National Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation in the United States: Results of a Public Opinion Survey.

Rationale & Objective: Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups. Study Design: The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. Setting & Population: We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation. Analytical Approach: We developed summed, scaled indices to assess the association between the living kidney donation knowledge (9 items) and the willingness to donate (8 items) to self-reported demographic characteristics and other variables of interest using analysis of variance. All other associations for categorical questions were calculated using Pearson's χ2 and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. Results: Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate. Limitations: Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level. Conclusions: Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.

Understanding what the general public thinks about living kidney donation will help to develop better education and increase the number of living kidney donors. We surveyed the public to find out: (1) how aware they are about the opportunity to donate a kidney while alive; (2) how much they know about living kidney donation; (3) whether they would be willing to donate; and (4) what would affect their willingness to donate. We found that teaching people about the risks of donating, decreasing costs related to donation, and raising awareness about it could increase the number of people willing to donate.

Single center utilization and post-transplant outcomes of thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion deceased cardiac donor organs.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) following cardiac death is an emerging multivisceral organ procurement technique. Recent national studies on outcomes of presumptive TA-NRP-procured organs are limited by potential misclassification since TA-NRP is not differentiated from donation after cardiac death (DCD) in registry data. METHODS: We studied 22 donors whose designees consented to TA-NRP and organ procurement performed at our institution between January 20, 2020 and July 3, 2022. We identified these donors in SRTR to describe organ utilization and recipient outcomes and compared them to recipients of traditional DCD (tDCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) organs during the same timeframe. RESULTS: All 22 donors progressed to cardiac arrest and underwent TA-NRP followed by heart, lung, kidney, and/or liver procurement. Median donor age was 41 years, 55% had anoxic brain injury, 45% were hypertensive, 0% were diabetic, and median kidney donor profile index was 40%. TA-NRP utilization was high across all organ types (88%-100%), with a higher percentage of kidneys procured via TA-NRP compared to tDCD (88% vs. 72%, p = .02). Recipient and graft survival ranged from 89% to 100% and were comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients (p ≥ .2). Delayed graft function was lower for kidneys procured from TA-NRP compared to tDCD donors (27% vs. 44%, p = .045). CONCLUSION: Procurement from TA-NRP donors yielded high organ utilization, with outcomes comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients across organ types. Further large-scale study of TA-NRP donors, facilitated by its capture in the national registry, will be critical to fully understand its impact as an organ procurement technique.

Waitlist Outcomes for Exception and Non-exception Liver Transplant Candidates in the United States Following Implementation of the Median MELD at Transplant (MMaT)/250-mile Policy.

BACKGROUND: Since February 2020, exception points have been allocated equivalent to the median model for end-stage liver disease at transplant within 250 nautical miles of the transplant center (MMaT/250). We compared transplant rate and waitlist mortality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exception, non-HCC exception, and non-exception candidates to determine whether MMaT/250 advantages (or disadvantages) exception candidates. METHODS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 23 686 adult, first-time, active, deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) candidates between February 4, 2020, and February 3, 2022. We compared DDLT rates using Cox regression, and waitlist mortality/dropout using competing risks regression in non-exception versus HCC versus non-HCC candidates. RESULTS: Within 24 mo of study entry, 58.4% of non-exception candidates received DDLT, compared with 57.8% for HCC candidates and 70.5% for non-HCC candidates. After adjustment, HCC candidates had 27% lower DDLT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.680.730.77) compared with non-exception candidates. However, waitlist mortality for HCC was comparable to non-exception candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [asHR] = 0.931.031.15). Non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma had substantially higher risk of waitlist mortality compared with non-exception candidates (asHR = 1.271.702.29 for pulmonary complications of cirrhosis, 1.352.043.07 for cholangiocarcinoma). The same was not true of non-HCC candidates with exceptions for other reasons (asHR = 0.540.881.44). CONCLUSIONS: Under MMaT/250, HCC, and non-exception candidates have comparable risks of dying before receiving liver transplant, despite lower transplant rates for HCC. However, non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma have substantially higher risk of dying before receiving liver transplant; these candidates may merit increased allocation priority.

Invasive Fungal Infections in Inpatient Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With COVID-19: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and outcomes of COVID-19-associated invasive fungal infections (CAIFIs) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) remain poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of SOTRs with COVID-19 admitted to 5 hospitals within Johns Hopkins Medicine was performed between March 2020 and March 2022. Cox regression multilevel mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression was used. RESULTS: In the cohort of 276 SOTRs, 22 (8%) developed IFIs. The prevalence of CAIFIs was highest in lung transplant recipients (20%), followed by recipients of heart (2/28; 7.1%), liver (3/46; 6.5%), and kidney (7/149; 4.7%) transplants. In the overall cohort, only 42 of 276 SOTRs (15.2%) required mechanical ventilation; these included 11 of 22 SOTRs (50%) of the CAIFI group and 31 of 254 SOTRs (12.2%) of the no-CAIFI group. Compared with those without IFIs, SOTs with IFIs had worse outcomes and required more advanced life support (high-flow oxygen, vasopressor, and dialysis). SOTRs with CAIFIs had higher 1-y death-censored allograft failure (hazard ratio 1.65.116.4, P = 0.006) and 1-y mortality adjusting for oxygen requirement (adjusted hazard ratio 1.12.45.1, P < 0.001), compared with SOTRs without CAIFIs. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CAIFIs in inpatient SOTRs with COVID-19 is substantial. Clinicians should be alert to the possibility of CAIFIs in SOTRs with COVID-19, particularly those requiring supplemental oxygen, regardless of their intubation status.

Organ Nonutilization Following Revision to the Public Health Service Donor Risk Criteria for HIV, HCV, or HBV Transmission.

BACKGROUND: Organs from Public Health Service criteria (PHSC) donors, previously referred to as PHS infectious-risk donors, have historically been recovered but not used, traditionally referred to as "discard," at higher rates despite negligible risk to recipients. On March 1, 2021, the definition of PHSC donors narrowed to include only the subset of donors deemed to have meaningfully elevated risk in the current era of improved infectious disease testing. METHODS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from May 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, we compared rates of PHSC classification and nonutilization of PHSC organs before versus after the March 1, 2021, policy change among recovered decedents using the χ2 tests. We performed an adjusted interrupted time series analysis to examine kidney and liver recovery/nonuse (traditionally termed "discard") and kidney, liver, lung, and heart nonutilization (nonrecovery or recovery/nonuse) prepolicy versus postpolicy. RESULTS: PHSC classification dropped sharply from 24.5% prepolicy to 15.4% postpolicy (P < 0.001). Before the policy change, PHSC kidney recovery/nonuse, liver nonuse, lung nonuse, and heart nonuse were comparable to non-PHSC estimates (adjusted odds ratio: kidney = 0.981.061.14, P = 0.14; liver = 0.850.921.01, P = 0.07; lung = 0.910.991.08, P = 0.83; heart = 0.890.971.05, P = 0.47); following the policy change, PHSC kidney recovery/nonuse, liver nonuse, lung nonuse, and heart nonuse were lower than non-PHSC estimates (adjusted odds ratio: kidney = 0.770.840.91, P < 0.001; liver = 0.770.840.92, P < 0.001; lung = 0.740.810.90, P < 0.001; heart = 0.610.670.73, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Even though PHSC donors under the new definition are a narrower and theoretically riskier subpopulation than under the previous classification, PHSC status appears to be associated with a reduced risk of kidney and liver recovery/nonuse and nonutilization of all organs. Although historically PHSC organs have been underused, our findings demonstrate a notable shift toward increased PHSC organ utilization.

COVID-19 and Access to Kidney Transplantation for Older Candidates in the United States: A National Registry Study.

Rationale & Objective: Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 has likely impacted accessibility to transplantation services among older adults (age ≥65 years). We quantified the impact of COVID-19 on kidney transplantation access for older kidney-only candidates registered on the United States (US) kidney waitlist. Study Design: Retrospective analysis of registry data. Setting & Participants: 57,222 older adults who were part of or added to the US kidney waitlist between January 1, 2016 and February 28, 2022, identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). Exposures: Four COVID-19 waves and one nonwave period based on the national incidence of COVID-19 in the US (initial: March 15-May 30, 2020; winter 2020-2021: December 1, 2020-January 31, 2021; delta: August 1, 2021-September 30, 2021; omicron: December 1, 2021-February 28, 2022; nonwave: inter-wave periods). Outcomes: Waitlist registrations, deceased-donor kidney transplants, living-donor kidney transplants, waitlist mortality, and waitlist removals due to deteriorating condition (hereafter referred to as removals). Analytical Approach: Poisson regression for the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) of each outcome during the COVID-19 waves and the nonwave period relative to reference (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2019), adjusted for seasonality and secular trends. Results: Waitlist registrations initially declined and increased henceforth. Deceased-donor kidney transplants and living-donor kidney transplants remained below-expected levels during all waves. Waitlist mortality peaked during the winter 2020-2021 wave (aIRR: 1.701.982.30) and has declined since; mortality rates were 139%, 107%, and 251% above expected for Black candidates, men, and candidates aged ≥75 years, respectively, during the winter 2020-2021 wave. Removals increased from 22% below expected levels (initial wave) to 26% above expected levels (omicron wave); removals were nonsignificantly higher than expected during the omicron wave for older Black and Hispanic candidates. Limitations: The findings are not generalizable to those listed at earlier ages with prolonged waitlist times. Additionally, using national COVID-19 incidence does not consider local policy and health care variations. Lastly, aIRRs must be interpreted cautiously due to smaller daily event counts. Conclusions: COVID-19 was associated with fewer transplants and increased mortality and removals in older kidney transplant candidates. Transplant providers should consider this impact and implement policies and practices to ensure the continuity of care. Plain-Language Summary: The proportion of older adults on the kidney transplant waitlist is increasing, but the impact of COVID-19 on this population is not well characterized. In this study, we looked at incident waitlist registrations, deceased- and living-donor kidney transplants, and waitlist mortality and removals due to deteriorating condition over 4 waves of COVID-19. We found that transplantation services did not fully recover to prepandemic levels as of March 2022. Notably, racial/ethnic minorities and older men experienced lower rates of kidney transplants and higher rates of waitlist mortality, respectively, relative to White candidates and older women. Identifying vulnerable subpopulations affected by COVID-19 and its long-term impact is crucial for creating strategies to ensure the continuity of care in this population during public health emergencies.

Uptake and 1-year outcomes of lung transplantation for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: End-stage lung disease from severe COVID-19 infection is an increasingly common indication for lung transplantation (LT), but there are limited data on outcomes. We evaluated 1-year COVID-19 LT outcomes. METHODS: We identified all adult US LT recipients January 2020 to October 2022 in the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients, using diagnosis codes to identify recipients transplanted for COVID-19. We used multivariable regression to compare in-hospital acute rejection, prolonged ventilator support, tracheostomy, dialysis, and 1-year mortality between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 recipients, adjusting for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics. RESULTS: LT for COVID-19 increased from 0.8% to 10.7% of total LT volume during 2020 to 2021. The number of centers performing LT for COVID-19 increased from 12 to 50. Recipients transplanted for COVID-19 were younger; were more likely to be male and Hispanic; were more likely to be on a ventilator, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and dialysis pre-LT; were more likely to receive bilateral LT; and had higher lung allocation score and shorter waitlist time than other recipients (all P values < .001). COVID-19 LT had higher risk of prolonged ventilator support (adjusted odds ratio, 2.28; P < .001), tracheostomy (adjusted odds ratio 5.3; P < .001), and longer length of stay (median, 27 vs 19 days; P < .001). Risk of in-hospital acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; P = .95) and 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .12) were similar for COVID-19 LTs and LTs for other indications, even accounting for center-level differences. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 LT is associated with higher risk of immediate postoperative complications but similar risk of 1-year mortality despite more severe pre-LT illness. These encouraging results support the ongoing use of LT for COVID-19-related lung disease.

Wait Time Advantage for Transplant Candidates With HIV Who Accept Kidneys From Donors With HIV Under the HOPE Act.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant (KT) candidates with HIV face higher mortality on the waitlist compared with candidates without HIV. Because the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act has expanded the donor pool to allow donors with HIV (D + ), it is crucial to understand whether this has impacted transplant rates for this population. METHODS: Using a linkage between the HOPE in Action trial (NCT03500315) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 324 candidates listed for D + kidneys (HOPE) compared with 46 025 candidates not listed for D + kidneys (non-HOPE) at the same centers between April 26, 2018, and May 24, 2022. We characterized KT rate, KT type (D + , false-positive [FP; donor with false-positive HIV testing], D - [donor without HIV], living donor [LD]) and quantified the association between HOPE enrollment and KT rate using multivariable Cox regression with center-level clustering; HOPE was a time-varying exposure. RESULTS: HOPE candidates were more likely male individuals (79% versus 62%), Black (73% versus 35%), and publicly insured (71% versus 52%; P < 0.001). Within 4.5 y, 70% of HOPE candidates received a KT (41% D + , 34% D - , 20% FP, 4% LD) versus 43% of non-HOPE candidates (74% D - , 26% LD). Conversely, 22% of HOPE candidates versus 39% of non-HOPE candidates died or were removed from the waitlist. Median KT wait time was 10.3 mo for HOPE versus 60.8 mo for non-HOPE candidates ( P < 0.001). After adjustment, HOPE candidates had a 3.30-fold higher KT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.30, 95% confidence interval, 2.14-5.10; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Listing for D + kidneys within HOPE trials was associated with a higher KT rate and shorter wait time, supporting the expansion of this practice for candidates with HIV.

A2/A2B to B deceased donor kidney transplantation in the Kidney Allocation System era.

Kidney transplantation from blood type A2/A2B donors to type B recipients (A2→B) has increased dramatically under the current Kidney Allocation System (KAS). Among living donor transplant recipients, A2-incompatible transplants are associated with an increased risk of all-cause and death-censored graft failure. In light of this, we used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from December 2014 until June 2022 to evaluate the association between A2→B listing and time to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and post-DDKT outcomes for A2→B recipients. Among 53 409 type B waitlist registrants, only 12.6% were listed as eligible to accept A2→B offers ("A2-eligible"). The rates of DDKT at 1-, 3-, and 5-years were 32.1%, 61.4%, and 72.1% among A2-eligible candidates and 14.1%, 29.9%, and 44.1% among A2-ineligible candidates, with the former experiencing a 133% higher rate of DDKT (Cox weighted hazard ratio (wHR) = 2.192.332.47; P < .001). The 7-year adjusted mortality was comparable between A2→B and B-ABOc (type B/O donors to B recipients) recipients (wHR 0.780.941.13, P = .5). Moreover, there was no difference between A2→B vs B-ABOc DDKT recipients with regards to death-censored graft failure (wHR 0.771.001.29, P > .9) or all-cause graft loss (wHR 0.820.961.12, P = .6). Following its broader adoption since the implementation of the kidney allocation system, A2→B DDKT appears to be a safe and effective transplant modality for eligible candidates. As such, A2→B listing for eligible type B candidates should be expanded.

Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness in Using High-Kidney Donor Profile Index Organs.

A more granular donor kidney grading scale, the kidney donor profile index (KDPI), has recently emerged in contradistinction to the standard criteria donor/expanded criteria donor framework. In this paper, we built a Markov decision process model to evaluate the survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and cost advantages of using high-KDPI kidneys based on multiple KDPI strata over a 60-month time horizon as opposed to remaining on the waiting list waiting for a lower-KDPI kidney. Data for the model were gathered from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the United States Renal Data System Medicare parts A, B, and D databases. Of the 129,024 phenotypes delineated in this model, 65% of them would experience a survival benefit, 81% would experience an increase in QALYs, 87% would see cost-savings, and 76% would experience cost-savings per QALY from accepting a high-KDPI kidney rather than remaining on the waiting list waiting for a kidney of lower-KDPI. Classification and regression tree analysis (CART) revealed the main drivers of increased survival in accepting high-KDPI kidneys were wait time ≥30 months, panel reactive antibody (PRA) <90, age ≥45 to 65, diagnosis leading to renal failure, and prior transplantation. The CART analysis showed the main drivers of increased QALYs in accepting high-kidneys were wait time ≥30 months, PRA <90, and age ≥55 to 65.

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.

External Validation of Toulouse-Rangueil eGFR12 Prediction Model After Living Donor Nephrectomy.

Decreased postdonation eGFR is associated with a higher risk of ESRD after living kidney donation, even when accounting for predonation characteristics. The Toulouse-Rangueil model (TRM) estimates 12 month postdonation eGFR (eGFR12) to inform counseling of candidates for living donation. The TRM was validated in several single-center European cohorts but has not been validated in US donors. We assessed the TRM in living kidney donors in the US using SRTR data 1/2000-6/2021. We compared the 2021 CKD-EPI equation eGFR12 observed estimates to the TRM eGFR12 predictions. Median (IQR) bias was -3.4 (-9.3, 3.4) mL/min/1.73 m2. Bias was higher for males vs. females (bias [IQR] -4.4 [-9.9, 1.8] vs. -2.9 [-8.8, 4.1]) and younger (31-40) vs. older donors (>50) (bias -4.9 [-10.6, 3.0] vs. -2.1 [-7.5, 4.0]). Bias was also larger for Black vs. White donors (bias (-6.7 [-12.1, -0.3], p < 0.001) vs. (-3.4 [-9.1, 3.1], p < 0.001)). Overall correlation was 0.71. In a sensitivity analysis using the 2009 CKD-EPI equation, results were generally consistent with exception to a higher overall bias (bias -4.2 [-9.8, 2.4]). The TRM overestimates postdonation renal function among US donors. Overestimation was greatest for those at higher risk for postdonation ESRD including male, Black, and younger donors. A new equation is needed to estimate postdonation renal function.

To decline or not to decline: Consequences of decision-making regarding lung offers from donors with hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: Lung transplants from donors with hepatitis C (HCV D+) have excellent outcomes, but these organs continue to be declined. We evaluated whether (1) being listed to consider and (2) accepting versus declining HCV D+ offers provided a survival benefit to lung transplant candidates. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified all adult (≥18 years) lung transplant candidates 2016-2021 and compared waitlist mortality between those willing versus not willing to consider HCV D+ offers using competing risk regression. We identified all candidates offered an HCV D+ lung that was later accepted and followed them from offer decision until death or end-of-study. We estimated adjusted mortality risk of accepting versus declining an HCV D+ lung offer using propensity-weighted Cox regression. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2021, we identified 21,007 lung transplant candidates, 33.8% of whom were willing to consider HCV D+ offers. Candidates willing to consider HCV D+ offers had a 17% lower risk of waitlist mortality (subhazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.91, P < .001). Over the same period, 665 HCV D+ lung offers were accepted after being declined a total of 2562 times. HCV D+ offer acceptance versus decline was associated with a 20% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.96, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Considering HCV D+ lung offers was associated with a 17% lower risk of waitlist mortality, whereas accepting versus declining an HCV D+ lung offer was associated with a 20% lower risk of mortality. Centers and candidates should consider accepting suitable HCV D+ lung offers to optimize outcomes.

Transplant Candidate Outcomes After Declining a DCD Liver in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the organ shortage, donation after circulatory death (DCD) provides an opportunity to expand the donor pool. Although deceased-donor liver transplantation from DCD donors has expanded, DCD livers continue to be discarded at elevated rates; the use of DCD livers from older donors, or donors with comorbidities, is controversial. METHODS: Using US registry data from 2009 to 2020, we identified 1564 candidates on whose behalf a DCD liver offer was accepted ("acceptors") and 16 981 candidates on whose behalf the same DCD offers were declined ("decliners"). We characterized outcomes of decliners using a competing risk framework and estimated the survival benefit (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) of accepting DCD livers using Cox regression. RESULTS: Within 10 y of DCD offer decline, 50.9% of candidates died or were removed from the waitlist before transplantation with any type of allograft. DCD acceptors had lower mortality compared with decliners at 10 y postoffer (35.4% versus 48.9%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for candidate covariates, DCD offer acceptance was associated with a 46% reduction in mortality (0.54 [0.49-0.61]). Acceptors of older (age ≥50), obese (body mass index ≥30), hypertensive, nonlocal, diabetic, and increased risk DCD livers had 44% (0.56 [0.42-0.73]), 40% (0.60 [0.49-0.74]), 48% (0.52 [0.41-0.66]), 46% (0.54 [0.45-0.65]), 32% (0.68 [0.43-1.05]), and 45% (0.55 [0.42-0.72]) lower mortality risk compared with DCD decliners, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DCD offer acceptance is associated with considerable long-term survival benefits for liver transplant candidates, even with older DCD donors or donors with comorbidities. Increased recovery and utilization of DCD livers should be encouraged.

Living kidney donors with HIV: experience and outcomes from a case series by the HOPE in Action Consortium.

Background: Living kidney donation is possible for people living with HIV (PLWH) in the United States within research studies under the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. There are concerns that donor nephrectomy may have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in PLWH due to HIV-associated kidney disease and antiretroviral therapy (ART) nephrotoxicity. Here we report the first 3 cases of living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States. Methods: Within the HOPE in Action Multicenter Consortium, we conducted a prospective study of living kidney donors with HIV. Pre-donation, we estimated the 9-year cumulative incidence of ESRD, performed genetic testing of apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), excluding individuals with high-risk variants, and performed pre-donation kidney biopsies (HOPE Act requirement). The primary endpoint was ≥grade 3 nephrectomy-related adverse events (AEs) in year one. Post-donation, we monitored glomerular filtration rate (measured by iohexol/Tc-99m DTPA [mGFR] or estimated with serum creatinine [eGFR]), HIV RNA, CD4 count, and ART. Findings: There were three donors with two-four years of follow-up: a 35 year-old female, a 52 year-old male, and a 47 year-old male. Pre-donation 9-year estimated cumulative incidence of ESRD was 3.01, 8.01, and 7.76 per 10,000 persons, respectively. In two donors with APOL1 testing, no high-risk variants were detected. Biopsies from all three donors showed no kidney disease. Post-donation, two donors developed nephrectomy-related ≥grade 3 AEs: a medically-managed ileus and a laparoscopically-repaired incisional hernia. GFR declined from 103 to 84 mL/min/1.73 m2 at four years (mGFR) in donor 1, from 77 to 52 mL/min/1.73 m2 at three years (eGFR) in donor 2, and from 65 to 39 mL/min/1.73 m2 at two years (eGFR) in donor 3. HIV RNA remained <20 copies/mL and CD4 count remained stable in all donors. Interpretation: The first three living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States have had promising outcomes at two-four years, providing proof-of-concept to support living donation from PLWH to recipients with HIV. Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Incident COVID-19 and Hospitalizations by Variant Era Among Vaccinated Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

This cohort study evaluates the incidence of COVID-19 and hospitalizations across variant eras in 2021 and 2022 among vaccinated solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

Cancer Risk Following HLA-Incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) require desensitization to facilitate transplantation, and this substantial upfront immunosuppression may result in serious complications, including cancer. Methods: To characterize cancer risk in ILDKTr, we evaluated 858 ILDKTr and 12 239 compatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (CLDKTr) from a multicenter cohort with linkage to the US transplant registry and 33 cancer registries (1997-2016). Cancer incidence was compared using weighted Cox regression. Results: Among ILDKTr, the median follow-up time was 6.7 y (maximum 16.1 y) for invasive cancers (ascertained via cancer registry linkage) and 5.0 y (maximum 16.1 y) for basal and squamous cell carcinomas (ascertained via the transplant registry and censored for transplant center loss to follow-up). Invasive cancers occurred in 53 ILDKTr (6.2%) and 811 CLDKTr (6.6%; weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.35). Basal and squamous cell carcinomas occurred in 41 ILDKTr (4.8%) and 737 CLDKTr (6.0%) (wHR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40). Cancer risk did not vary according to donor-specific antibody strength, and in an exploratory analysis, was similar between CLDKTr and ILDKTr for most cancer types and according to cancer stage, except ILDKTr had a suggestively increased risk of colorectal cancer (wHR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.23-8.71); however, this elevation was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the risk of cancer is not increased for ILDKTr compared with CLDKTr. The possible elevation in colorectal cancer risk is unexplained and might suggest a need for tailored screening or prevention.