Thirty-Year Trends in Perioperative Mortality Risk for Living Kidney Donors.

This study uses a national registry study to characterize temporal trends in perioperative mortality in donors and risk factors associated with this event.

For your consideration: Benefits of listing as willing to consider heart offers from donors with hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Despite excellent outcomes of heart transplants from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive donors (D+), many candidates are not listed to even consider HCV D+ offers. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified adult (age ≥18 years) heart transplant candidates prevalent on the waitlist between 2018 and March 2023. We compared the likelihood of waitlist mortality or heart transplant by candidate willingness to consider HCV D+ offers using competing risk regression. RESULTS: We identified 19,415 heart transplant candidates, 68.9% of whom were willing to consider HCV D+ offers. Candidates willing to consider HCV D+ offers had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.70; P < .001) than candidates not willing to consider HCV D+ offers, after adjustment for covariates and center-level clustering. Over the same period, heart transplant candidates willing to consider HCV D+ offers had a 21% higher likelihood of receiving a transplant (SHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.7-1.26; P < .001). As a result, among candidates willing to consider HCV D+ offers, 74.9% received a transplant and 6.1% died/deteriorated after 3 years, compared to 68.3% and 9.1%, respectively, of candidates not willing to consider HCV D+ offers. Lower waitlist mortality also was observed on subgroup analyses of candidates on temporary and durable mechanical circulatory support. CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to consider HCV D+ heart offers was associated with a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality and a 21% higher likelihood of receiving a transplant. We urge providers to encourage candidates to list as being willing to consider offers from donors with hepatitis C to optimize their waitlist outcomes and access to transplantation.

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 =  0.68 0.73 0.77 ) compared with non-exception candidates. However, waitlist mortality for HCC was comparable to non-exception candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [asHR] =  0.93 1.03 1.15 ). Non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma had substantially higher risk of waitlist mortality compared with non-exception candidates (asHR =  1.27 1.70 2.29 for pulmonary complications of cirrhosis, 1.35 2.04 3.07 for cholangiocarcinoma). The same was not true of non-HCC candidates with exceptions for other reasons (asHR =  0.54 0.88 1.44 ). 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A Noninvasive Screening Model for Additional Diagnostics.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is likely underdiagnosed, and current diagnostic tools are either invasive or insensitive. Methods: A retrospective study of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted to 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals between March 2020 and June 2021 was performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used for the CAPA prediction model building. Performance of the model was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: In the cohort of 832 patients, 98 (11.8%) met criteria for CAPA. Age, time since intubation, dexamethasone for COVID-19 treatment, underlying pulmonary circulatory diseases, human immunodeficiency virus, multiple myeloma, cancer, or hematologic malignancies were statistically significantly associated with CAPA and were included in the CAPA prediction model, which showed an AUC of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, .70-.80). At a screening cutoff of ≥0.085, it had a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 51%, a positive predictive value of 18.6%, and a negative predictive value of 95.3%. (The CAPA screening score calculator is available at www.transplantmodels.com). Conclusions: We developed a CAPA risk score as a noninvasive tool to aid in CAPA screening for patients with severe COVID-19. Our score will also identify a group of patients who are unlikely to have CAPA and who therefore need not undergo additional diagnostics and/or empiric antifungal therapy.

Trends in use and three-year outcomes of hepatitis C virus-viremic donor lung transplants for hepatitis C virus-seronegative recipients.

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility and 6-month outcome safety of lung transplants (LTs) from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors for HCV-seronegative recipients (R-) were established in 2019, but longer-term safety and uptake of this practice nationally remain unknown. METHODS: We identified HCV-seronegative LT recipients (R-) 2015-2020 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We classified donors as seronegative (D-) or viremic (D+). We used χ2 testing, rank-sum testing, and Cox regression to compare posttransplant outcomes between HCV D+/R- and D-/R- LT recipients. RESULTS: HCV D+/R- LT increased from 2 to 97/year; centers performing HCV D+/R- LT increased from 1 to 25. HCV D+/R- versus HCV D-/R- LT recipients had more obstructive disease (35.7% vs 23.3%, P < .001), lower lung allocation score (36.5 vs 41.1, P < .001), and longer waitlist time (P = .002). HCV D+/R- LT had similar risk of acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.87; P = .58), extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (aOR, 1.94; P = .10), and tracheostomy (aOR, 0.42; P = .16); similar median hospital stay (P = .07); and lower risk of ventilator > 48 hours (aOR, 0.68; P = .006). Adjusting for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics, risk of all-cause graft failure and mortality were similar at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years for HCV D+/R- versus HCV D-/R- LT (all P > .1), as well as for high- (≥20/year) versus low-volume LT centers and high- (≥5/year) versus low-volume HCV D+/R- LT centers (all P > .5). CONCLUSIONS: HCV D+/R- and HCV D-/R- LT have similar outcomes at 3 years posttransplant. These results underscore the safety of HCV D+/R- LT and the potential benefit of expanding this practice further.

Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) occurs in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Risks and outcomes remain poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals was conducted between March and August 2020. CAPA was defined using composite clinical criteria. Fine and Gray competing risks regression was used to analyze clinical outcomes and, multilevel mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression was used to compare longitudinal disease severity scores. RESULTS: In the cohort of 396 people, 39 met criteria for CAPA. Patients with CAPA were more likely than those without CAPA to have underlying pulmonary vascular disease (41% vs 21.6%, respectively; P = .01), liver disease (35.9% vs 18.2%; P = .02), coagulopathy (51.3% vs 33.1%; P = .03), solid tumors (25.6% vs 10.9%; P = .02), multiple myeloma (5.1% vs 0.3%; P = .03), and corticosteroid exposure during the index admission (66.7% vs 42.6%; P = .005), and had lower body mass indexes (median, 26.6 vs 29.9 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]; P = .04). Patients with CAPA had worse outcomes, as measured by ordinal severity of disease scores, requiring longer time to improvement (adjusted odds ratio, 1.081.091.1; P < .001), and advancing in severity almost twice as quickly (subhazard ratio, 1.31.82.5; P < .001). They were intubated twice as long as those without CAPA (subhazard ratio, 0.40.50.6; P < .001) and had longer hospital stays (median [interquartile range], 41.1 [20.5-72.4) vs 18.5 [10.7-31.8] days; P < .001). CONCLUSION: CAPA is associated with poor outcomes. Attention to preventive measures (screening and/or prophylaxis) is warranted in people with high risk of CAPA.

Long-term kidney function and survival in recipients of allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension: a national cohort study.

Allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension may carry subclinical kidney disease from the donor to the recipient and, thus, lead to adverse recipient outcomes. We examined eGFR trajectories and all-cause allograft failure in recipients from donors with versus without hypertension, using mixed-linear and Cox regression models stratified by donor age. We studied a US cohort from 1/1/2005 to 6/30/2017; 49 990 recipients of allografts from younger (<50 years old) donors including 597 with donor hypertension and 21 130 recipients of allografts from older (≥50 years old) donors including 1441 with donor hypertension. Donor hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy. Among recipients from younger donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -1.03 versus -0.53 ml/min/m2 (P = 0.002); 13-year allograft survival was 49.7% vs. 59.0% (adjusted allograft failure hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23; 95% CI 1.05-1.43; P = 0.009). Among recipients from older donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -0.67 versus -0.66 ml/min/m2 (P = 0.9); 13-year allograft survival was 48.6% versus 52.6% (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; P = 0.4). In secondary analyses, our inferences remained similar for risk of death-censored allograft failure and mortality. Hypertension in younger, but not older, living kidney donors is associated with worse recipient outcomes.

Outcomes of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations in the Living Donor Collective Pilot Registry.

BACKGROUND: Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry. RESULTS: Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.

Examination of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Deceased Organ Donation Ratio Over Time in the US.

Importance: Historically, deceased organ donation was lower among Black compared with White populations, motivating efforts to reduce racial disparities. The overarching effect of these efforts in Black and other racial/ethnic groups remains unclear. Objective: To examine changes in deceased organ donation over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used data from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2017, from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to quantify the number of actual deceased organ donors, and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research Detailed Mortality File to quantify the number of potential donors (individuals who died under conditions consistent with organ donation). Data were analyzed from December 2, 2019, to May 14, 2020. Exposures: Race and ethnicity of deceased and potential donors. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each racial/ethnic group and year, a donation ratio was calculated as the number of actual deceased donors divided by the number of potential donors. Direct age and sex standardization was used to allow for group comparisons, and Poisson regression was used to quantify changes in donation ratio over time. Results: A total of 141 534 deceased donors and 5 268 200 potential donors were included in the analysis. Among Black individuals, the donation ratio increased 2.58-fold from 1999 to 2017 (yearly change in adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.05; P < .001). This increase was significantly greater than the 1.60-fold increase seen in White individuals. Nevertheless, substantial racial differences remained, with Black individuals still donating at only 69% the rate of White individuals in 2017 (P < .001). Among other racial minority populations, changes were less drastic. Deceased organ donation increased 1.80-fold among American Indian/Alaska Native and 1.40-fold among Asian or Pacific Islander populations, with substantial racial differences remaining in 2017 (American Indian/Alaska Native population donation at 28% and Asian/Pacific Islander population donation at 85% the rate of the White population). Deceased organ donation differences between Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino populations increased over time (4% lower in 2017). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that differences in deceased organ donation between White and some racial minority populations have attenuated over time. The greatest gains were observed among Black individuals, who have been the primary targets of study and intervention. Despite improvements, substantial differences remain, suggesting that novel approaches are needed to understand and address relatively lower rates of deceased organ donation among all racial minorities.

A prospective multicenter pilot study of HIV-positive deceased donor to HIV-positive recipient kidney transplantation: HOPE in action.

HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation is permitted in the United States under the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act. To explore safety and the risk attributable to an HIV+ donor, we performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ vs HIV-negative donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D-/R+) kidney transplantation (KT). From 3/2016 to 7/2019 at 14 centers, there were 75 HIV+ KTs: 25 D+ and 50 D- (22 recipients from D- with false positive HIV tests). Median follow-up was 1.7 years. There were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (63 mL/min D+ vs 57 mL/min D-, P = .31), HIV breakthrough (4% D+ vs 6% D-, P > .99), infectious hospitalizations (28% vs 26%, P = .85), or opportunistic infections (16% vs 12%, P = .72). One-year rejection was higher for D+ recipients (50% vs 29%, HR: 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.95, P = .13) but did not reach statistical significance; rejection was lower with lymphocyte-depleting induction (21% vs 44%, HR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.87, P = .03). In this multicenter pilot study directly comparing HIV D+/R+ with HIV D-/R+ KT, overall transplant and HIV outcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further investigation.

Minimizing Risks of Liver Transplantation With Steatotic Donor Livers by Preferred Recipient Matching.

BACKGROUND: Donor livers with ≥30% macrosteatosis (steatotic livers) represent a possible expansion to the donor pool, but are frequently discarded as they are associated with an increased risk of mortality and graft loss. We hypothesized that there are certain recipient phenotypes that would tolerate donor steatosis well, and are therefore best suited to receive these grafts. METHODS: Using national registry data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2006 and 2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers with 69 394 recipients of nonsteatotic (<30%) livers. We identified recipient factors that amplified the impact of donor steatosis on mortality and graft loss using interaction analysis, classifying recipients without these factors as preferred recipients. We compared mortality and graft loss with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers in preferred and nonpreferred recipients using Cox regression. RESULTS: Preferred recipients of steatotic livers were determined to be first-time recipients with a model for end-stage liver disease 15-34, without primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support before transplant. Preferred recipients had no increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.921.041.16; P = 0.5) or graft loss (HR: 0.931.031.15; P = 0.5) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had a 41% increased mortality risk (HR: 1.171.411.70; P < 0.001) and 39% increased risk of graft loss (HR: 1.161.391.66; P < 0.001) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of liver transplantation with steatotic donor livers could be minimized by appropriate recipient matching.

Outcomes After Declining a Steatotic Donor Liver for Liver Transplant Candidates in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Steatotic donor livers (SDLs, ≥30% macrosteatosis on biopsy) are often declined, as they are associated with a higher risk of graft loss, even though candidates may wait an indefinite time for a subsequent organ offer. We sought to quantify outcomes for transplant candidates who declined or accepted an SDL offer. METHODS: We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients offer data from 2009 to 2015 to compare outcomes of 759 candidates who accepted an SDL to 13 362 matched controls who declined and followed candidates from the date of decision (decline or accept) until death or end of study period. We used a competing risk framework to understand the natural history of candidates who declined and Cox regression to compare postdecision survival after declining versus accepting (ie, what could have happened if candidates who declined had instead accepted). RESULTS: Among those who declined an SDL, only 53.1% of candidates were subsequently transplanted, 23.8% died, and 19.4% were removed from the waitlist. Candidates who accepted had a brief perioperative risk period within the first month posttransplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.493.494.89, P < 0.001), but a 62% lower mortality risk (aHR: 0.310.380.46, P < 0.001) beyond this. Although the long-term survival benefit of acceptance did not vary by candidate model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), the short-term risk period did. MELD 6-21 candidates who accepted an SDL had a 7.88-fold higher mortality risk (aHR: 4.807.8812.93, P < 0.001) in the first month posttransplant, whereas MELD 35-40 candidates had a 68% lower mortality risk (aHR: 0.110.320.90, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately selected SDLs can decrease wait time and provide substantial long-term survival benefit for liver transplant candidates.

Prescription patterns of opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the first year after living kidney donation: An analysis of U.S. Registry and Pharmacy fill records.

We examined a novel database linking national donor registry identifiers to records from a US pharmaceutical claims warehouse (2007-2015) to describe opioid and NSAID prescription patterns among LKDs during the first year postdonation, divided into three periods: 0-14 days, 15-182 days, and 183-365 days. Associations of opioid and NSAID prescription fills with baseline factors were examined by logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio, LCL aORUCL ). Among 23,565 donors, opioid prescriptions were highest during days 0-14 (36.6%), but 12.6% of donors filled opioids during days 183-365. NSAID prescriptions rose from 0.5% during days 0-14 to 3.3% during days 183-365. Women filled opioids more commonly than men, and black donors filled both opioids and NSAIDs more commonly than white donors. After covariate adjustment, significant correlates of opioid prescription fills during days 183-365 included obesity (aOR,1.24 1.381.53 ), less than college education (aOR,1.19 1.311.43 ), smoking (aOR,1.33 1.451.58 ), and nephrectomy complications (aOR,1.11 1.291.49 ). NSAID prescription fills in year 1 were not associated with differences in estimated glomerular filtration rate, incidence of proteinuria or new-onset hypertension at the first and second year postdonation. Prescription fills for opioids and NSAIDs for LKDs varied with demographic and clinic traits. Future work should examine longer-term outcome implications to help inform safe analgesic regimen choices after donation.

Antithymocyte Globulin Versus Interleukin-2 Receptor Antagonist in Kidney Transplant Recipients With Hepatitis C Virus.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients are at increased risks of rejection and graft failure. The optimal induction agent for this population remains controversial, particularly regarding concerns that antithymocyte globulin (ATG) might increase HCV-related complications. METHODS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Medicare claims data, we studied 6780 HCV+ and 139 681 HCV- KT recipients in 1999-2016 who received ATG or interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL2RA) for induction. We first examined the association of recipient HCV status with receiving ATG (versus IL2RA) using multilevel logistic regression. Then, we studied the association of ATG (versus IL2RA) with KT outcomes (rejection, graft failure, and death) and hepatic complications (liver transplant registration and cirrhosis) among HCV+ recipients using logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS: HCV+ recipients were less likely to receive ATG than HCV- recipients (living donor, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.640.770.91; deceased donor, aOR = 0.710.810.92). In contrast, HCV+ recipients who received ATG were at lower risk of acute rejection compared to those who received IL2RA (1-y crude incidence = 11.6% versus 12.6%; aOR = 0.680.820.99). There was no significant difference in the risks of graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.861.001.17), death (aHR = 0.850.951.07), liver transplant registration (aHR = 0.580.971.61), and cirrhosis (aHR = 0.730.921.16). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ATG, as compared to IL2RA, may lower the risk of acute rejection without increasing hepatic complications in HCV+ KT recipients. Given the higher rates of acute rejection in this population, ATG appears to be safe and reasonable for HCV+ recipients.