Consensus conference on best practices in live kidney donation: recommendations to optimize education, access, and care.

Live donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for most patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease; however, the rate of living kidney donation has declined in the United States. A consensus conference was held June 5-6, 2014 to identify best practices and knowledge gaps pertaining to live donor kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. Transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders discussed processes for educating transplant candidates and potential living donors about living kidney donation; efficiencies in the living donor evaluation process; disparities in living donation; and financial and systemic barriers to living donation. We summarize the consensus recommendations for best practices in these educational and clinical domains, future research priorities, and possible public policy initiatives to remove barriers to living kidney donation.

Estimating risks of de novo kidney diseases after living kidney donation.

De novo post donation renal diseases, such as glomerulonephritis or diabetic nephropathy, are infrequent and distinct from the loss of GFR at donation that all living kidney donors experience. Medical findings that increase risks of disease (e.g. microscopic hematuria,borderline hemoglobin A1C) often prompt donor refusal by centers. These risk factors are part of more comprehensive risks of low GFR and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from kidney diseases in the general population that are equally relevant. Such data profile the ages of onset, rates of progression, prevalence and severity of loss of GFR from generically characterized kidney diseases. Kidney diseases typically begin in middle age and take decades to reach ESRD, at a median age of 64. Diabetes produces about half of yearly ESRD and even more lifetime near-ESRD. Such data predict that (1) 10- to 15-year studies will not capture the lifetime risks of post donation ESRD; (2)normal young donors are at demonstrably higher risk than normal older candidates; (3) low-normal predonation GFRs become risk factors for ESRD when kidney diseases arise and (4) donor nephrectomy always increases individual risk. Such population-based risk data apply to all donor candidates and should be used to make acceptance standards and counseling more uniform and defensible.

'Normal for now' or 'at future risk': a double standard for selecting young and older living kidney donors.

Transplant centers medically evaluate potential living kidney donors in part to determine their baseline remaining lifetime risk for end stage renal disease (ESRD). If baseline risk is increased by the presence of a risk factor for ESRD, donation is often refused. However, as only about 13% of ESRD occurs in the general population by age 44, a normal medical evaluation cannot be expected to significantly reduce the 7% lifetime risk for a 'normal' 25-year-old black donor or the 2-3% risk for a similar white donor. About half of newly diagnosed ESRD in the United States occurs by age 65, and about half of that is from diabetic nephropathy, which takes about 25 years to develop. Therefore, the remaining baseline lifetime risk for ESRD is significantly lower in the normal, nondiabetic 55-year-old donor candidate. Some older donors with an isolated medical abnormality such as mild hypertension will be at lower or about the same overall baseline lifetime risk for ESRD as are young 'normal' donor candidates. Transplant centers use a 'normal for now' standard for accepting young donors, in place of the long-term risk estimates that must guide selection of all donors.

A technique for presenting risk and outcome data to potential living renal transplant donors.

BACKGROUND: Transplant centers have become increasingly interested in living donor kidney transplantation and have always had the obligation to counsel these donors fairly. Counseling techniques vary markedly among centers and can include overly qualitative or unintentional but covertly prescriptive presentation of risk and benefit. METHODS: We describe a simple technique using preprinted fields of stick figures for presenting important risk and benefit data to potential renal donors. We also suggest an approach to formulating basic statistics for donor counseling. RESULTS: Risk and benefit statistics can be presented visually and quantitatively in a way that minimizes the need for donor sophistication and also displays the "all or nothing" nature of adverse events in donor and recipient populations, as opposed to using of percentages or prescriptive phrases by the donor counselor. CONCLUSION: Such stick figure field counseling for living renal transplant donors accurately provides information to both donor and center, appropriately facilitates center impartiality, and may increase the center's and the donor's confidence in the counseling process.

Ethical selection of living kidney donors.

Renal transplant centers vary markedly in their rates of living donor kidney transplantation. Recent surveys also document marked differences among centers in both appreciation of medical risk for donation and what constitutes ethical donor selection. Because of this marked variability, some donors likely are being inappropriately denied or others are being inappropriately accepted. In addition to defensible donor education about risk and benefit, three fundamental obligations of the center are identified: (1) to recognize that it is often ethical to participate in acts of individual risk and sacrifice that are performed to benefit others; (2) to not deny transplantation without good reason to donors and recipients who apply to the center; and (3) to neutralize, but not overreact to, center self-interest, which stems from the professional benefits of transplantation and the center's desire to help potential transplant recipients. The basic medical facts surrounding donation must be understood by all parties as part of ethical decision making. Donor risk can be presented quantitatively using US Renal Data System data as a baseline. Confirmation of accurate donor understanding of risks, benefits, and alternatives is always a fundamental center obligation. Donors should not be rejected except for the general reasons we identify, and when these reasons do not seem to apply, the decision to deny transplantation should be reconsidered.

Posttransplant therapy using high-dose human immunoglobulin (intravenous gammaglobulin) to control acute humoral rejection in renal and cardiac allograft recipients and potential mechanism of action.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous gammaglobulin (i.v.IG) contains anti-idiotypic antibodies that are potent inhibitors of HLA-specific alloantibodies in vitro and in vivo. In addition, highly HLA-allosensitized patients awaiting transplantation can have HLA alloantibody levels reduced dramatically by i.v.IG infusions, and subsequent transplantation can be accomplished successfully with a crossmatch-negative, histoincompatible organ. METHODS: In this study, we investigated the possible use of i.v.IG to reduce donor-specific anti-HLA alloantibodies arising after transplantation and its efficacy in treating antibody-mediated allograft rejection (AR) episodes. We present data on 10 patients with severe allograft rejection, four of whom developed AR episodes associated with high levels of donor-specific anti-HLA alloantibodies. RESULTS: Most patients showed rapid improvements in AR episodes, with resolution noted within 2-5 days after i.v.IG infusions in all patients. i.v.IG treatment also rapidly reduced donor-specific anti-HLA alloantibody levels after i.v.IG infusion. All AR episodes were reversed. Freedom from recurrent rejection episodes was seen in 9 of 10 patients, some with up to 5 years of follow-up. Results of protein G column fractionation studies from two patients suggest that the potential mechanism by which i.v.IG induces in vivo suppression is a sequence of events leading from initial inhibition due to passive transfer of IgG to eventual active induction of an IgM or IgG blocking antibody in the recipient. CONCLUSION: I.v.IG appears to be an effective therapy to control posttransplant AR episodes in heart and kidney transplant recipients, including patients who have had no success with conventional therapies. Vascular rejection episodes associated with development of donor-specific cytotoxic antibodies appears to be particularly responsive to i.v.IG therapy.

Results of the double-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial of Thymoglobulin versus Atgam in the treatment of acute graft rejection episodes after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Thymoglobulin, a rabbit anti-human thymocyte globulin, was compared with Atgam, a horse anti-human thymocyte globulin for the treatment of acute rejection after renal transplantation. METHODS: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial with enrollment stratification based on standardized histology (Banff grading) was conducted. Subjects received 7-14 days of Thymoglobulin (1.5 mg/kg/ day) or Atgam (15 mg/kg/day). The primary end point was rejection reversal (return of serum creatinine level to or below the day 0 baseline value). RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were enrolled at 25 transplant centers in the United States. No differences in demographics or transplant characteristics were noted. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated that Thymoglobulin had a higher rejection reversal rate than Atgam (88% versus 76%, P=0.027, primary end point). Day 30 graft survival rates (Thymoglobulin 94% and Atgam 90%, P=0.17), day 30 serum creatinine levels as a percentage of baseline (Thymoglobulin 72% and Atgam 80%; P=0.43), and improvement in posttreatment biopsy results (Thymoglobulin 65% and Atgam 50%; P=0.15) were not statistically different. T-cell depletion was maintained more effectively with Thymoglobulin than Atgam both at the end of therapy (P=0.001) and at day 30 (P=0.016). Recurrent rejection, at 90 days after therapy, occurred less frequently with Thymoglobulin (17%) versus Atgam (36%) (P=0.011). A similar incidence of adverse events, post-therapy infections, and 1-year patient and graft survival rates were observed with both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Thymoglobulin was found to be superior to Atgam in reversing acute rejection and preventing recurrent rejection after therapy in renal transplant recipients.

Pentoxifylline does not prevent the cytokine-induced first dose reaction following OKT3--a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study.

The use of OKT3 as an immunosuppressive agent is accompanied by increased cytokine production and constellation of side effects collectively termed cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Pentoxifylline (PTF) inhibits synthesis of some cytokines, and has been shown to attenuate CRS when administered before OKT3. In this double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, 46 renal allograft recipients were randomized to receive either PTF (800 mg q 8 hr for at least 24 h) p.o. or placebo, along with methylprednisolone (7 mg/kg), diphenhydramine, and acetaminophen, prior to beginning OKT3 as therapy for acute rejection. Patients were observed, and symptoms scored semiquantitatively. Despite the presence of therapeutic PTF levels (721 +/- 726 ng/ml), the frequency and severity of side effects (fever, chills, headache, neurocortical symptoms, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) did not differ between treatment groups. Likewise PTF did not affect renal function or immunologic response to OKT3, with similar graft and patient survival in both groups. Plasma levels of TNF alpha, IFN gamma, IL-6, and IL-8 increased as predicted following OKT3 administration, without significant differences between PTF and placebo groups. In this controlled, multicenter trial, pretreatment with oral PTF was ineffective in attenuating OKT3-related CRS in renal allograft recipients.