A rational approach to guide cost-effective de novo donor-specific antibody surveillance with tacrolimus immunosuppression.

De novo donor-specific antibody (dnDSA) after renal transplantation has been shown to correlate with antibody-mediated rejection and allograft loss. However, the lack of proven interventions and the time and cost associated with annual screening for dnDSA are difficult to justify for all recipients. We studied a well-characterized consecutive cohort (n = 949) with over 15 years of prospective dnDSA surveillance to identify risk factors that would help institute a resource-responsible surveillance strategy. Younger recipient age and HLA-DR/DQ molecular mismatch were independent predictors of dnDSA development. Combining both risk factors into recipient age molecular mismatch categories, we found that 52% of recipients could be categorized as low-risk for dnDSA development (median subclinical dnDSA-free survival at 5 and 10 years, 98% and 97%, respectively). After adjustment, multivariate correlates of dnDSA development included tacrolimus versus cyclosporin maintenance immunosuppression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6; P < .0001) and recipient age molecular mismatch category: intermediate versus low (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.5-4.2; P = .0007), high versus intermediate (HR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.6-4.2; P = .0002), and high versus low (HR, 6.36; 95% CI, 3.7-10.8; P < .00001). When combined, recipient age and HLA-DR/DQ molecular mismatch provide a novel data-driven approach to reduce testing by >50% while selecting those most likely to benefit from dnDSA surveillance.

The unfinished journey toward transplant equity: an analysis of racial/ethnic disparities for children after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System in 2014.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in pediatric kidney transplantation (KT) result in reduced access and worse outcomes for minority children. We assessed the impact of recent systems changes on these disparities. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients utilizing data from the US Renal Data System (n = 7547) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (n = 6567 waitlisted and n = 6848 transplanted patients). We compared access to transplantation, time to deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT), and allograft failure (ACGF) in the 5 years preceding implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) to the 5 years post-KAS implementation 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019, respectively. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-KAS era, post-KAS candidates were more likely to be pre-emptively listed (26.8% vs. 38.1%, p < 0.001), pre-emptively transplanted (23.8% vs. 28.0%, p < 0.001), and less likely to have private insurance (35.6% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.01), but these were not uniform across racial groups. Compared to white children, Black and Hispanic children had a lower likelihood of transplant listing within 2 years of first dialysis service (aHR 0.590.670.76 and 0.730.820.92, respectively) in the post-KAS era. Time to DDKT was comparable across all racial groups in the post-KAS era. Compared to white children, Black DDKT recipients have more 5-year ACGF (aHR 1.001.432.06 p = 0.05) while there was no difference in 3- or 5-year ACGF among LDKT recipients. CONCLUSIONS: After KAS implementation, there is equity in time to DDKT. Pre-KAS increased hazard of ACGF among Black children has decreased in the post-KAS era; however, persistent disparities exist in time to transplant listing among Black and Hispanic children when compared to white children. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Compassion fatigue in pediatric nephrology-The cost of caring.

Compassion fatigue is the result of repeated vicarious trauma from caring for those who have suffered. Although not well-researched in pediatric nephrology to date, there is reason to believe that it is a real and sustained threat to the pediatric nephrology workforce. Interventions aimed at individuals, the profession, and the organizations in which pediatric nephrologists work can create spaces to discuss and ameliorate compassion fatigue. This will result in better care for patients, more stable pediatric nephrology divisions and a stronger, more resilient pediatric nephrology workforce.

Canadian Society of Transplantation White Paper: Ethical and Legal Considerations for Alcohol and Cannabis Use in Solid Organ Listing and Allocation.

Alcohol and cannabis use as a contraindication to organ transplantation is a controversial issue. Until recently, patients in Canada with alcohol-associated liver disease were required to demonstrate abstinence for 6 mo to receive a liver transplant. There is no equivalent rule that is applied consistently for cannabis use. There is some evidence that alcohol and cannabis use disorder pretransplant could be associated with worse outcomes posttransplantation. However, early liver transplantation for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease in France and in the United States has led to challenges of the 6-mo abstinence rule in Canada in the media. It has also resulted in several legal challenges arguing that the rule violates human rights laws regarding discrimination in the provision of medical services and that the rule is also unconstitutional (this challenge is still before the court). Recent legalization of cannabis use for adults in Canada has led to questions about the appropriateness of limiting transplant access based on cannabis use. The ethics committee of the Canadian Society of Transplantation was asked to provide an ethical analysis of cannabis and alcohol abstinence policies. Our conclusions were as follows: neither cannabis use nor the 6-mo abstinence rule for alcohol use should be an absolute contraindication to transplantation, and transplant could be offered to selected patients, further research should be conducted to ensure evidence-based policies; and the transplant community has a duty not to perpetuate stigma associated with alcohol and cannabis use disorders.

Public Appeals Challenging Criteria for Pediatric Organ Transplantation.

In this article, I review the ethical issues that arise in the allocation of deceased-donor organs to children and young adults. By analyzing the public media cases of Sarah Murnaghan, Amelia Rivera, and Riley Hancey, I assess whether public appeals to challenge inclusion and exclusion criteria for organ transplantation are ethical and under which circumstances. The issues of pediatric allocation with limited evidence and candidacy affected by factors such as intellectual disability and marijuana use are specifically discussed. Finally, I suggest that ethical public advocacy can coexist with well-evidenced transplant allocation if and when certain conditions (morally defensible criteria, expert evidence, nonprioritization of the poster child, and greater advocacy for organ transplantation in general) are met.

Fairness, severe intellectual disability, and the special case of transplantation.

Children with severe intellectual disability have historically been excluded from solid organ transplantation. The purpose of this article was to review the arguments for excluding this population, including claims of poorer recipient and graft survival, a lower QoL as pediatric recipients become adults, and poorer outcomes for other, more deserving pediatric transplant candidates, and make the case that these arguments are no longer persuasive. We will argue that pediatric transplant centers for reasons of social justice, value of relationships, power differential, and fairness should generally not consider intellectual ability or disability as a criterion when making decisions regarding organ transplant eligibility.

Why nondocumented residents should have access to kidney transplantation: arguments for lifting the federal ban on reimbursement.

Current U.S. legislation restricts reimbursement for organ transplantation for nondocumented residents, which makes it difficult for many immigrants, including children, to access the transplants they need. In this article, we offer moral, economic, and legal reasons that nondocumented immigrants deserve the same access to kidney transplantation as do legal residents. We argue that the current reasoning for such a ban is based on unjustified fears and unsupported assumptions, which are not a solid basis for determining eligibility for lifesaving therapy for the neediest members of our society.