Time trends in preemptive kidney transplantation in Europe: an era registry study.

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplantation has better outcomes when compared to transplantation after dialysis. We aimed to examine trends in preemptive kidney transplantation between 2000 and 2019 in Europe and to provide an overview of associated policies, barriers and initiatives. METHODS: Adult patients from 12 European countries who received a preemptive kidney transplant were included. The representatives of the registries providing these data were questioned on the policies, barriers and initiatives around preemptive kidney transplantation. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2019, 20 251 adults underwent preemptive kidney transplantation (11 169 from living donors, 8937 from deceased donors). The proportion of first kidney transplantations that were preemptive more than doubled from 7% in 2000 to 18% in 2019, reflecting a similar relative increase for living donor kidney recipients (from 21% to 43%) and deceased donor kidney recipients (from 4% to 11%). Large international differences were found. The increase in preemptive kidney transplantation was observed across all age, sex and primary renal disease groups. Countries had similar criteria for preemptive waitlisting. Barriers mentioned included donor shortage, late referral to the transplant center and long donor or recipient work-up. Suggested initiatives included raising awareness on the possibility of preemptive kidney transplantation, earlier start and shorter work-up time for recipient and living donor. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last two decades the proportion of patients receiving a first kidney transplant preemptively has more than doubled, reflecting a similar relative increase for living and deceased donor kidney recipients.

2-Step-Scores with optional nephropathology for the prediction of adverse outcomes for brain-dead donor kidneys in Eurotransplant.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The decision for acceptance or discard of the increasingly rare and marginal brain-dead donor kidneys in Eurotransplant (ET) countries has to be made without solid evidence. Thus, we developed and validated flexible clinicopathological scores called 2-Step Scores for the prognosis of delayed graft function (DGF) and one-year death-censored transplant loss (1y-tl) reflecting the current practice of six ET countries including Croatia and Belgium. METHODS: The training set was n=620 for DGF and n=711 for 1y-tl, with validation sets n=158 and n=162. In step 1, stepwise logistic regression models including only clinical predictors were used to estimate the risks. In step 2, risk estimates were updated for statistically relevant intermediate risk percentiles with nephropathology. RESULTS: Step 1 revealed an increased risk of DGF with increased cold ischaemia time, donor and recipient BMI, dialysis vintage, number of HLA-DR mismatches or recipient CMV IgG positivity. On the training and validation set, c-statistics were 0.672 and 0.704, respectively. At a range between 18% and 36%, accuracy of DGF-prognostication improved with nephropathology including number of glomeruli and Banff cv (updated overall c statistics of 0.696 and 0.701, respectively).Risk of 1y-tl increased in recipients with cold ischaemia time, sum of HLA-A. -B, -DR mismatches and donor age. On training and validation sets, c-statistics were 0.700 and 0.769, respectively. Accuracy of 1y-tl prediction improved (c-statistics = 0.706 and 0.765) with Banff ct. Overall, calibration was good on the training, but moderate on the validation set; discrimination was at least as good as established scores when applied to the validation set. CONCLUSION: Our flexible 2-Step Scores with optional inclusion of time-consuming and often unavailable nephropathology should yield good results for clinical practice in ET, and may be superior to established scores. Our scores are adaptable to donation after cardiac death and perfusion pump use.

The 3-Step Model of informed consent for living kidney donation: a proposal on behalf of the DESCaRTES Working Group of the European Renal Association.

Living donation challenges the ethical principle of non-maleficence in that it exposes healthy persons to risks for the benefit of someone else. This makes safety, informed consent (IC) and education a priority. Living kidney donation has multiple benefits for the potential donor, but there are also several known short- and long-term risks. Although complete standardization of IC is likely to be unattainable, studies have emphasized the need for a standardized IC process to enable equitable educational and decision-making prospects for the prevention of inequities across transplant centers. Based on the Three-Talk Model of shared decision-making by Elwyn et al., we propose a model, named 3-Step (S) Model, where each step coincides with the three ideal timings of the process leading the living donor to the decision to pursue living donation: prior to the need for kidney replacement therapy (team talk); at the local nephrology unit or transplant center, with transplant clinicians and surgeons prior to evaluations start (option talk); and throughout evaluation, after having learned about the different aspects of donation, especially if there are second thoughts or doubts (decision talk). Based on the 3-S Model, to deliver conceptual and practical guidance to nephrologists and transplant clinicians, we provide recommendations for standardization of the timing, content, modalities for communicating risks and assessment of understanding prior to donation. The 3-S Model successfully allows an integration between standardization and individualization of IC, enabling a person-centered approach to potential donors. Studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-S Model in kidney transplant clinical practice.

Cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation in 2020: moving towards personalized prevention.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-related complications after kidney transplantation remain a substantial challenge. Rather than applying one preventive strategy to all at-risk patients, we can now adapt our strategy at the individual patient level. Antiviral prophylaxis or a strict pre-emptive strategy may be optimal for patients at the highest risk for CMV, while patients at lower risk may benefit particularly from pre-emptive monitoring and the administration of therapy only if needed. CMV-specific T-cell assays may be useful for further refining the pre-transplant determination of CMV risk, and for guiding decisions about antiviral therapy need or duration. An immunosuppressive regimen including a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor reduces CMV risk and may thus be an attractive option in some patients. New antiviral agents may further expand our therapeutic arsenal in the near future, and the prospects of CMV vaccination and adoptive T-cell therapy appear to be on the horizon.

Seroconversion rate after primary vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the general population, the seroconversion rate after primary vaccination with two doses of an anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine reaches nearly 100%, with significantly higher antibody titers after mRNA-1273 vaccination compared to BNT162b2 vaccination. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the antibody response after two-dose mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccination in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library and original research papers were included for a meta-analysis to calculate vaccine-specific seroconversion rates for each of the mRNA vaccines. Next, the pooled relative seroconversion rate was estimated. RESULTS: Eight studies that described the development of antibodies against receptor-binding domain (RBD) and/or spike protein were eligible for meta-analysis. Two of these studies also reported antibody titers. The meta-analysis revealed lower seroconversion rates in SOT recipients vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 {44.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.1-54.7]} as compared with patients vaccinated with two doses of mRNA-1273 [58.4% (95% CI 47.2-69.2)]. The relative seroconversion rate was 0.795 (95% CI 0.732-0.864). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that in SOT recipients, higher seroconversion rates were observed after vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2.

Issues regarding COVID-19 in kidney transplantation in the ERA of the Omicron variant: a commentary by the ERA Descartes Working Group.

The Omicron variant, which has become the dominant strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, brings new challenges to preventing and controlling the infection. Moreover, the widespread implementation of vaccination policies before and after transplantation, and the development of new prophylactic and treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) over the past 12-18 months, has raised several new issues concerning kidney transplant recipients. In this special report, the ERA DESCARTES (Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States) Working Group addresses several questions related to everyday clinical practice concerning kidney transplant recipients and to the assessment of deceased and live kidney donors: what is the current risk of severe disease and of breakthrough infection, the optimal management of immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19, the role of passive immunization and the efficacy of antiviral drugs in ambulatory patients, the management of drug-to-drug interactions, safety criteria for the use of SARS-CoV-2-positive donors, issues related to the use of T cell depleting agents as induction treatment, and current recommendations for shielding practices.

Kidney transplantation during mass disasters - from COVID-19 to other catastrophes.

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between health care demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience for guiding transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to save as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of health care resources.

Kidney transplantation during mass disasters - from COVID-19 to other catastrophes A Consensus Statement by the DESCARTES Working Group and Ethics Committee of the ERA.

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between health care demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience for guiding transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to save as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of health care resources.

Management of obesity in kidney transplant candidates and recipients: A clinical practice guideline by the DESCARTES Working Group of ERA.

The clinical practice guideline Management of Obesity in Kidney Transplant Candidates and Recipients was developed to guide decision-making in caring for people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) living with obesity. The document considers the challenges in defining obesity, weighs interventions for treating obesity in kidney transplant candidates as well as recipients and reflects on the impact of obesity on the likelihood of wait-listing as well as its effect on transplant outcomes. It was designed to inform management decisions related to this topic and provide the backdrop for shared decision-making. This guideline was developed by the European Renal Association's Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States working group. The group was supplemented with selected methodologists to supervise the project and provide methodological expertise in guideline development throughout the process. The guideline targets any healthcare professional treating or caring for people with ESKD being considered for kidney transplantation or having received a donor kidney. This includes nephrologists, transplant physicians, transplant surgeons, general practitioners, dialysis and transplant nurses. Development of this guideline followed an explicit process of evidence review. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and areas of future research are presented.

Does kidney transplantation with a standard or expanded criteria donor improve patient survival? Results from a Belgian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Changes in recipient and donor factors have reopened the question of survival benefits of kidney transplantation versus dialysis. METHODS: We analysed survival among 3808 adult Belgian patients waitlisted for a first deceased donor kidney transplant from 2000 to 2012. The primary outcome was mortality during the median waiting time plus 3 years of follow-up after transplantation or with continued dialysis. Outcomes were analysed separately for standard criteria donor (SCD) and expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney transplants. We adjusted survival analyses for recipient age (20-44, 45-64 and ≥65 years), sex and diabetes as the primary renal disease. RESULTS: Among patients ≥65 years of age, only SCD transplantation provided a significant survival benefit compared with dialysis, with a mortality of 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.2-19.9] with SCD transplantation, 20.5% (95% CI 16.1-24.6) with ECD transplantation and 24.6% (95% CI 19.4-29.5) with continued dialysis. Relative mortality risk was increased in the first months after transplantation compared with dialysis, with equivalent risk levels reached earlier with SCD than ECD transplantation in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that older patients might gain a survival benefit with SCD transplantation versus dialysis, but any survival benefit with ECD transplantation versus dialysis may be small.

Managing immunosuppressive therapy in potentially cured post-kidney transplant cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer): an overview of the available evidence and guidance for shared decision-making.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have increased incidence of de novo cancers. After having undergone treatment for cancer with curative intent, reducing the overall immunosuppressive load and/or switching to an alternative drug regimen may potentially be of great benefit to avoid cancer recurrence, but should be balanced against the risks of rejection and/or severe adverse events. The TLJ (Transplant Learning Journey) project is an initiative from the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT). This article reports a systematic literature search undertaken by TLJ Workstream 3 to answer the questions: (1) Should we decrease the overall anti-rejection therapy in potentially cured post-kidney transplant cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer)? (2) Should we switch to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) in potentially cured post-kidney transplant cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer)? The literature search revealed insufficient solid data on which to base recommendations, so this review additionally presents an extensive overview of the indirect evidence on the benefits versus risks of alterations in immunosuppressive medication. We hope this summary will help transplant physicians advise KTRs on how best to continue with anti-rejection therapy after receiving cancer treatment with curative intent, and aid shared decision-making, ensuring that patient preferences are taken into account.

A split strategy to prevent cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation using prophylaxis in serological high-risk patients and a pre-emptive strategy in intermediate-risk patients: Combining the best of two options?

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains an important challenge after kidney transplantation. Current Transplantation Society International Consensus Guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy for high-risk CMV-seronegative recipients with a CMV-seropositive donor (D+/R-) and moderate-risk CMV-seropositive recipients (R+). However, a split strategy according to CMV serostatus is not specifically mentioned. METHODS: We evaluated a split strategy to prevent CMV infection after kidney transplantation in which D+/R- patients received valganciclovir (VGC) prophylaxis for 200 days, and R + patients were treated pre-emptively according to CMV DNAemia. Patients were followed until 1-year post-transplant. RESULTS: Between April 2014 and March 2018, 40 D+/R- and 92 R + patients underwent kidney transplantation. Forty-six percent received antithymocyte globulin (ATG) induction, and 98% was treated with calcineurin inhibitors, mycophenolic acid (MPA), and steroids. No D+/R- patient developed CMV disease during prophylaxis (median 200 days), but 15% developed post-prophylaxis or late-onset disease. Fifty-three percent developed neutropenia during prophylaxis, including 16/40 (40%) grade 3 or 4 neutropenia requiring reduction/discontinuation of MPA (30%) and/or VGC (35%), and an occasional need for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (5%). In the R + group, 40% received antiviral therapy for a median duration of 21 days; 5% developed early-onset CMV disease. Only 5% developed neutropenia. D+/R + status (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09,P = .004) and ATG use (HR 2.81, P < .0001) were risk factors for CMV reactivation. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis leads to acceptable CMV control in high-risk patients but comes with a high risk of neutropenia. Pre-emptive therapy is effective and limits drug exposure in those at lower risk of CMV.

Donor-derived cell-free DNA as a biomarker for rejection after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate the value of donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) as a noninvasive biomarker in diagnosing kidney allograft rejection. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for original research papers published between January 1994 and May 2020 on dd-cfDNA fractions in blood of kidney allograft recipients. A single-group meta-analysis was performed by computing pooled estimates for dd-cfDNA fractions using the weighted median of medians or quantile estimation (QE) approach. Weighted median differences in medians (WMDMs) and median differences based on the QE method were used for pairwise comparisons. Despite heterogeneity among the selected studies, the meta-analysis revealed significantly higher median dd-cfDNA fractions in patients with antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) than patients without rejection or patients with stable graft function. When comparing patients with T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and patients with ABMR, our two statistical approaches revealed conflicting results. Patients with TCMR did not have different median dd-cfDNA fractions than patients without rejection or patients with stable graft function. dd-cfDNA may be a useful marker for ABMR, but probably not for TCMR.

Transplantation in older individuals: is it really better than dialysis?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The kidney transplantation landscape has changed dramatically over the last 2 decades. First, transplantation is performed in patients previously considered ineligible for transplantation, including older patients and patients with multiple comorbidities. Second, organ shortages have increased the use of less-than-optimal donor kidneys, like organs from expanded criteria donors or donors after cardiac death. Third, improvements in managing chronic kidney disease and dialysis have improved survival on dialysis. Therefore, the question arises: does transplantation currently benefit older transplant candidates? RECENT FINDINGS: The current review describes important changes in transplantation over the last 20 years. We review recent data on survival with dialysis versus transplantation in older individuals. Finally, we consider methodological issues that might influence conclusions drawn in current studies. SUMMARY: Limited data are available to assess the potential survival benefit of kidney transplantations in older individuals. The available evidence suggests that transplantation might provide survival benefit in older individuals, even with aged kidney donors, but risks vary widely with donor quality and recipient health status. More research is needed to make adequate predictions of which donor kidneys might lead to good outcomes and which patient characteristics might define a good transplant candidate.

Does Kidney Donor Risk Index implementation lead to the transplantation of more and higher-quality donor kidneys?

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) is a quantitative evaluation of the quality of donor organs and is implemented in the US allocation system. This single-centre study investigates whether the implementation of the KDRI in our decision-making process to accept or decline an offered deceased donor kidney, increases our acceptance rate. METHODS: From April 2015 until December 2016, we prospectively calculated the KDRI for all deceased donor kidney offers allocated by Eurotransplant to our centre. The number of the transplanted versus declined kidney offers during the study period were compared to a historical set of donor kidney offers. RESULTS: After implementation of the KDRI, 26.1% (75/288) of all offered donor kidneys were transplanted, compared with 20.7% (136/657) in the previous period (P < 0.001). The median KDRI of all transplanted donor kidneys during the second period was 0.97 [Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) 47%], a value significantly higher than the median KDRI of 0.85 (KDPI 34%) during the first period (P = 0.047). A total of 68% of patients for whom a first-offered donor kidney was declined during this period were transplanted after a median waiting time of 386 days, mostly with a lower KDRI donor kidney. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the KDRI in our decision-making process increased the transplantation rate by 26%. The KDRI can be a supportive tool when considering whether to accept or decline a deceased donor kidney offer. More data are needed to validate this score in other European centres.

Is Polyomavirus-Associated Nephropathy More Common in Kidney Transplant Recipients Exposed to Valganciclovir? A Retrospective Single Center Analysis.

BACKGROUND: BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (PVAN) is a frequent complication in the early phase after kidney transplantation. The most important risk factor for PVAN is the intensity of immunosuppression. A recent study suggests that exposure to valganciclovir (VGC) could also be a risk factor. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center study to investigate the effect of valganciclovir exposure on the risk for PVAN during the first 100 days post transplant. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seronegative recipients of a CMV seropositive donor kidney received VGC prophylaxis, whereas CMV seropositive recipients were managed by a pre-emptive CMV strategy. Cox regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for PVAN development with VGC treatment and strength of immunosuppressive therapy as time-dependent variables. RESULTS: A total of 211 adults who received a kidney transplant between 2014 and 2019 were included. Eighteen (9%) developed PVAN. Multivariate regression analysis showed that women have a lower risk of developing PVAN (hazard ratio [HR] 0.08 (confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.58), P = .013), whereas age was associated with an increased risk for PVAN (HR 1.04 for every additional year [CI 1.00-1.08], P = .029). There was a trend toward a lower risk of PVAN for patients on reduced immunosuppressive therapy (HR 0.44 [CI 0.15-1.24], P = .12). VGC use was not associated with the risk for PVAN (HR 0.99 [CI 0.35-2.78], P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, VGC exposure was not associated with the risk for PVAN. Our study is the first to reassess in depth the hypothesis that VGC treatment increases the risk of PVAN. The unique strength of this study is the correction for the degree of immunosuppression and the statistical use of time-dependent covariates. This methodological approach can provide a foundation for further studies needed to confirm our findings.

Pre-transplant HbA1c and risk of diabetes mellitus after kidney transplantation: a single center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-transplant diabetes mellitus occurs in 10-40% of kidney transplant recipients and is associated with increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. Early identification of patients with a higher risk of developing diabetes could allow to take timely measures. However, no validated model exists to predict the risk of post-transplant diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This retrospective study includes 267 adult patients who underwent kidney transplantation at the Antwerp University Hospital between January 2014 and August 2021. Post-transplant diabetes mellitus was diagnosed based on the American Diabetes Association definition at 3 months post-transplant. First, a logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for post-transplant diabetes mellitus. Second, criteria to identify patients with a high risk (> 35%) of developing post-transplant diabetes mellitus at 3 months were established. RESULTS: At 3 months post-transplantation, 54 (20.2%) patients developed post-transplant diabetes mellitus. Univariable analysis showed that age, body mass index and HbA1c on the day of transplantation were associated with post-transplant diabetes mellitus. However, in a multivariable model with the same parameters, only HbA1c remained statistically significant. An absolute increase in HbA1c of 0.1% increases the odds for developing post-transplant diabetes mellitus by 28% (95% confidence interval 1.15-1.42). An HbA1c level ≥ 5.3% at transplantation, regardless of age or body mass index, is sufficient to identify patients with a post-transplant diabetes mellitus risk of ≥ 35% with a positive predictive value of 39% and a negative predictive value of 88%. CONCLUSIONS: The HbA1c value at transplantation was the strongest predictor for post-transplant diabetes mellitus at 3 months post-transplant. Furthermore, at least in our population, a pre-transplant HbA1c of ≥ 5.3% can be used as an easy tool to identify patients at high risk of early post-transplant diabetes mellitus.