, a potential increase in infections and cancer merits further investigation.

Survival Benefit of Split-Liver Transplantation for Pediatric and Adult Candidates.

Patient and graft survival are similar following whole-liver transplantations (WLTs) versus split-liver transplantations (SLTs) among pediatric and adult recipients, yet SLTs are rarely used. We sought to determine the survival benefit associated with accepting a splittable graft offer for SLT versus declining and waiting for a subsequent offer using 2010 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data on 928 pediatric and 1814 adult liver transplantation candidates who were ever offered a splittable graft. We compared eventual mortality, regardless of subsequent transplants, between those patients who accepted versus declined a split liver offer with adjustments for Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease/Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, diagnosis, and weight among pediatric candidates and matching for MELD score, height, and offer among adult candidates. Among pediatric candidates ≤7 kg, split liver offer acceptance versus decline was associated with a 63% reduction in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.17 0.370.80 [P = 0.01]; 93.1% versus 84.0% 1-year survival after decision). Within 1 year of decline for those ≤7 kg, 6.4% died and 31.1% received a WLT. Among pediatric candidates >7 kg, there was no significant difference associated with acceptance of a split liver offer (aHR, 0.63 1.071.82 [P = 0.81]; 91.7% versus 94.4% 1-year survival after decision). Within 1 year of decline for those >7 kg, 1.8% died and 45.8% received a WLT. Among adult candidates, split liver offer acceptance was associated with a 43% reduction in mortality (aHR, 0.39 0.570.83 [P = 0.005]; 92.2% versus 84.4% 1-year survival after decision). Within 1 year of decline for adult candidates, 7.9% died and 39.3% received a WLT. Accepting split liver offers for SLT could significantly improve survival for small children and adults on the waiting list.

Offer Acceptance Patterns for Liver Donors Aged 70 and Older.

Despite a documented survival benefit, older liver donor (OLD, age ≥70) graft offers are frequently declined, with utilization worsening over the last decade. To understand how offer acceptance varies by center, we studied 1113 eventually transplanted OLD grafts from 2009 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data and random-intercept multilevel logistic regression. To understand how center-level acceptance of OLD graft offers might be associated with waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, we studied all adult, actively listed, liver-only candidates and recipients during the study period using Poisson regression (transplant rate), competing risks regression (waitlist mortality), and Cox regression (posttransplant mortality). Among 117 centers, OLD offer acceptance ranged from 0 (23 centers) to 95 acceptances, with a median odds ratio of 2.88. Thus, a candidate may be three times as likely to receive an OLD graft simply by listing at a different center. Centers in the highest quartile (Q4) of OLD acceptance (accepted 39% of OLD offers) accepted more nationally shared organs (Q4 versus Q1: 14.1% versus 0.0%, P < 0.001) and had higher annual liver transplant volume (Q4 versus Q1: 80 versus 21, P < 0.001). After adjustment, nationally shared OLD offers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.20) and offers to centers with higher median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87) were less likely to be accepted. OLD offers to centers with higher annual transplant volume were more likely to be accepted (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30). Additionally, candidates listed at centers within the highest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance had higher deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.50), lower waitlist mortality (adjusted subhazard ratio: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.76), and similar posttransplant survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1.01) when compared with those listed at centers in the lowest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance. The wide variation in OLD offer acceptance supports the need for optimizing the organ offer process and efficiently directing OLD offers to centers more likely to use them.

Patient Trajectories Among Persons Hospitalized for COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to severe disease or death are underexplored in U.S. cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors on hospital admission that are predictive of severe disease or death from COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Five hospitals in the Maryland and Washington, DC, area. PATIENTS: 832 consecutive COVID-19 admissions from 4 March to 24 April 2020, with follow-up through 27 June 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient trajectories and outcomes, categorized by using the World Health Organization COVID-19 disease severity scale. Primary outcomes were death and a composite of severe disease or death. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years (range, 1 to 108 years); 47% were women, 40% were Black, 16% were Latinx, and 21% were nursing home residents. Among all patients, 131 (16%) died and 694 (83%) were discharged (523 [63%] had mild to moderate disease and 171 [20%] had severe disease). Of deaths, 66 (50%) were nursing home residents. Of 787 patients admitted with mild to moderate disease, 302 (38%) progressed to severe disease or death: 181 (60%) by day 2 and 238 (79%) by day 4. Patients had markedly different probabilities of disease progression on the basis of age, nursing home residence, comorbid conditions, obesity, respiratory symptoms, respiratory rate, fever, absolute lymphocyte count, hypoalbuminemia, troponin level, and C-reactive protein level and the interactions among these factors. Using only factors present on admission, a model to predict in-hospital disease progression had an area under the curve of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.79 at days 2, 4, and 7, respectively. LIMITATION: The study was done in a single health care system. CONCLUSION: A combination of demographic and clinical variables is strongly associated with severe COVID-19 disease or death and their early onset. The COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator (CIRC), using factors present on admission, can inform clinical and resource allocation decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Outcome-Stratified Analysis of Biomarker Trajectories for Patients Infected With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

Longitudinal trajectories of vital signs and biomarkers during hospital admission of patients with COVID-19 remain poorly characterized despite their potential to provide critical insights about disease progression. We studied 1884 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from April 3, 2020, to June 25, 2020, within 1 Maryland hospital system and used a retrospective longitudinal framework with linear mixed-effects models to investigate relevant biomarker trajectories leading up to 3 critical outcomes: mechanical ventilation, discharge, and death. Trajectories of 4 vital signs (respiratory rate, ratio of oxygen saturation (Spo2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2), pulse, and temperature) and 4 laboratory values (C-reactive protein (CRP), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), estimated glomerular filtration rate, and D-dimer) clearly distinguished the trajectories of patients with COVID-19. Before any ventilation, log(CRP), log(ALC), respiratory rate, and Spo2-to-Fio2 ratio trajectories diverge approximately 8-10 days before discharge or death. After ventilation, log(CRP), log(ALC), respiratory rate, Spo2-to-Fio2 ratio, and estimated glomerular filtration rate trajectories again diverge 10-20 days before death or discharge. Trajectories improved until discharge and remained unchanged or worsened until death. Our approach characterizes the distribution of biomarker trajectories leading up to competing outcomes of discharge versus death. Moving forward, this model can contribute to quantifying the joint probability of biomarkers and outcomes when provided clinical data up to a given moment.

Survival benefit of accepting kidneys from older donation after cardiac death donors.

Kidneys from older (age ≥50 years) donation after cardiac death (DCD50) donors are less likely to be transplanted due to inferior posttransplant outcomes. However, candidates who decline a DCD50 offer must wait for an uncertain future offer. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting DCD50 kidneys, we used 2010-2018 Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data to identify 92 081 adult kidney transplantation candidates who were offered a DCD50 kidney that was eventually accepted for transplantation. DCD50 kidneys offered to candidates increased from 590 in 2010 to 1441 in 2018. However, 34.6% of DCD50 kidneys were discarded. Candidates who accepted DCD50 offers had 49% decreased mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.46 0.510.55 , cumulative mortality at 6-year 23.3% vs 34.0%, P < .001) compared with those who declined the same offer (decliners). Six years after their initial DCD50 offer decline, 43.0% of decliners received a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT), 6.3% received living donor kidney transplant (LDKT), 22.6% died, 22.0% were removed for other reasons, and 6.0% were still on the waitlist. Comparable survival benefit was observed even with DCD donors age ≥60 (aHR: 0.42 0.520.65 , P < .001). Accepting DCD50 kidneys was associated with a substantial survival benefit; providers and patients should consider these benefits when evaluating offers.

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

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

Projected 20- and 30-Year Outcomes for Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Observed long-term outcomes no longer reflect the survival trajectory facing pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients today. We aimed to use national registry data and parametric models to project 20- and 30-year post-transplant outcomes for recently transplanted pediatric LT recipients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 13,442 first-time pediatric (age <18) LT recipients using 1987 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We validated the proposed method (ie, to project long-term patient and graft survival using parametric survival models and short-term data) in 2 historic cohorts (1987-1996 and 1997-2006) and estimated long-term projections among patients transplanted between 2007 and 2018. Projections were stratified by raft type, recipient age, and indication for transplant. RESULTS: Parsimonious parametric models with Weibull distribution can be applied to post-transplant data and used to project long-term outcomes for pediatric LT recipients beyond observed data. Projected 20-year patient survival for pediatric LT recipients transplanted in 2007 to 2018 was 84.0% (95% confidence interval 81.5-85.8), compared to observed 20-year survival of 72.8% and 63.6% among those transplanted in 1997 to 2006 and 1987 to 1996, respectively. Projected 30-year survival for pediatric LT recipients in 2007 to 2018 was 80.1% (75.2-82.7), compared to projected 30-year survival of 68.6% (66.1-70.9) in the 1997 to 2006 cohort and observed 30-year survival of 57.5% in the 1987 to 1996 cohort. Twenty- and 30-year patient and graft survival varied slightly by recipient age, graft type, and indication for transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Projected long-term outcomes for recently transplanted pediatric LT recipients are excellent, reflective of substantial improvements in medical care, and informative for physician-patient education and decision making in the current era.

Center-level trends in utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV-uninfected kidney and liver transplant recipients in the United States.

Several single-center reports of using HCV-viremic organs for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV- recipients (HCV D+/R-) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015-December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center-level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R- KTs and LTs. HCV-viremic (NAT+) D+/R- KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV-aviremic (Ab+/NAT-) D+/R- KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2-1.6) and 1.6 (0.4-3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5-4.0) among HCV D-/R-. HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21-30) and 25 (21-32) at transplantation versus 29 (23-36) among HCV D-/R-. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R- transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R- transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R- transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R- transplantation.

Survival benefit of accepting livers from deceased donors over 70 years old.

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009-2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time-of-offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five-year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR:0.45 0.520.59 , P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35-40) candidates (aHR:0.10 0.240.55 , P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long-term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35-40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers.

Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non-HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change.

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39  350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.

Expansion of the Liver Donor Supply Through Greater Use of Split-Liver Transplantation: Identifying Optimal Recipients.

The increased use of split-liver transplantation (SLT) represents a strategy to increase the supply of organs. Although outcomes after SLT and whole liver transplantation (WLT) are similar on average among pediatric recipients, we hypothesized that the relationship between graft type and outcomes may vary depending on patient, donor, and surgical characteristics. We evaluated graft survival among pediatric (<18 years) deceased donor, liver-only transplant recipients from March 2002 until December 2015 using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Graft survival was assessed in a Cox proportional hazards model, with and without effect modification between graft type and donor, recipient, and surgical characteristics, to identify conditions where the risk of graft loss for SLT and WLT were similar. In a traditional multivariable model, characteristics associated with graft loss included donor age >50 years, recipient weight <10 kg, acute hepatic necrosis, autoimmune diseases, tumor, public insurance, and cold ischemia time (CIT) >8 hours. In an analysis that explored whether these characteristics modified the relationship between graft type and graft loss, many characteristics associated with loss actually had similar outcomes regardless of graft type, including weight <10 kg, acute hepatic necrosis, autoimmune diseases, and tumor. In contrast, several subgroups had worse outcomes when SLT was used, including recipient weight 10-35 kg, non-biliary atresia cholestasis, and metabolic disease. Allocation score, share type, or CIT did not modify risk of graft type and graft failure. Although one might anticipate that individuals with higher rates of graft loss would be worse candidates for SLT, data suggest that these patients actually have similar rates of graft loss. These findings can guide surgical decision making and may support policy changes that promote the increased use of SLT for specific pediatric recipients.

The Drug Overdose Epidemic and Deceased-Donor Transplantation in the United States: A National Registry Study.

Background: The epidemic of drug overdose deaths in the United States has led to an increase in organ donors. Objective: To characterize donors who died of overdose and to analyze outcomes among transplant recipients. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2017. Participants: 138 565 deceased donors; 337 934 transplant recipients at 297 transplant centers. Measurements: The primary exposure was donor mechanism of death (overdose-death donor [ODD], trauma-death donor [TDD], or medical-death donor [MDD]). Patient and graft survival and organ discard (organ recovered but not transplanted) were compared using propensity score-weighted standardized risk differences (sRDs). Results: A total of 7313 ODDs and 19 897 ODD transplants (10 347 kidneys, 5707 livers, 2471 hearts, and 1372 lungs) were identified. Overdose-death donors accounted for 1.1% of donors in 2000 and 13.4% in 2017. They were more likely to be white (85.1%), aged 21 to 40 years (66.3%), infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) (18.3%), and increased-infectious risk donors (IRDs) (56.4%). Standardized 5-year patient survival was similar for ODD organ recipients compared with TDD organ recipients (sRDs ranged from 3.1% lower to 3.9% higher survival) and MDD organ recipients (sRDs ranged from 2.1% to 5.2% higher survival). Standardized 5-year graft survival was similar between ODD and TDD grafts (minimal difference for kidneys and lungs, marginally lower [sRD, -3.2%] for livers, and marginally higher [sRD, 1.9%] for hearts). Kidney discard was higher for ODDs than TDDs (sRD, 5.2%) or MDDs (sRD, 1.5%); standardization for HCV and IRD status attenuated this difference. Limitation: Inability to distinguish between opioid and nonopioid overdoses. Conclusion: In the United States, transplantation with ODD organs has increased dramatically, with noninferior outcomes in transplant recipients. Concerns about IRD behaviors and hepatitis C among donors lead to excess discard that should be minimized given the current organ shortage. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Direct-Acting Antiviral Prophylaxis in Kidney Transplantation From Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Donors to Noninfected Recipients: An Open-Label Nonrandomized Trial.

Background: Given the high mortality rate for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving dialysis and the efficacy and safety of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments, discarded kidneys from HCV-infected donors may be a neglected public health resource. Objective: To determine the tolerability and feasibility of using direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) as prophylaxis before and after kidney transplantation from HCV-infected donors to non-HCV-infected recipients (that is, HCV D+/R- transplantation). Design: Open-label nonrandomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781649). Setting: Single center. Participants: 10 HCV D+/R- kidney transplant candidates older than 50 years with no available living donors. Intervention: Transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors aged 13 to 50 years with positive HCV RNA and HCV antibody test results. All recipients received a dose of grazoprevir (GZR), 100 mg, and elbasvir (EBR), 50 mg, immediately before transplantation. Recipients of kidneys from donors with genotype 1 infection continued receiving GZR-EBR for 12 weeks after transplantation; those receiving organs from donors with genotype 2 or 3 infection had sofosbuvir, 400 mg, added to GZR-EBR for 12 weeks of triple therapy. Measurements: The primary safety outcome was the incidence of adverse events related to GZR-EBR treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of recipients with an HCV RNA level below the lower limit of quantification 12 weeks after prophylaxis. Results: Among 10 HCV D+/R- transplant recipients, no treatment-related adverse events occurred, and HCV RNA was not detected in any recipient 12 weeks after treatment. Limitation: Nonrandomized study design and a small number of patients. Conclusion: Pre- and posttransplantation HCV treatment was safe and prevented chronic HCV infection in HCV D+/R- kidney transplant recipients. If confirmed in larger studies, this strategy should markedly expand organ options and reduce mortality for kidney transplant candidates without HCV infection. Primary Funding Source: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Kidney offer acceptance at programs undergoing a Systems Improvement Agreement.

In the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use Systems Improvement Agreements (SIAs) to require transplant programs repeatedly flagged for poor-performance to improve performance or lose CMS funding for transplants. We identified 14 kidney transplant (KT) programs with SIAs and 28 KT programs without SIAs matched on waitlist volume and characterized kidney acceptance using SRTR data from 12/2006-3/2015. We used difference-in-differences linear regression models to identify changes in acceptance associated with an SIA independent of program variation and trends prior to the SIA. SIA programs accepted 26.9% and 22.1% of offers pre- and post-SIA, while non-SIA programs accepted 33.9% and 44.4% of offers in matched time periods. After adjustment for donor characteristics, time-varying waitlist volume, and secular trends, SIAs were associated with a 5.9 percentage-point (22%) decrease in kidney acceptance (95% CI: -10.9 to -0.8, P = .03). The decrease in acceptance post-SIA was more pronounced for KDPI 0-40 kidneys (12.3 percentage-point decrease, P = .007); reductions in acceptance of higher KDPI kidneys occurred pre-SIA. Programs undergoing SIAs substantially reduced acceptance of kidney offers for waitlisted candidates. Attempts to improve posttransplant outcomes might have the unintended consequence of reducing access to transplantation as programs adopt more restrictive organ selection practices.

Turn down for what? Patient outcomes associated with declining increased infectious risk kidneys.

Transplant candidates who accept a kidney labeled increased risk for disease transmission (IRD) accept a low risk of window period infection, yet those who decline must wait for another offer that might harbor other risks or never even come. To characterize survival benefit of accepting IRD kidneys, we used 2010-2014 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 104 998 adult transplant candidates who were offered IRD kidneys that were eventually accepted by someone; the median (interquartile range) Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of these kidneys was 30 (16-49). We followed patients from the offer decision until death or end-of-study. After 5 years, only 31.0% of candidates who declined IRDs later received non-IRD deceased donor kidney transplants; the median KDPI of these non-IRD kidneys was 52, compared to 21 of the IRDs they had declined. After a brief risk period in the first 30 days following IRD acceptance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] accept vs decline: 1.22 2.063.49 , P = .008) (absolute mortality 0.8% vs. 0.4%), those who accepted IRDs were at 33% lower risk of death 1-6 months postdecision (aHR 0.50 0.670.90 , P = .006), and at 48% lower risk of death beyond 6 months postdecision (aHR 0.46 0.520.58 , P < .001). Accepting an IRD kidney was associated with substantial long-term survival benefit; providers should consider this benefit when counseling patients on IRD offer acceptance.

Geographic disparity in kidney transplantation under KAS.

The Kidney Allocation System fundamentally altered kidney allocation, causing a substantial increase in regional and national sharing that we hypothesized might impact geographic disparities. We measured geographic disparity in deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rate under KAS (6/1/2015-12/1/2016), and compared that with pre-KAS (6/1/2013-12/3/2014). We modeled DSA-level DDKT rates with multilevel Poisson regression, adjusting for allocation factors under KAS. Using the model we calculated a novel, improved metric of geographic disparity: the median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of transplant rate, a measure of DSA-level variation that accounts for patient casemix and is robust to outlier values. Under KAS, MIRR was 1.75 1.811.86 for adults, meaning that similar candidates across different DSAs have a median 1.81-fold difference in DDKT rate. The impact of geography was greater than the impact of factors emphasized by KAS: having an EPTS score ≤20% was associated with a 1.40-fold increase (IRR = 1.35 1.401.45 , P < .01) and a three-year dialysis vintage was associated with a 1.57-fold increase (IRR = 1.56 1.571.59 , P < .001) in transplant rate. For pediatric candidates, MIRR was even more pronounced, at 1.66 1.922.27 . There was no change in geographic disparities with KAS (P = .3). Despite extensive changes to kidney allocation under KAS, geography remains a primary determinant of access to DDKT.