Diabetes-free survival among living kidney donors and non-donors with obesity: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approval of living kidney donors (LKD) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) risk factors, such as obesity, has increased. While lifetime ESKD development data are lacking, the study of intermediate outcomes such as diabetes is critical for LKD safety. Donation-attributable diabetes risk among persons with obesity remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 10-year diabetes-free survival among LKDs and non-donors with obesity. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study identified adult, LKDs (1976-2020) from 42 US transplant centers and non-donors from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (1985-1986) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (1987-1989) studies with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. LKDs were matched to non-donors on baseline characteristics (age, sex, race, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) plus diabetes-specific risk factors (family history of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, smoking history). Accelerated failure time models were utilized to evaluate 10-year diabetes-free survival. FINDINGS: Among 3464 participants, 1119 (32%) were LKDs and 2345 (68%) were non-donors. After matching on baseline characteristics plus diabetes-specific risk factors, 4% (7/165) LKDs and 9% (15/165) non-donors developed diabetes (median follow-up time 8.5 (IQR: 5.6-10.0) and 9.1 (IQR: 5.9-10.0) years, respectively). While not significant, LKDs were estimated to live diabetes-free 2 times longer than non-donors (estimate 1.91; 95% CI: 0.79-4.64, p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: LKDs with obesity trended toward living longer diabetes-free than non-donors with obesity, suggesting within the decade following donation there was no increased diabetes risk among LKDs. Further work is needed to evaluate donation-attributable diabetes risk long-term.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Remdesivir are Associated With Protection From New or Increased Levels of Donor-Specific Antibodies Among Kidney Transplant Recipients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Alloimmune responses in kidney transplant (KT) patients previously hospitalized with COVID-19 are understudied. We analyzed a cohort of 112 kidney transplant recipients who were hospitalized following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result during the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found a cumulative incidence of 17% for the development of new donor-specific antibodies (DSA) or increased levels of pre-existing DSA in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected KT patients. This risk extended 8 months post-infection. These changes in DSA status were associated with late allograft dysfunction. Risk factors for new or increased DSA responses in this KT patient cohort included the presence of circulating DSA pre-COVID-19 diagnosis and time post-transplantation. COVID-19 vaccination prior to infection and remdesivir administration during infection were each associated with decreased likelihood of developing a new or increased DSA response. These data show that new or enhanced DSA responses frequently occur among KT patients requiring admission with COVID-19 and suggest that surveillance, vaccination, and antiviral therapies may be important tools to prevent alloimmunity in these individuals.

Greater community vulnerability is associated with poor living donor navigator program fidelity.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors contribute to living donor kidney transplantation disparities but may also influence the interventions aimed to mitigate these disparities. The Living Donor Navigator Program was designed to separate the advocacy role from the patient in need of transplantation-friends/family are encouraged to participate as the patients' advocates to identify living donors, though some of the patients participate alone as self-advocates. Self-advocates have a lower living donor kidney transplantation likelihood compared to the patients with an advocate. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the patients' community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy as a surrogate for program fidelity. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 110 Living Donor Navigator participants (April 2017-June 2019). Program fidelity was assessed using the participants' advocacy status. Measures of community vulnerability were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, 19% (n = 21) were self-advocates. For every 10% increase in community-level vulnerability, patients had 17% higher risk of self-advocacy (adjusted relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.32, P = .01). Living in areas with greater unemployment (adjusted relative risk: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.33, P = .01), single-parent households (adjusted relative risk: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.42, P = .006), minority population (adjusted relative risk: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55, P = .02), or no-vehicle households (adjusted relative risk: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.35, P = .02) were associated with increased risk of self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: Having a greater community-level vulnerability was associated with poor Living Donor Navigator Program fidelity. The potential barriers identified using the Social Vulnerability Index may direct resource allocation and program refinement to optimize program fidelity and efficacy for all participants.

Donor-reported barriers to living kidney donor follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Despite regulations mandating follow-up laboratory testing for living kidney donors, less than half of transplant centers are in compliance. We sought to understand barriers to follow-up testing from the donors' perspective. METHODS: We surveyed our center's living kidney donors. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with follow-up testing completion. RESULTS: Of 185 living kidney donors, 110 (59.4%) participated. Among them, 82 (74.5%) completed 6-month laboratory testing, 76 (69.1%) completed 12-month testing, 68 (61.8%) completed both, and 21 (19.0%) completed neither. Six-month testing completion was strongly associated with 12-month testing completion (OR 9.74, 95%CI: 2.23-42.50; p = .002). Those who disagreed with the statements, "Getting labs checked wasn't a priority for me," (OR for completing 6-month testing: 15.05, 95%CI: 3.70-61.18; p < .001; OR for completing 12-month testing: 5.85, 95%CI: 1.94-17.63; p = .002); and, "I forgot to get labs drawn [until I was reminded]" (OR for completing 6-month testing: 6.93, 95%CI: 1.59-30.08; p = .01; OR for completing 12-month testing: 6.55, 95%CI: 1.98-21.63; p = .002) were more likely to complete testing. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the only study providing perspective on donor insights regarding the need for follow-up testing post donation. Interventions to influence living donor attitudes toward follow-up testing may improve follow-up.

Evaluation of Community-Level Vulnerability and Racial Disparities in Living Donor Kidney Transplant.

Importance: Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is the ideal treatment for end-stage kidney disease, but racial disparities in LDKT have increased over the last 2 decades. Recipient clinical and social factors do not account for LDKT racial inequities, although comprehensive measures of community-level vulnerability have not been assessed. Objective: To determine if racial disparities persist in LDKT independent of community-level vulnerability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study included data from 19 287 adult kidney-only transplant recipients in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The study included individuals who underwent transplant between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Exposures: Recipient race and the 2018 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Census tract-level SVI data were linked to census tracts within each recipient zip code. The median SVI measure among the census tracts within a zip code was used to describe community-level vulnerability. Main Outcomes and Measures: Kidney transplant donor type (deceased vs living). Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between SVI and LDKT, and to estimate LDKT likelihood among races, independent of community-level vulnerability and recipient-level characteristics. Results: Among 19 287 kidney transplant recipients, 6080 (32%) received LDKT. A total of 11 582 (60%) were male, and the median (interquartile range) age was 54 (43-63) years. There were 760 Black LDKT recipients (13%), 4865 White LDKT recipients (80%), and 455 LDKT recipients of other races (7%; American Indian, Asian, multiracial, and Pacific Islander). Recipients who lived in communities with higher SVI (ie, more vulnerable) had lower likelihood of LDKT compared with recipients who lived in communities with lower SVI (ie, less vulnerable) (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P < .001). Independent of community-level vulnerability, compared with White recipients, Black recipients had 37% lower likelihood (aRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59-0.67; P < .001) and recipients of other races had 24% lower likelihood (aRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82; P < .001) of LDKT. The interaction between SVI and race was significant among Black recipients, such that the disparity in LDKT between Black and White recipients increased with greater community-level vulnerability (ratio of aRRs, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: Community-level vulnerability is associated with access to LDKT but only partially explains LDKT racial disparities. The adverse effects of living in more vulnerable communities were worse for Black recipients. The interaction of these constructs is worrisome and suggests evaluation of other health system factors that may contribute to LDKT racial disparities is needed.

Obesity as an isolated contraindication to kidney transplantation in the end-stage renal disease population: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with obesity as their only contraindication to listing and to quantify wait-list and transplant access. METHODS: Using the US Renal Data System, a retrospective cohort study of incident dialysis cases (2012 to 2014) was performed. The primary outcomes were time to wait-listing and time to transplantation. RESULTS: Of 157,572 dialysis patients not already listed, 39,844 had BMI as their only demonstrable transplant contraindication. They tended to be younger, female, and Black. Compared with patients with BMI < 35, those with BMI 35 to 39.9, 40 to 44.9, and ≥45 were, respectively, 15% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.85; 95% CI: 0.83-0.88; p < 0.001), 45% (aHR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.52-0.57; p < 0.001), and 71% (aHR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.27-0.31; p < 0.001) less likely to be wait-listed. Wait-listed patients with BMI 35 to 39.9 were 24% less likely to achieve transplant (aHR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.72-0.80; p < 0.0001), BMI 40 to 44.9 were 21% less likely (aHR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.86; p < 0.0001), and BMI ≥ 45 were 15% less likely (aHR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; p = 0.004) compared with patients with BMI < 35. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity was the sole contraindication to wait-listing for 40,000 dialysis patients. They were less likely to be wait-listed. For those who were, they had a lower likelihood of transplant. Aggressive weight-loss interventions may help this population achieve wait-listing and transplant.

Self-advocacy is associated with lower likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program pairs kidney transplant candidates (TC) with a friend or family member for advocacy training to help identify donors and achieve living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). However, some TCs participate alone as self-advocates. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of TCs in the LDN program (04/2017-06/2019), we evaluated the likelihood of LDKT using Cox proportional hazards regression and rate of donor screenings using ordered events conditional models by advocate type. RESULTS: Self-advocates (25/127) had lower likelihood of LDKT compared to patients with an advocate (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-1.66, p = 0.14). After LDN enrollment, rate of donor screenings increased 2.5-fold for self-advocates (aHR: 2.48, 95%CI: 1.26-4.90, p = 0.009) and 3.4-fold for TCs with an advocate (aHR: 3.39, 95%CI: 2.20-5.24, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Advocacy training was beneficial for self-advocates, but having an independent advocate may increase the likelihood of LDKT.

The Living Donor Navigator Program Provides Support Tools for Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: The Living Donor Navigator (LDN) program is one of several initiatives designed to help transplant candidates identify living donors with the help of a friend or family member advocate to speak on their behalf. More than half of advocates in the LDN program were the spouse or parent of the candidate and served in a caregiving role. Caregivers for patients awaiting transplantation have reported poorer quality of life than the general population, suggesting more support is needed for this vulnerable group. The purpose of this study was to understand whether the LDN program met the needs of advocates who were also caregivers for the transplant candidate. METHODS: We performed a supplementary secondary qualitative analysis of a parent study conducted December 2017-January 2018 with 9 advocates who participated in the LDN program. Transcripts were reanalyzed from focus group discussions, concentrating on comments about caregiving or made by caregivers. Using manual coding and reflexive thematic analysis, we identified broad codes and major themes. FINDINGS: Our re-analysis revealed one theme overlapping with our previous analysis (Support) and 2 new themes specific to caregiver advocates: Quality of Life and Fear. Caregivers agreed that the LDN program equipped them with tools to address these areas and best serve their simultaneous caregiver/advocate roles. DISCUSSION: These analyses demonstrated that those who served as advocate and caregiver derived a benefit from the LDN program but had distinct needs from other advocates. These findings can inform continued refinement of the program and expansion to support needs of caregiver.