Employment status at transplant influences ethnic disparities in outcomes after deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: African American (AA) recipients of deceased-donor (DD) kidney transplants (KT) have shorter allograft survival than recipients of other ethnic groups. Reasons for this disparity encompass complex interactions between donors and recipients characteristics. METHODS: Outcomes from 3872 AA and 19,719 European American (EA) DDs who had one kidney transplanted in an AA recipient and one in an EA recipient were analyzed. Four donor/recipient pair groups (DRP) were studied, AA/AA, AA/EA, EA/AA, and EA/EA. Survival random forests and Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to rank and evaluate modifying effects of DRP on variables associated with allograft survival. These analyses sought to identify factors contributing to the observed disparities in transplant outcomes among AA and EA DDKT recipients. RESULTS: Transplant era, discharge serum creatinine, delayed graft function, and DRP were among the top predictors of allograft survival and mortality among DDKT recipients. Interaction effects between DRP with the kidney donor risk index and transplant era showed significant improvement in allograft survival over time in EA recipients. However, AA recipients appeared to have similar or poorer outcomes for DDKT performed after 2010 versus before 2001; allograft survival hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.15 (0.74, 1.76) and 1.07 (0.8, 1.45) for AA/AA and EA/AA, compared to 0.62 (0.54, 0.71) and 0.5 (0.41, 0.62) for EA/EA and AA/EA DRP, respectively. Recipient mortality improved over time among all DRP, except unemployed AA/AAs. Relative to DDKT performed pre-2001, employed AA/AAs had HR = 0.37 (0.2, 0.69) versus 0.59 (0.31, 1.11) for unemployed AA/AA after 2010. CONCLUSION: Relative to DDKT performed before 2001, similar or worse overall DCAS was observed among AA/AAs, while EA/EAs experienced considerable improvement regardless of employment status, KDRI, and EPTS. AA recipients of an AA DDKT, especially if unemployed, had worse allograft survival and mortality and did not appear to benefit from advances in care over the past 20 years.

Risk Prediction for Delayed Allograft Function: Analysis of the Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function (DeKAF) Study Data.

BACKGROUND: Delayed graft function (DGF) of a kidney transplant results in increased cost and complexity of management. For clinical care or a DGF trial, it would be ideal to accurately predict individual DGF risk and provide preemptive treatment. A calculator developed by Irish et al has been useful for predicting population but not individual risk. METHODS: We analyzed the Irish calculator (IC) in the DeKAF prospective cohort (incidence of DGF = 20.4%) and investigated potential improvements. RESULTS: We found that the predictive performance of the calculator in those meeting Irish inclusion criteria was comparable with that reported by Irish et al. For cohorts excluded by Irish: (a) in pump-perfused kidneys, the IC overestimated DGF risk; (b) in simultaneous pancreas kidney transplants, the DGF risk was exceptionally low. For all 3 cohorts, there was considerable overlap in IC scores between those with and those without DGF. Using a modified definition of DGF-excluding those with single dialysis in the first 24 h posttransplant-we found that the calculator had similar performance as with the traditional DGF definition. Studying whether DGF prediction could be improved, we found that recipient cardiovascular disease was strongly associated with DGF even after accounting for IC-predicted risk. CONCLUSIONS: The IC can be a useful population guide for predicting DGF in the population for which it was intended but has limited scope in expanded populations (SPK, pump) and for individual risk prediction. DGF risk prediction can be improved by inclusion of recipient cardiovascular disease.

Impact of Subclinical Borderline Inflammation on Kidney Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance biopsies permit early detection of subclinical inflammation before clinical dysfunction, but the impact of detecting early subclinical phenotypes remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 441 consecutive kidney transplant recipients between 2015 and 2018 with surveillance biopsies at 6 months post-transplant. We tested the hypothesis that early subclinical inflammation (subclinical borderline changes, T cell-mediated rejection, or microvascular injury) is associated with increased incidence of a composite endpoint including acute rejection and allograft failure. RESULTS: Using contemporaneous Banff criteria, we detected subclinical inflammation in 31%, with the majority (75%) having a subclinical borderline phenotype (at least minimal inflammation with mild tubulitis [>i0t1]). Overall, subclinical inflammation was independently associated with the composite endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.88; 1.11-7.51; P = 0.03). The subgroup with subclinical borderline inflammation, predominantly those meeting the Banff 2019 i1t1 threshold, was independently associated with 5-fold increased hazard for the composite endpoint (P = 0.02). Those with concurrent subclinical inflammation and subclinical chronic allograft injury had worse outcomes. The effect of treating subclinical inflammation was difficult to ascertain in small heterogeneous subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical acute and chronic inflammation are common at 6 months post-transplant in kidney recipients with stable allograft function. The subclinical borderline phenotype with both tubulitis and interstitial inflammation was independently associated with poor long-term outcomes. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of surveillance biopsies for management of allograft inflammation in kidney transplantation.

i-IFTA and chronic active T cell-mediated rejection: A tale of 2 (DeKAF) cohorts.

Inflammation in areas of fibrosis (i-IFTA) in posttransplant biopsies is part of the diagnostic criteria for chronic active TCMR (CA TCMR -- i-IFTA ≥ 2, ti ≥ 2, t ≥ 2). We evaluated i-IFTA and CA TCMR in the DeKAF indication biopsy cohorts: prospective (n = 585, mean time to biopsy = 1.7 years); cross-sectional (n = 458, mean time to biopsy = 7.8 years). Grouped by i-IFTA scores, the 3-year postbiopsy DC-GS is similar across cohorts. Although a previous acute rejection episode (AR) was more common in those with i-IFTA on biopsy, the majority of those with i-IFTA had not had previous AR. There was no association between type of previous AR (AMR, TCMR) and presence of i-IFTA. In both cohorts, i-IFTA was associated with markers of both cellular (increased Banff i, t, ti) and humoral (increased g, ptc, C4d, DSA) activity. Biopsies with i-IFTA = 1 and i-IFTA ≥ 2 with concurrent t ≥ 2 and ti ≥ 2 had similar DC-GS. These results suggest that (a) i-IFTA≥1 should be considered a threshold for diagnoses incorporating i-IFTA, ti, and t; (b) given that i-IFTA ≥ 2,t ≥ 2, ti ≥ 2 can occur in the absence of preceding TCMR and that the component histologic scores (i-IFTA,t,ti) each indicate an acute change (albeit i-IFTA on the nonspecific background of IFTA), the diagnostic category "CA TCMR" should be reconsidered.

Thirty Years of Tacrolimus in Clinical Practice.

Tacrolimus was discovered in 1984 and entered clinical use shortly thereafter, contributing to successful solid organ transplantation across the globe. In this review, we cover development of tacrolimus, its evolving clinical utility, and issues affecting its current usage. Since earliest use of this class of immunosuppressant, concerns for calcineurin-inhibitor toxicity have led to efforts to minimize or eliminate these agents in clinical regimens but with limited success. Current understanding of the role of tacrolimus focuses more on its efficacy in preventing graft rejection and graft loss. As we enter the fourth decade of tacrolimus use, newer studies utilizing novel combinations (as with the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, everolimus, and T-cell costimulation blockade with belatacept) offer potential for enhanced benefits.

Genome-wide association study for time to failure of kidney transplants from African American deceased donors.

Two renal-risk variants in the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) in African American (AA) deceased donors (DD) are associated with shorter renal allograft survival after transplantation. To identify additional genes contributing to allograft survival, a genome-wide association study was performed in 532 AA DDs. Phenotypic data were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Association and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-by-APOL1 interaction tests were conducted using death-censored renal allograft survival accounting for relevant covariates. Replication and inverse-variance-weighted meta-analysis were performed using data from 250 AA DD in the Genomics of Transplantation study. Accounting for APOL1, multiple SNPs near the Nudix Hydrolase 7 gene (NUDT7) showed strong independent effects (P = 1.6 × 10-8 -2.2 × 10-8 ). Several SNPs in the Translocation protein SEC63 homolog (SEC63; P = 2 × 10-9 -3.7 × 10-8 ) and plasmacytoma variant translocation 1 (PVT1) genes (P = 4.0 × 10-8 -7 × 10-8 ) modified the effect of APOL1 on allograft survival. SEC63 is expressed in human renal tubule cells and glomeruli, and PVT1 is associated with diabetic kidney disease. Overall, associations were detected for 41 SNPs (P = 2 × 10-9 -5 × 10-8 ) contributing independently or interacting with APOL1 to impact renal allograft survival after transplantation from AA DD. Given the small sample size of the discovery and replication sets, independent validations and functional genomic efforts are needed to validate these results.

Transplant physician and surgeon compensation: A sample framework accounting for nonbillable and value-based work.

Work relative value unit (wRVU)-based fee schedules are predominantly used by both the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and private payers to determine the payments for physicians' clinical productivity. However, under the Affordable Care Act, CMS is transitioning into a value-based payment structure that rewards patient-oriented outcomes and cost savings. Moreover, in the context of solid organ transplantation, physicians and surgeons conduct many activities that are neither billable nor accounted for in the wRVU models. New compensation models for transplant professionals must (1) justify payments for nonbillable work related to transplant activity/procedures; (2) capture the entire academic, clinical, and relationship-building work effort as part of RVU determination; and (3) move toward a value-based compensation scheme that aligns the incentives for physicians, surgeons, transplant center, payers, and patients. In this review, we provide an example of redesigning RVUs to address these challenges in compensating transplant physicians and surgeons. We define a customized RVU (cRVU) for activities that typically do not generate wRVUs and create an outcome value unit (OVU) measure that incorporates outcomes and cost savings into RVUs to include value-based compensation.

Late Graft Loss After Kidney Transplantation: Is "Death With Function" Really Death With a Functioning Allograft?

BACKGROUND: About half of late kidney allograft losses are attributed to death with function (DWF), a poorly characterized outcome. An ongoing question is whether DWF is a consequence of chronic allograft dysfunction. Using the prospective Long-term Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function study database, we sought to better define the impact, phenotype, and clinical course of DWF in the current era. METHODS: Three thousand five hundred eighty-seven kidney recipients with functional grafts at 90 days post-transplant were followed prospectively for a median of 5.2 years. RESULTS: Characteristics at transplantation in those with DWF (N = 350, 9.8%) differed from those who otherwise lost their grafts (death-censored graft failure [DC-GF], N = 295, 8.2%) or maintained function (N = 2942, 82.0%); DWF patients were older, sicker, and had been on dialysis longer, with more preexisting cardiovascular disease, whereas DC-GF patients experienced more early rejection, more acute rejection after 90 days, and a clinically significant decrease in kidney function before graft failure. In contrast, the clinical course after transplantation in DWF patients did not differ before death from those who maintained function throughout. CONCLUSIONS: DWF and DC-GF in kidney transplant recipients represent differing clinical phenotypes occurring in distinct patient populations. Reducing the impact of DWF requires better definition of causes and clinical course and then trials of therapies to improve outcomes. Composite endpoints in clinical trials that group DWF and DC-GF together may obscure important clinical findings.

Redefining the Influence of Ethnicity on Simultaneous Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation Outcomes: A 15-year Single-center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the largest single-center experience of simultaneous kidney/pancreas transplantation (SPK) transplantation among African-Americans (AAs). BACKGROUND: Current dogma suggests that AAs have worse survival following SPK than white recipients. We hypothesize that this national trend may not be ubiquitous. METHODS: From August 30, 1999, through October 1, 2014, 188 SPK transplants were performed at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and 5523 were performed at other US centers. Using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression, we examined the influence of recipient ethnicity on survival. RESULTS: AAs comprised 36.2% of the UAB cohort compared with only 19.1% nationally (P < 0.01); yet, overall, 3-year graft survival was statistically higher among UAB than US cohort (kidney: 91.5% vs 87.9%, P = 0.11; pancreas: 87.4% vs 81.3%; P = 0.04, respectively) and persisted on adjusted analyses [kidney adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.35-0.97, P = 0.04; pancreas aHR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.85, P = 0.01]. Among the UAB cohort, graft survival did not differ between AA and white recipients; in contrast, the US cohort experienced significantly lower graft survival rates among AA than white recipients (kidney 5 years: 76.5% vs 82.3%, P < 0.01; pancreas 5 years: 72.2% vs 76.3%, P = 0.01; respectively). CONCLUSION: Among a single-center cohort of SPK transplants overrepresented by AAs, we demonstrated similar outcomes among AA and white recipients and better outcomes than the US experience. These data suggest that current dogma may be incorrect. Identifying best practices for SPK transplantation is imperative to mitigate racial disparities in outcomes observed at the national level.

Time for reform in transplant program-specific reporting: AST/ASTS transplant metrics taskforce.

In accordance with the National Organ Transplant Act and Department of Health and Human Services' Final Rule, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) publicly releases biannual program-specific reports that include analyses of transplant centers' risk-adjusted waitlist mortality, organ acceptance ratios, transplant rates, and graft and patient survival. Since the inception of these center metrics, 1-year posttransplant graft and patient survival have improved, and center variation has decreased, casting uncertainty on their clinical relevance. The SRTR has recently modified center evaluations by ranking centers into 5 tiers rather than 3 tiers in an attempt to discriminate between programs performing within a tight range, further exacerbating this uncertainty. The American Society of Transplantation/American Society of Transplant Surgeons convened an expert taskforce to examine both the utility and unintended consequences of transplant center metrics. Estimates of center variation in outcomes in adjacent tiers are imprecise and fleeting, but can result in consequential changes in clinician and center behavior. The taskforce has concerns that current metrics, based principally on 1-year graft and patient survival, provide minimal if any benefit in informing patient choice and access to transplantation, with the untoward effect of decreased utilization of organs and restriction of research and innovation.

Variation in use of procurement biopsies and its implications for discard of deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplantation.

The use of procurement biopsies in deceased donor kidney acceptance is controversial. We analyzed Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (n = 59 328 allografts, 2014-2018) to describe biopsy practices across US organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and examine relationships with discards, using hierarchical modeling to account for OPO and donor factors. Median odds ratios (MORs) provide the median of the odds that allografts with identical reported traits would be biopsied or discarded from 2 randomly drawn OPOs. Biopsies were obtained for 52.7% of kidneys. Biopsy use rose in a graded manner with kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Biopsy rates differed significantly among OPOs (22.8% to 77.5%), even after adjustment for KDPI and other donor factors. Discard rates also varied from 6.6% to 32.1% across OPOs. After adjustment for donor factors and OPO, biopsy was associated with more than 3 times the likelihood of discard (adjusted odds ratio [95%LCL aOR95%UCL ], 3.29 3.513.76 ). This association was most pronounced for low-risk (KDPI <20) kidneys (aOR, 5.45 6.477.69 ), with minimal impact at KDPI >85 (aOR, 0.88 1.151.51 ). Adjusted MORs for kidney discard and biopsy were greatest for low-risk kidneys. Reducing the rate of unnecessary biopsy and improving the accuracy of histologic assessments in higher KDPI organs may help reduce graft discard rates.

Chronic dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease: Relevance to kidney xenotransplantation.

Renal allotransplantation clearly offers better survival and quality of life for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients than chronic dialysis. The median waiting time for a deceased donor kidney in a suitable ESRD patient is 3.9 years. The initial candidates for pig kidney xenotransplantation will be those with ESRD unlikely to receive an allograft within a reasonable period of time. It is thus reasonable to ascertain whether clinical trials of xenotransplantation might likewise offer superior outcomes. Chronic dialysis in patients with ESRD is associated with poor quality of life, significant morbidity, and relatively high mortality, with only 56% surviving 3 years and 42% at 5 years. However, a significant number of these patients, because of comorbidities, frailty, etc, would not be considered for renal allotransplantation and likely not for xenotransplantation. As genetically engineered pig kidneys have satisfactorily supported life in immunosuppressed nonhuman primates for many months or even more than a year, consideration in carefully selected patients could be given to pig kidney xenotransplantation. We suggest that, in order to give a patient the best possible outcome, the pig kidney could be transplanted pre-emptively (before dialysis is initiated). If it fails at any stage, the patient would then begin chronic dialysis and continue to await an allograft. The present (limited) evidence is that failure of a pig graft would not be detrimental to a subsequent allograft.

Population Health, Ethnicity, and Rate of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation has declined in the United States since 2004, but the relationship between population characteristics and rate of living donation is unknown. The goal of our study was to use data on general population health and socioeconomic status to investigate the association with living donation. METHODS: This cross-sectional, ecological study used population health and socioeconomic status data from the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to investigate the association with living donation. Transplant centers performing 10 or greater kidney transplants reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in 2015 were included. Center rate of living donation was defined as the proportion of all kidney transplants performed at a center that were from living donors. RESULTS: In a linear mixed-effects model, a composite index of health and socioeconomic status factors was negatively associated with living donation, with a rate of living donation that was on average 7.3 percentage points lower among centers in areas with more comorbid disease and poorer socioeconomic status (95% confidence interval, -12.2 to -2.3, P = 0.004). Transplant centers in areas with higher prevalence of minorities had a rate of living donation that was 7.1 percentage points lower than centers with fewer minorities (95% confidence interval, -11.8 to -2.3, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Center-level variation in living donation was associated with population characteristics and minority prevalence. Further examination of these factors in the context of patient and center-level barriers to living donation is warranted.

Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States.

Outcomes of patients receiving solid organ transplants in the United States are systematically aggregated into bi-annual Program-Specific Reports (PSRs) detailing risk-adjusted survival by transplant center. Recently, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) issued 5-tier ratings evaluating centers based on risk-adjusted 1-year graft survival. Our primary aim was to examine the reliability of 5-tier ratings over time. Using 10 consecutive PSRs for adult kidney transplant centers from June 2012 to December 2016 (n = 208), we applied 5-tier ratings to center outcomes and evaluated ratings over time. From the baseline period (June 2012), 47% of centers had at least a 1-unit tier change within 6 months, 66% by 1 year, and 94% by 3 years. Similarly, 46% of centers had at least a 2-unit tier change by 3 years. In comparison, 15% of centers had a change in the traditional 3-tier rating at 3 years. The 5-tier ratings at 4 years had minimal association with baseline rating (Kappa 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.002 to 0.158). Centers had a median of 3 different 5-tier ratings over the period (q1 = 2, q3 = 4). Findings were consistent for center volume, transplant rate, and baseline 5-tier rating. Cumulatively, results suggest that 5-tier ratings are highly volatile, limiting their utility for informing potential stakeholders, particularly transplant candidates given expected waiting times between wait listing and transplantation.

Late graft failure after kidney transplantation as the consequence of late versus early events.

Beyond the first posttransplant year, 3% of kidney transplants fail annually. In a prospective, multicenter cohort study, we tested the relative impact of early versus late events on risk of long-term death-censored graft failure (DCGF). In grafts surviving at least 90 days, early events (acute rejection [AR] and delayed graft function [DGF] before day 90) were recorded; serum creatinine (Cr) at day 90 was defined as baseline. Thereafter, a 25% rise in serum Cr or new-onset proteinuria triggered graft biopsy (index biopsy, IBx), allowing comparison of risk of DCGF associated with early events (AR, DGF, baseline serum Cr >2.0 mg/dL) to that associated with later events (IBx). Among 3678 patients followed for 4.7 ± 1.9 years, 753 (20%) had IBx at a median of 15.3 months posttransplant. Early AR (HR = 1.77, P < .001) and elevated Cr at Day 90 (HR = 2.56, P < .0001) were associated with increased risk of DCGF; however, later-onset dysfunction requiring IBx had far greater impact (HR = 13.8, P < .0001). At 90 days, neither clinical characteristics nor early events distinguished those who subsequently did or did not undergo IBx or suffer DCGF. To improve long-term kidney allograft survival, management paradigms should promote prompt diagnosis and treatment of both early and later events.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antibody-Based Induction Therapy in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Induction therapy in deceased donor kidney transplantation is costly, with wide discrepancy in utilization and a limited evidence base, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We linked the United States Renal Data System data set to Medicare claims to estimate cumulative costs, graft survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER - cost per additional year of graft survival) within 3 years of transplantation in 19 450 deceased donor kidney transplantation recipients with Medicare as primary payer from 2000 to 2008. We divided the study cohort into high-risk (age > 60 years, panel-reactive antibody > 20%, African American race, Kidney Donor Profile Index > 50%, cold ischemia time > 24 hours) and low-risk (not having any risk factors, comprising approximately 15% of the cohort). After the elimination of dominated options, we estimated expected ICER among induction categories: no-induction, alemtuzumab, rabbit antithymocyte globulin (r-ATG), and interleukin-2 receptor-antagonist. RESULTS: No-induction was the least effective and most costly option in both risk groups. Depletional antibodies (r-ATG and alemtuzumab) were more cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds in the low-risk group. For the high-risk group and its subcategories, the ICER was very sensitive to the graft survival; overall both depletional antibodies were more cost-effective, mainly for higher willingness to pay threshold (US $100 000 and US $150 000). Rabbit ATG appears to achieve excellent cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (80% of the recipients) in both risk groups at US $50 000 threshold (except age > 60 years). In addition, only r-ATG was associated with graft survival benefit over no-induction category (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.99) in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody-based induction appears to offer substantial advantages in both cost and outcome compared with no-induction. Overall, depletional induction (preferably r-ATG) appears to offer the greatest benefits.

APOL1 Genotype and Kidney Transplantation Outcomes From Deceased African American Donors.

BACKGROUND: Two apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) renal-risk variants in donors and African American (AA) recipient race are associated with worse allograft survival in deceased-donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) from AA donors. To detect other factors impacting allograft survival from deceased AA kidney donors, APOL1 renal-risk variants were genotyped in additional AA kidney donors. METHODS: The APOL1 genotypes were linked to outcomes in 478 newly analyzed DDKTs in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Multivariate analyses accounting for recipient age, sex, race, panel-reactive antibody level, HLA match, cold ischemia time, donor age, and expanded criteria donation were performed. These 478 transplantations and 675 DDKTs from a prior report were jointly analyzed. RESULTS: Fully adjusted analyses limited to the new 478 DDKTs replicated shorter renal allograft survival in recipients of APOL1 2-renal-risk-variant kidneys (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; P = 0.03). Combined analysis of 1153 DDKTs from AA donors revealed donor APOL1 high-risk genotype (HR, 2.05; P = 3 × 10), older donor age (HR, 1.18; P = 0.05), and younger recipient age (HR, 0.70; P = 0.001) adversely impacted allograft survival. Although prolonged allograft survival was seen in many recipients of APOL1 2-renal-risk-variant kidneys, follow-up serum creatinine concentrations were higher than that in recipients of 0/1 APOL1 renal-risk-variant kidneys. A competing risk analysis revealed that APOL1 impacted renal allograft survival, but not recipient survival. Interactions between donor age and APOL1 genotype on renal allograft survival were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter renal allograft survival is reproducibly observed after DDKT from APOL1 2-renal-risk-variant donors. Younger recipient age and older donor age have independent adverse effects on renal allograft survival.