Cost-effectiveness of Using Kidneys From HCV-Viremic Donors for Transplantation Into HCV-Uninfected Recipients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Less than 4% of patients with kidney failure receive kidney transplants. Although discard rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic kidneys are declining, ~39% of HCV-viremic kidneys donated between 2018 and 2019 were discarded. Highly effective antiviral agents are now available to treat chronic HCV infection. Thus, our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of transplanting kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-uninfected recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Markov state transition decision model. Data sources include Medline search results, bibliographies from relevant English language articles, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, and the US Renal Data System. SETTING & POPULATION: US patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis who are on kidney transplant waiting lists. INTERVENTION(S): Transplantation with an HCV-unexposed kidney versus transplantation with an HCV-viremic kidney and HCV treatment. OUTCOMES: Effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years and costs measured in 2018 US dollars. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, AND TIMEFRAME: We used a health care system perspective with a lifelong time horizon. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, transplantation with an HCV-viremic kidney was more effective and less costly than transplantation with an HCV-unexposed kidney because of the longer waiting times for HCV-unexposed kidneys, the substantial excess mortality risk while receiving dialysis, and the high efficacy of direct-acting antiviral agents for HCV infection. Transplantation with an HCV-viremic kidney was also preferred in sensitivity analyses of multiple model parameters. The strategy remained cost-effective unless waiting list time for an HCV-viremic kidney exceeded 3.1 years compared with the base-case value of 1.56 year. LIMITATIONS: Estimates of waiting times for patients willing to accept an HCV-viremic kidney were based on data for patients who received HCV-viremic kidney transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-uninfected recipients increased quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduced costs compared with a strategy of transplanting kidneys from HCV-unexposed donors.

Assessment of tacrolimus intrapatient variability in stable adherent transplant recipients: Establishing baseline values.

The purpose of this study was to determine the intrapatient (within the same patient) variability of tacrolimus in adherent patients. Daily tacrolimus trough levels were obtained at home using dried blood spot technology in kidney and liver transplant recipients. Patients were randomized to receive 3 formulations of tacrolimus, each for two 1-week periods. Adherence was monitored by patient diary, pill counts, and use of the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Variability was quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV). Comparison of CV between groups was by independent t test or one-way ANOVA as appropriate. The population was found to be adherent with a rate of 99.9% with a mean interval between the evening and morning dose of tacrolimus of 11.86 hours. The median CV for the entire population was 15.2% (range 4.8%-110%). There were no differences in CV by allograft type or tacrolimus formulation. The multivariate analysis did not identify any demographic characteristics associated with a CV > 30%. In a highly adherent population, tacrolimus did not display high intrapatient variability. Given the association between IPV and poor allograft outcomes, future studies are needed to quantitate the influence of adherence and establish target IPV goals.

Transplanting Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Versus Uninfected Kidneys Into Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Recipients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Direct-acting antiviral agents are now available to treat chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Objective: To examine whether it is more cost-effective to transplant HCV-infected or HCV-uninfected kidneys into HCV-infected patients. Design: Markov state-transition decision model. Data Sources: MEDLINE searches and bibliographies from relevant English-language articles. Target Population: HCV-infected patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis in the United States. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care system. Intervention: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment versus transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment. Outcome Measures: Effectiveness, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs, measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment was more effective and less costly than transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment, largely because of longer wait times for uninfected kidneys. A typical 57.8-year-old patient receiving hemodialysis would gain an average of 0.50 QALY at a lifetime cost savings of $41 591. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment continued to be preferred in sensitivity analyses of many model parameters. Transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment was not preferred unless the additional wait time for an uninfected kidney was less than 161 days. Limitation: The study did not consider the benefit of decreased HCV transmission from treating HCV-infected patients. Conclusion: Transplanting HCV-infected kidneys into HCV-infected patients increased quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduced costs compared with transplanting HCV-uninfected kidneys into HCV-infected patients. Primary Funding Source: Merck Sharp & Dohme and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Hospital Resource Use with Donation after Cardiac Death Allografts in Liver Transplantation: A Matched Controlled Analysis from 2007 to 2011.

BACKGROUND: Although donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver allografts have been used to expand the donor pool, concerns exist regarding primary nonfunction and biliary complications. Our aim was to compare resource use and outcomes of DCD allografts with donation after brain death (DBD) liver allografts. STUDY DESIGN: Using a linkage between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified 11,856 patients who underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (LT) from 2007 to 2011. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on type of allograft (DCD vs DBD). Matched pair analysis (n = 613 in each group) was used to compare outcomes of the 2 donor types. RESULTS: Donation after cardiac death allografts comprised 5.2% (n = 613) of all LTs in the studied cohort; DCD allograft recipients were healthier and had lower median Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (17 vs 19; p < 0.0001). Post LT, there was no significant difference in length of stay, perioperative mortality, and discharge to home rates. However, DCD allografts were associated with higher direct cost ($110,414 vs $99,543; p < 0.0001) and 30-day readmission rates (46.4% vs 37.1%; p < 0.0001). Matched analysis revealed that DCD allografts were associated with higher direct cost, readmission rates, and inferior graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: While confirming the previous reports of inferior graft survival associated with DCD allografts, this is the first national report to show increased financial and resource use associated with DCD compared with DBD allografts in a matched recipient cohort.

A Banff Component Scoring-based Histologic Assessment of Bortezomib-based Antibody-mediated Rejection Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Histology remains a cornerstone for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) diagnosis. Little data exist supporting histology for assessing therapeutic responses. This study evaluates histologic components in assessing AMR therapeutic responses. METHODS: Antibody-mediated rejection was diagnosed using Antibody Working Group criteria and Banff component scoring, and C4d staining data were analyzed. Statistics included independent and paired samples t test, χ(2), Fisher exact, or the Wilcoxon-signed rank test. Fifty-five AMR patients were analyzed. Early AMR was defined as occurring within 6 months after transplantation and treated with a single rituximab dose and 4 bortezomib doses preceded by plasmapheresis. Allograft biopsies were performed within 48 hours of treatment; repeat biopsy was performed 14 to 21 days later. RESULTS: Early AMR demonstrated histologic improvement in mean scores for acute Banff components glomerulitis (g), C4d, g+ peritubular capillaritis (ptc) and acute composite score, but showed deterioration in chronic Banff components tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis. Late AMR showed improved mean scores for acute Banff components tubulitis, interstitial inflammation, g, ptc, g + ptc, C4d, and acute composite score, but chronic scores did not change. Significant changes in distribution of Banff scores after treatment were observed for g, C4d, tubular atrophy, and interstitial fibrosis scores in early AMR patients and tubulitis, interstitial inflammation, g, ptc, and C4d in late AMR. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that: (1) Banff component scoring provides insights into histologic responses to AMR therapy and may provide a potential endpoint for clinical AMR trials. (2) Early and late AMR demonstrate differences in acute and chronic Banff components at the time of the AMR diagnostic biopsy, as well as differential responses to AMR therapy.

Independent effect of black recipient race on short-term outcomes after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated worse graft and patient survival for black patients after liver transplantation (LT), but these studies have not accounted properly for recipient, donor, center, or geographic effects. In this study, we evaluated the effect of candidate race on patient and graft survival after LT. METHODS: Using a novel linkage of the databases of the University Health System Consortium and the US Census and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 12,445 patients (43.1% of total) who underwent LT in the United States from 2007 to 2011. Using a mixed-effects, proportional hazards model, we assessed the effect of race on patient and graft survival after controlling for recipient, donor, and center characteristics; region; donor service area; and individual transplant centers. RESULTS: At the time of transplantation, white patients were healthier, had a shorter duration of hospital stay, and a lesser in-hospital mortality compared with black and Hispanic patients. White recipients had a graft and patient survival advantage when compared with blacks, but there was no survival difference observed when compared with Hispanics. After controlling for recipient and donor characteristics, geographic region, donor service area, and the effect of the individual hospital, black recipients were still at an increased risk of both death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.50) and graft failure (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.44) after LT. CONCLUSION: After controlling for many of the important variables in the transplant process, including the individual hospital, black recipients were at increased risk of both death and graft failure after LT when compared with whites.

Is liver transplantation safe and effective in elderly (≥70 years) recipients? A case-controlled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are evaluated for liver transplantation (LT) with increasing frequency, but outcomes in this group have not been well defined. METHODS: A linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) databases identified 12,445 patients who underwent LT during 2007-2011. Two cohorts were created consisting of, respectively, elderly recipients aged ≥70 years (n = 323) and recipients aged 18-69 years (n = 12,122). A 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed based on propensity scores. RESULTS: Elderly recipients had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at LT (median 15 versus 19; P < 0.0001), more often underwent transplantation at high-volume centres (46% versus 33%; P < 0.0001) and more often received grafts from donors aged >60 years (24% versus 15%; P < 0.0001). The two cohorts had similar hospital lengths of stay, in-hospital mortality, hospital costs and 30-day readmission rates. There were no differences in graft survival between the two cohorts (P = 0.10), but elderly recipients had worse longterm overall survival (P = 0.009). However, a case-controlled analysis confirmed similar perioperative hospital outcomes, graft survival and longterm patient survival in the two matched cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly LT recipients accounted for <3% of all LTs performed during 2007-2011. Selected elderly recipients have perioperative outcomes and survival similar to those in younger adults.

Neighborhood level effects of socioeconomic status on liver transplant selection and recipient survival.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous studies have reported that patients of higher socioeconomic status (SES) have increased access to liver transplantation and reduced waitlist mortality than patients of lower SES. However, little is known about the association between SES and outcomes after liver transplantation. METHODS: By using a link between the University HealthSystem Consortium and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified 12,445 patients who underwent liver transplantation from 2007 through 2011. We used a proportional hazards model to assess the effect of SES on patient survival, controlling for characteristics of recipients, donors, geography, and center. RESULTS: Compared with liver recipients in the lowest SES quintile, those in the highest quintile were more likely to be male, Caucasian, have private insurance, and undergo transplantation when they had lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. In proportional hazards model analysis, liver recipients of the lowest SES were at an increased risk for death within a median of 2 years after transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Patients of lower SES appear to face barriers to liver transplantation, but perioperative outcomes (length of stay, in-hospital mortality, or 30-day readmission) do not differ significantly from those of patients of higher SES. However, fewer patients of low SES survive for 2 years after transplantation, independent of features of the recipient, donor, surgery center, or location.

Assessment of efficacy and safety of FK778 in comparison with standard care in renal transplant recipients with untreated BK nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: BK polyomavirus infection has been reported in 10% to 60% of renal transplant recipients with progression to BK nephropathy (BKN) occurring in 1% to 5% of patients. Graft loss occurs in up to 60% of renal transplant recipients with BKN. Because BK polyomavirus infection is believed, in part, to be a manifestation of overimmunosuppression, the current standard of care involves the reduction of immunosuppressants. This strategy has been associated with clearance of viral load, preservation of renal function, and improvement in graft survival; however, this may come at a risk of rejection. A safe and effective immunosuppressive agent that does not predispose to viral infection is needed in transplantation. METHODS: In a phase 2, proof-of-concept, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 6-month study in renal transplant patients, FK778 (an investigational immunosuppressant from the malononitrilamides class) was compared with the current standard of care (reduction of immunosuppression) for treatment of newly diagnosed or untreated BKN, which was confirmed by renal biopsy. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups, except there were numerically more females in the FK778 group than in the standard care group. Although the treatment with FK778 decreased BK viral load in this study, it was associated with a less favorable rejection profile and renal function and a higher incidence of serious adverse events compared with reduction of immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study are consistent with the findings of previous studies that found no benefit of drug therapy in the treatment of BKN in kidney transplant recipients.

Risk assessment of immunosuppressive therapy in facial transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppression-related risks are foremost among ethical concerns regarding facial transplantation. However, previous risk estimates are inaccurate and misleading, because they are based on data from studies using different immunosuppression regimens, health status of the transplant recipients, tissue composition, and antigenicity. This review provides a comprehensive risk assessment for facial transplantation based on comparable data of immunosuppression, recipient health status, and composition and antigenicity of the transplanted tissue. METHODS: The risk estimates for face transplantation presented here are based on data reported in clinical kidney (10-year experience) and hand transplantation (5-year experience) studies using tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil/corticosteroid therapy. Mitigating factors including ease of rejection diagnosis, rejection reversibility, infection prophylaxis, patient selection, and viral serologic status are taken into account. RESULTS: Estimated risks include acute rejection (10 to 70 percent incidence), acute rejection reversibility (approximating 100 percent with corticosteroid therapy alone), chronic rejection (<10 percent over 5 years), cytomegalovirus disease (1 to 15 percent), diabetes (5 to 15 percent), hypertension (5 to 10 percent), and renal failure (<5 percent). CONCLUSIONS: A review of these data indicates that previously reported estimates of immunosuppression-related risks are outdated and therefore should no longer be used. These updated risk estimates should be used by facial transplant teams, institutional review boards, and potential recipients when considering the immunologic risks associated with facial transplantation.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy.

The benefits of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) are well described, while similar data on hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (HALDN) are lacking. We compare hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy with open donor nephrectomy. One hundred consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (10/98-8/01) donor/recipient pairs were compared to 50 open donor nephrectomy pairs (8/97-1/00). Mean donor weights were similar (179.6 +/- 40.8 vs. 167.4 +/- 30.3 lb; p = NS), while donor age was greater among hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (38.2 +/- 9.5 vs. 31.2 +/- 7.8 year; p < 0.01). Right nephrectomies was fewer in hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy [17/100 (17%) vs. 22/50 (44%); p < 0.05]. Operative time for hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (3.9 +/- 0.7 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.5 h; p < 0.01) was longer; however, return to diet (6.9 +/- 2.8 vs. 25.6 +/- 6.1 h; p < 0.01), narcotics requirement (17.9 +/- 6.3 vs. 56.3 +/- 6.4h; p < 0.01) and length of stay (51.7 +/- 22.2 vs. 129.6 +/- 65.7 h; p < 0.01) were less than open donor nephrectomy. Costs were similar ($11072 vs. 10840). Graft function and 1-week Cr of 1.4 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.6 +/- 1.1 g/dL (p = NS) were similar. With the introduction of HALDN, our laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy program has increased by 20%. Thus, similar to traditional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy provides advantages over open donor nephrectomy without increasing costs.

Safety, efficacy, and cost analysis of thymoglobulin induction therapy with intermittent dosing based on CD3+ lymphocyte counts in kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: In view of the superior T-cell depletion and prolonged half-life of thymoglobulin, we initiated a protocol to administer thymoglobulin intermittently based on peripheral blood CD3+ lymphocyte counts. METHODS: In this prospective study, 41 consecutive high-risk cadaver transplant recipients (panel reactive antibody level >30%, repeat transplant recipients, simultaneous pancreas and kidney or pancreas after kidney recipients, prolonged cold-ischemia time, prolonged donor hypotension, non-heart-beating donors) who received thymoglobulin induction therapy were included. The first dose (1.5 mg/kg) of thymoglobulin was administered intraoperatively. CD3+ lymphocyte count in the peripheral blood was determined daily and repeat doses were administered when the CD3+ count was >20 cells/mm3. Calcineurin inhibitors (CI) in low doses were introduced when the allograft function recovered and the serum creatinine level dropped by at least 25% from the pretransplant level. Thymoglobulin treatment was discontinued once therapeutic CI drug levels were achieved. Concomitant immunosuppression consisted of mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone. RESULTS: The mean individual thymoglobulin dose was 104 mg (1.4 mg/kg), and the total cumulative dose per patient was 318 mg (4.2 mg/kg). Patients received an average of three doses and a mean of six CD3 counts were obtained per patient. Introduction of CI was delayed for an average of 6 days posttransplantation. At a mean follow-up of 340 days, two (4.9%) patients died; three (7.3%) renal allografts and two (18.2%) pancreas allografts were lost. Five (12.2%) patients developed a total of six acute rejection episodes. The mean serum creatinine in the 38 patients with a functioning kidney was 1.47 mg/dl, and the mean blood glucose in the 9 pancreas allograft recipients was 89 mg/dl. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection occurred in one (2.4%) patient. No posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders were seen in this patient cohort. The hospital pharmacy charge for a 100-mg dose of thymoglobulin at this center was $2,165, and the laboratory charge for a single CD3 determination was $70. In this study, the average charges per patient for the total dose of thymoglobulin and six CD3 determinations were $7305. In comparison, the charge for daily administration of 104 mg of thymoglobulin (which was the mean dose) for 6 days (mean time to CI therapy initiation) would be $13,510 and for 10 days (mean time to therapeutic CI levels) would be $22,516. This represents a savings of 46% and 68%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent thymoglobulin therapy, based on peripheral blood CD3+ lymphocyte counts, is safe and associated with low acute rejection rate in high-risk kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients. A mean of three doses resulted in adequate suppression of CD3+ lymphocytes permitting delayed introduction of CI in low doses until recovery of renal function occurred. When compared to traditional daily administration, intermittent therapy results in significant cost savings and reduces the total cumulative dose of this potent immunosuppressive agent.