Novel indications for referral and care for simultaneous liver kidney transplant recipients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney dysfunction is challenging in liver transplant candidates to determine whether it is reversible or not. This review focuses on the pertinent data on how to best approach liver transplant candidates with kidney dysfunction in the current era after implementing the simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) allocation policy and safety net. RECENT FINDINGS: The implementation of the SLK policy inverted the steady rise in SLK transplants and improved the utilization of high-quality kidneys. Access to kidney transplantation following liver transplant alone (LTA) increased with favorable outcomes. Estimating GFR in liver transplant candidates remains challenging, and innovative methods are needed. SLK provided superior patient and graft survival compared to LTA only for patients with advanced CKD and dialysis at least 3 months. SLK can provide immunological protection against kidney rejection in highly sensitized candidates. Post-SLK transplant care is complex, with an increased risk of complications and hospitalization. SUMMARY: The SLK policy improved kidney access and utilization. Transplant centers are encouraged, under the safety net, to reserve SLK for liver transplant candidates with advanced CKD or dialysis at least 3 months while allowing lower thresholds for highly sensitized patients. Herein, we propose a practical approach to liver transplant candidates with kidney dysfunction.

Kidney function assessment in the geriatric population.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney function declines with normal aging. But it also declines with the progression of some diseases. This review calls for a more nuanced interpretation of kidney function in the geriatric population, who may have frailty and comorbidities. RECENT FINDINGS: GFR declines with healthy aging kidneys. Aging kidney changes include decreased cortical volume, senescent global glomerulosclerosis, and reduced nephron numbers. Yet normal aging is not associated with increased glomerular volume or single-nephron GFR. The prevalence of GFR less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 in the geriatric population is high. However, the decline in GFR with normal aging may not reflect true CKD without albuminuria. Although the risk of ESKD and mortality increases in all age groups when eGFR less than 45 ml/min/m 2 , there is no significant increased relative risk of ESKD and mortality in the geriatric population when eGFR 45-59 ml/min/m 2 in the absence of albuminuria. Innovative approaches are needed to better estimate GFR and define CKD in the geriatric population. SUMMARY: The expected GFR decline in the geriatric population is consistent with normal aging kidney changes. To avoid CKD overdiagnosis and unnecessary referrals to nephrology for possible CKD, age-adapted definitions of CKD in the absence of albuminuria are needed.

A2/A2B to B deceased donor kidney transplantation in the Kidney Allocation System era.

Kidney transplantation from blood type A2/A2B donors to type B recipients (A2→B) has increased dramatically under the current Kidney Allocation System (KAS). Among living donor transplant recipients, A2-incompatible transplants are associated with an increased risk of all-cause and death-censored graft failure. In light of this, we used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from December 2014 until June 2022 to evaluate the association between A2→B listing and time to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and post-DDKT outcomes for A2→B recipients. Among 53 409 type B waitlist registrants, only 12.6% were listed as eligible to accept A2→B offers ("A2-eligible"). The rates of DDKT at 1-, 3-, and 5-years were 32.1%, 61.4%, and 72.1% among A2-eligible candidates and 14.1%, 29.9%, and 44.1% among A2-ineligible candidates, with the former experiencing a 133% higher rate of DDKT (Cox weighted hazard ratio (wHR) = 2.192.332.47; P < .001). The 7-year adjusted mortality was comparable between A2→B and B-ABOc (type B/O donors to B recipients) recipients (wHR 0.780.941.13, P = .5). Moreover, there was no difference between A2→B vs B-ABOc DDKT recipients with regards to death-censored graft failure (wHR 0.771.001.29, P > .9) or all-cause graft loss (wHR 0.820.961.12, P = .6). Following its broader adoption since the implementation of the kidney allocation system, A2→B DDKT appears to be a safe and effective transplant modality for eligible candidates. As such, A2→B listing for eligible type B candidates should be expanded.

External Validation of Toulouse-Rangueil eGFR12 Prediction Model After Living Donor Nephrectomy.

Decreased postdonation eGFR is associated with a higher risk of ESRD after living kidney donation, even when accounting for predonation characteristics. The Toulouse-Rangueil model (TRM) estimates 12 month postdonation eGFR (eGFR12) to inform counseling of candidates for living donation. The TRM was validated in several single-center European cohorts but has not been validated in US donors. We assessed the TRM in living kidney donors in the US using SRTR data 1/2000-6/2021. We compared the 2021 CKD-EPI equation eGFR12 observed estimates to the TRM eGFR12 predictions. Median (IQR) bias was -3.4 (-9.3, 3.4) mL/min/1.73 m2. Bias was higher for males vs. females (bias [IQR] -4.4 [-9.9, 1.8] vs. -2.9 [-8.8, 4.1]) and younger (31-40) vs. older donors (>50) (bias -4.9 [-10.6, 3.0] vs. -2.1 [-7.5, 4.0]). Bias was also larger for Black vs. White donors (bias (-6.7 [-12.1, -0.3], p < 0.001) vs. (-3.4 [-9.1, 3.1], p < 0.001)). Overall correlation was 0.71. In a sensitivity analysis using the 2009 CKD-EPI equation, results were generally consistent with exception to a higher overall bias (bias -4.2 [-9.8, 2.4]). The TRM overestimates postdonation renal function among US donors. Overestimation was greatest for those at higher risk for postdonation ESRD including male, Black, and younger donors. A new equation is needed to estimate postdonation renal function.

Living kidney donors with HIV: experience and outcomes from a case series by the HOPE in Action Consortium.

Background: Living kidney donation is possible for people living with HIV (PLWH) in the United States within research studies under the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. There are concerns that donor nephrectomy may have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in PLWH due to HIV-associated kidney disease and antiretroviral therapy (ART) nephrotoxicity. Here we report the first 3 cases of living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States. Methods: Within the HOPE in Action Multicenter Consortium, we conducted a prospective study of living kidney donors with HIV. Pre-donation, we estimated the 9-year cumulative incidence of ESRD, performed genetic testing of apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), excluding individuals with high-risk variants, and performed pre-donation kidney biopsies (HOPE Act requirement). The primary endpoint was ≥grade 3 nephrectomy-related adverse events (AEs) in year one. Post-donation, we monitored glomerular filtration rate (measured by iohexol/Tc-99m DTPA [mGFR] or estimated with serum creatinine [eGFR]), HIV RNA, CD4 count, and ART. Findings: There were three donors with two-four years of follow-up: a 35 year-old female, a 52 year-old male, and a 47 year-old male. Pre-donation 9-year estimated cumulative incidence of ESRD was 3.01, 8.01, and 7.76 per 10,000 persons, respectively. In two donors with APOL1 testing, no high-risk variants were detected. Biopsies from all three donors showed no kidney disease. Post-donation, two donors developed nephrectomy-related ≥grade 3 AEs: a medically-managed ileus and a laparoscopically-repaired incisional hernia. GFR declined from 103 to 84 mL/min/1.73 m2 at four years (mGFR) in donor 1, from 77 to 52 mL/min/1.73 m2 at three years (eGFR) in donor 2, and from 65 to 39 mL/min/1.73 m2 at two years (eGFR) in donor 3. HIV RNA remained <20 copies/mL and CD4 count remained stable in all donors. Interpretation: The first three living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States have had promising outcomes at two-four years, providing proof-of-concept to support living donation from PLWH to recipients with HIV. Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up. METHODS: To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021. RESULTS: We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access. CONCLUSION: This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Changing landscape of living kidney donation and the role of telemedicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been a decline in living kidney donation over the last two decades. Donors from low-income families or racial/ethnic minorities face greater disproportionate geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to completing lengthy and complex evaluations. This has contributed to the decreased proportion of these subgroups. The authors view telemedicine as a potential solution to this problem. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the initial decline of donors in 2005, biologically related donors have experienced a lack of growth across race/ethnicity. Conversely, unrelated donors have emerged as the majority of donors in recent years across race/ethnicity, except for unrelated black donors. Disparities in access to living kidney donation persist. Telemedicine using live-video visits can overcome barriers to access transplant centers and facilitate care coordination. In a U.S. survey, nephrologists, surgeons, coordinators, social workers, and psychologists/psychologists across transplant centers are favorably disposed to use telemedicine for donor evaluation/follow-up beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, with the waning of relaxed telemedicine regulations under the Public Health Emergency, providers perceive payor policy and out-of-state licensing as major factors hindering telemedicine growth prospects. SUMMARY: Permanent federal and state policies that support telemedicine services for living kidney donation can enhance access to transplant centers and help overcome barriers to donor evaluation.

Patient and Graft Survival After A1/A2-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

ABO type B and O kidney transplant candidates have increased difficulty identifying a compatible donor for living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and are harder to match in kidney paired donation registries. A2-incompatible (A2i) LDKT increases access to LDKT for these patients. To better inform living donor selection, we evaluated the association between A2i LDKT and patient and graft survival. Methods: We used weighted Cox regression to compare mortality, death-censored graft failure, and all-cause graft loss in A2i versus ABO-compatible (ABOc) recipients. Results: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2000-2019, we identified 345 A2i LDKT recipients. Mortality was comparable among A2i and ABOc recipients; weighted 1-/5-/10-y mortality was 0.9%/6.5%/24.2%, respectively, among A2i LDKT recipients versus 1.4%/7.7%/22.2%, respectively, among ABOc LDKT recipients (weighted hazard ratio [wHR], 0.811.041.33; P = 0.8). However, A2i recipients faced higher risk of death-censored graft failure; weighted 1-/5-/10-y graft failure was 5.7%/11.6%/22.4% for A2i versus 1.7%/7.5%/17.2% for ABOc recipients (wHR in year 1 = 2.243.565.66; through year 5 = 1.251.782.53; through year 10 = 1.151.552.07). By comparison, 1-/5-/10-y wHRs for A1-incompatible recipients were 0.631.966.08/0.390.942.27/0.390.831.74. Conclusions: A2i LDKT is generally safe, but A2i donor/recipient pairs should be counseled about the increased risk of graft failure and be monitored as closely as their A1-incompatible counterparts posttransplant.

Telemedicine services for living kidney donation: A US survey of multidisciplinary providers.

Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers' practices and providers' attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation.

Examining post-donation outcomes in Hispanic/Latinx living kidney donors in the United States: A systematic review.

We conducted a systematic review to assess outcomes in Hispanic donors and explore how Hispanic ethnicity was characterized. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus through October 2021. Two reviewers independently screened study titles, abstracts, and full texts; they also qualitatively synthesized results and independently assessed quality of included studies. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes ranged from 4007 to 143,750 donors and mean age ranged from 37 to 54 years. Maximum follow-up time of studies varied from a perioperative donor nephrectomy period to 30 years post-donation. Hispanic donors ranged between 6% and 21% of the donor populations across studies. Most studies reported Hispanic ethnicity under race or a combined race and ethnicity category. Compared to non-Hispanic White donors, Hispanic donors were not at increased risk for post-donation mortality, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, non-pregnancy-related hospitalizations, or overall perioperative surgical complications. Compared to non-Hispanic White donors, most studies showed Hispanic donors were at higher risk for diabetes mellitus following nephrectomy; however, mixed findings were seen regarding the risk for post-donation chronic kidney disease and hypertension. Future studies should evaluate cultural, socioeconomic, and geographic differences within the heterogeneous Hispanic donor population, which may further explain variation in health outcomes.

Long-term kidney function and survival in recipients of allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension: a national cohort study.

Allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension may carry subclinical kidney disease from the donor to the recipient and, thus, lead to adverse recipient outcomes. We examined eGFR trajectories and all-cause allograft failure in recipients from donors with versus without hypertension, using mixed-linear and Cox regression models stratified by donor age. We studied a US cohort from 1/1/2005 to 6/30/2017; 49 990 recipients of allografts from younger (<50 years old) donors including 597 with donor hypertension and 21 130 recipients of allografts from older (≥50 years old) donors including 1441 with donor hypertension. Donor hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy. Among recipients from younger donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -1.03 versus -0.53 ml/min/m2 (P = 0.002); 13-year allograft survival was 49.7% vs. 59.0% (adjusted allograft failure hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23; 95% CI 1.05-1.43; P = 0.009). Among recipients from older donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -0.67 versus -0.66 ml/min/m2 (P = 0.9); 13-year allograft survival was 48.6% versus 52.6% (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; P = 0.4). In secondary analyses, our inferences remained similar for risk of death-censored allograft failure and mortality. Hypertension in younger, but not older, living kidney donors is associated with worse recipient outcomes.

The Scope of Telemedicine in Kidney Transplantation: Access and Outreach Services.

Access to transplant centers is a key barrier for kidney transplant evaluation and follow-up care for both the recipient and donor. Potential kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors may face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges in engaging with a transplant center and maintaining post-transplant continuity of care. Telemedicine via synchronous video visits has the potential to overcome the access barrier to transplant centers. Transplant centers can start the evaluation process for potential recipients and donors via telemedicine, especially for those who have challenges to come for an in-person visit or when there are restrictions on clinic capacities, such as during a pandemic. Similarly, transplant centers can use telemedicine to sustain post-transplant follow-up care while avoiding the burden of travel and its associated costs. However, expansion to telemedicine-based kidney transplant services is substantially dependent on telemedicine infrastructure, insurer policy, and state regulations. In this review, we discuss the practice of telemedicine in kidney transplantation and its implications for expanding access to kidney transplant services and outreach from pretransplant evaluation to post-transplant follow-up care for the recipient and donor.

Early steroid withdrawal in HIV-infected kidney transplant recipients: Utilization and outcomes.

Kidney transplant (KT) outcomes for HIV-infected (HIV+) persons are excellent, yet acute rejection (AR) is common and optimal immunosuppressive regimens remain unclear. Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) is associated with AR in other populations, but its utilization and impact are unknown in HIV+ KT. Using SRTR, we identified 1225 HIV+ KT recipients between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2017, without AR, graft failure, or mortality during KT admission, and compared those with ESW with those with steroid continuation (SC). We quantified associations between ESW and AR using multivariable logistic regression and interval-censored survival analysis, as well as with graft failure and mortality using Cox regression, adjusting for donor, recipient, and immunologic factors. ESW utilization was 20.4%, with more zero HLA mismatch (8% vs 4%), living donors (26% vs 20%), and lymphodepleting induction (64% vs 46%) compared to the SC group. ESW utilization varied widely across 129 centers, with less use at high- versus moderate-volume centers (6% vs 21%, P < .001). AR was more common with ESW by 1 year (18.4% vs 12.3%; aOR: 1.08 1.612.41 , P = .04) and over the study period (aHR: 1.02 1.391.90 , P = .03), without difference in death-censored graft failure (aHR 0.60 0.911.36 , P = .33) or mortality (aHR: 0.75 1.151.77 , P = .45). To reduce AR after HIV+ KT, tailoring of ESW utilization is reasonable.

The Tangible Benefits of Living Donation: Results of a Qualitative Study of Living Kidney Donors.

The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood). METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 56 living kidney donors regarding benefits experienced from donation. Using a qualitative descriptive and constant comparative approach, themes were derived inductively from interview transcripts by 2 independent coders; differences in coding were reconciled by consensus. RESULTS: Of 56 participants, 30 were in interdependent relationships with their recipients (shared household and/or significant caregiving responsibilities). Tangible benefits identified by participants fell into 3 major categories: health and wellness benefits, time and financial benefits, and interpersonal benefits. Participants described motivations to donate a kidney based on a more nuanced understanding of the benefits of donation than accounted for by the current "acceptable risk" paradigm. DISCUSSION: Tangible benefits for interdependent donors may shift the "acceptable risk" paradigm (where no benefit is assumed) of kidney donor evaluation to a risk/benefit paradigm more consistent with other surgical decision-making.

Financial incentives versus standard of care to improve patient compliance with live kidney donor follow-up: protocol for a multi-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

Evolving Impact of COVID-19 on Transplant Center Practices and Policies in the United States.

In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.

Kidney Dyads: Caregiver Burden and Relationship Strain Among Partners of Dialysis and Transplant Patients.

BACKGROUND: Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors. METHODS: To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT. RESULTS: Caregiver-partners reported increases in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03) and stress (P = 0.01) and decreases in social life (P = 0.02) and sexual relations (P < 0.01) after their patient-partner initiated dialysis. However, after their patient-partner underwent KT, caregiver-partners reported improvements in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03), personal time (P < 0.01), social life (P = 0.01), stress (P = 0.02), sexual relations (P < 0.01), and overall quality of life (P = 0.03). These improvements were of sufficient impact that caregiver-partners reported similar levels of caregiver burden after their patient-partner's KT as before their patient-partner initiated dialysis (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

Telemedicine in the Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Case Reports.

Kidney transplant recipients who develop symptoms consistent with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are bringing unique challenges to health care professionals. Telemedicine has surged dramatically since the pandemic in effort to maintain patient care and reduce the risk of COVID-19 exposure to patients, health care workers, and the public. Herein we present reports of 3 kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 who were managed using telemedicine via synchronous video visits integrated with an electronic medical record system, from home to inpatient settings. We demonstrate how telemedicine helped assess, diagnose, triage, and treat patients with COVID-19 while avoiding a visit to an emergency department or outpatient clinic. While there is limited information about the duration of viral shedding for immunosuppressed patients, our findings underscore the importance of using telemedicine in the follow-up care for kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 who have recovered from symptoms but might have persistently positive nucleic acid tests. Our experience emphasizes the opportunities of telemedicine in the management of kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 and in the maintenance of uninterrupted follow-up care for such immunosuppressed patients with prolonged viral shedding. Telemedicine may help increase access to care for kidney transplant recipients during and beyond the pandemic as it offers a prompt, safe, and convenient platform in the delivery of care for these patients. Yet, to advance the practice of telemedicine in the field of kidney transplantation, barriers to increasing the widespread implementation of telemedicine should be removed, and research studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of telemedicine in the care of kidney transplant recipients.