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.

Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation for chronic pancreatitis: the robotic approach.

INTRODUCTION: Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) treats refractory pain in chronic pancreatitis, prevents episodes of acute exacerbation, and mitigates postoperative brittle diabetes. The minimally invasive (MIS) approach offers a decreased surgical access trauma and enhanced recovery. Having established a laparoscopic TPIAT program, we adopted a robotic approach (R-TPIAT) and studied patient outcomes compared to open TPIAT. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2021, 61 adult patients underwent TPIAT after a comprehensive evaluation (97% chronic pancreatitis). Pancreatic islets were isolated on-site during the procedure. We analyzed and compared intraoperative surgical and islet characteristics, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and 1-year glycemic outcomes. RESULTS: MIS-TPIAT was performed in 41 patients (67%, 15 robotic and 26 laparoscopic), and was associated with a shorter mean length of intensive care unit stay compared to open TPIAT (2.9 vs 4.5 days, p = 0.002). R-TPIAT replaced laparoscopic TPIAT in 2017 as the MIS approach of choice and demonstrated decreased blood loss compared to open TPIAT (324 vs 843 mL, p = 0.004), similar operative time (609 vs 562 min), 30-day readmission rate (7% vs 15%), and 90-day complication rate (13% vs 20%). The glycemic outcomes including C-peptide detection at 1-year (73% vs 88%) and insulin dependence at 1-year (75% vs 92%) did not differ. The mean length of hospital stay after R-TPIAT was 8.6 days, shorter than for laparoscopic (11.5 days, p = 0.031) and open TPIAT (12.6 days, p = 0.017). Both MIS approaches had a 1-year mortality rate of 0%. CONCLUSIONS: R-TPIAT was associated with a 33% reduction in length of hospital stay (4-day benefit) compared to open TPIAT. R-TPIAT was similar to open TPIAT on measures of feasibility, safety, pain control, and 1-year glycemic outcomes. Our data suggest that robotic technology, a new component in the multidisciplinary therapy of TPIAT, is poised to develop into the primary surgical approach for experienced pancreatic surgeons.

National Landscape of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Deceased Organ Donors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) presents risks of donor-derived infections. Understanding clinical, immunologic, and virologic characteristics of HIV-positive donors is critical for safety. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of donors with HIV-positive and HIV false-positive (FP) test results within the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in Action studies of HIV D+/R+ transplantation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602262, NCT03500315, and NCT03734393). We compared clinical characteristics in HIV-positive versus FP donors. We measured CD4 T cells, HIV viral load (VL), drug resistance mutations (DRMs), coreceptor tropism, and serum antiretroviral therapy (ART) detection, using mass spectrometry in HIV-positive donors. RESULTS: Between March 2016 and March 2020, 92 donors (58 HIV positive, 34 FP), representing 98.9% of all US HOPE donors during this period, donated 177 organs (131 kidneys and 46 livers). Each year the number of donors increased. The prevalence of hepatitis B (16% vs 0%), syphilis (16% vs 0%), and cytomegalovirus (CMV; 91% vs 58%) was higher in HIV-positive versus FP donors; the prevalences of hepatitis C viremia were similar (2% vs 6%). Most HIV-positive donors (71%) had a known HIV diagnosis, of whom 90% were prescribed ART and 68% had a VL <400 copies/mL. The median CD4 T-cell count (interquartile range) was 194/µL (77-331/µL), and the median CD4 T-cell percentage was 27.0% (16.8%-36.1%). Major HIV DRMs were detected in 42%, including nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (33%), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (4%), and multiclass (13%). Serum ART was detected in 46% and matched ART by history. CONCLUSION: The use of HIV-positive donor organs is increasing. HIV DRMs are common, yet resistance that would compromise integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based regimens is rare, which is reassuring regarding safety.

Similar Frequency and Inducibility of Intact Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Proviruses in Blood and Lymph Nodes.

BACKGROUND: The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 latent reservoir (LR) in resting CD4+ T cells is a barrier to cure. LR measurements are commonly performed on blood samples and therefore may miss latently infected cells residing in tissues, including lymph nodes. METHODS: We determined the frequency of intact HIV-1 proviruses and proviral inducibility in matched peripheral blood (PB) and lymph node (LN) samples from 10 HIV-1-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) using the intact proviral DNA assay and a novel quantitative viral induction assay. Prominent viral sequences from induced viral RNA were characterized using a next-generation sequencing assay. RESULTS: The frequencies of CD4+ T cells with intact proviruses were not significantly different in PB versus LN (61/106 vs 104/106 CD4+ cells), and they were substantially lower than frequencies of CD4+ T cells with defective proviruses. The frequencies of CD4+ T cells induced to produce high levels of viral RNA were not significantly different in PB versus LN (4.3/106 vs 7.9/106), but they were 14-fold lower than the frequencies of cells with intact proviruses. Sequencing of HIV-1 RNA from induced proviruses revealed comparable sequences in paired PB and LN samples. CONCLUSIONS: These results further support the use of PB as an appropriate proxy for the HIV-1 LR in secondary lymphoid organs.

Characterizing the landscape and impact of infections following kidney transplantation.

Infections remain a major threat to successful kidney transplantation (KT). To characterize the landscape and impact of post-KT infections in the modern era, we used United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data linked to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to study 141 661 Medicare-primary kidney transplant recipients from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2014. Infection diagnoses were ascertained by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. The cumulative incidence of a post-KT infection was 36.9% at 3 months, 53.7% at 1 year, and 78.0% at 5 years. The most common infections were urinary tract infection (UTI; 46.8%) and pneumonia (28.2%). Five-year mortality for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection was 24.9% vs 7.9% for those who did not, and 5-year death-censored graft failure (DCGF) was 20.6% vs 10.1% (P < .001). This translated to a 2.22-fold higher mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.15 2.222.29 , P < .001) and 1.92-fold higher DCGF risk (aHR: 1.84 1.911.98 , P < .001) for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection, although the magnitude of this higher risk varied across infection types (for example, 3.11-fold higher mortality risk for sepsis vs 1.62-fold for a UTI). Post-KT infections are common and substantially impact mortality and DCGF, even in the modern era. Kidney transplant recipients at high risk for infections might benefit from enhanced surveillance or follow-up to mitigate these risks.

Survival benefit of accepting kidneys from older donation after cardiac death donors.

Kidneys from older (age ≥50 years) donation after cardiac death (DCD50) donors are less likely to be transplanted due to inferior posttransplant outcomes. However, candidates who decline a DCD50 offer must wait for an uncertain future offer. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting DCD50 kidneys, we used 2010-2018 Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data to identify 92 081 adult kidney transplantation candidates who were offered a DCD50 kidney that was eventually accepted for transplantation. DCD50 kidneys offered to candidates increased from 590 in 2010 to 1441 in 2018. However, 34.6% of DCD50 kidneys were discarded. Candidates who accepted DCD50 offers had 49% decreased mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.46 0.510.55 , cumulative mortality at 6-year 23.3% vs 34.0%, P < .001) compared with those who declined the same offer (decliners). Six years after their initial DCD50 offer decline, 43.0% of decliners received a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT), 6.3% received living donor kidney transplant (LDKT), 22.6% died, 22.0% were removed for other reasons, and 6.0% were still on the waitlist. Comparable survival benefit was observed even with DCD donors age ≥60 (aHR: 0.42 0.520.65 , P < .001). Accepting DCD50 kidneys was associated with a substantial survival benefit; providers and patients should consider these benefits when evaluating offers.

Outcomes at 3 years posttransplant in imlifidase-desensitized kidney transplant patients.

Imlifidase is a cysteine proteinase which specifically cleaves IgG, inhibiting Fc-mediated effector function within hours of administration. Imlifidase converts a positive crossmatch to a potential donor (T cell, B cell, or both), to negative, enabling transplantation to occur between previously HLA incompatible donor-recipient pairs. To date, 39 crossmatch positive patients received imlifidase prior to a kidney transplant in four single-arm, open-label, phase 2 studies. At 3 years, for patients who were AMR+ compared to AMR-, death-censored allograft survival was 93% vs 77%, patient survival was 85% vs 94%, and mean eGFR was 49 ml/min/1.73 m2 vs 61 ml/min/1.73 m2 , respectively. The incidence of AMR was 38% with most episodes occurring within the first month post-transplantation. Sub-analysis of patients deemed highly sensitized with cPRA ≥ 99.9%, and unlikely to be transplanted who received crossmatch-positive, deceased donor transplants had similar rates of patient survival, graft survival, and eGFR but a higher rate of AMR. These data demonstrate that outcomes and safety up to 3 years in recipients of imlifidase-enabled allografts is comparable to outcomes in other highly sensitized patients undergoing HLA-incompatible transplantation. Thus, imlifidase is a potent option to facilitate transplantation among patients who have a significant immunologic barrier to successful kidney transplantation. Clinical Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02790437), EudraCT Number: 2016-002064-13.

Quantifying infection risks in incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients.

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = 0.77 1.402.56 ,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = 0.88 1.352.06 ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = 1.33 2.223.72 ,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = 2.62 3.574.88 , P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = 1.15 4.0113.95 ,P = .03). Post-KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients.

A prospective multicenter pilot study of HIV-positive deceased donor to HIV-positive recipient kidney transplantation: HOPE in action.

HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation is permitted in the United States under the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act. To explore safety and the risk attributable to an HIV+ donor, we performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ vs HIV-negative donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D-/R+) kidney transplantation (KT). From 3/2016 to 7/2019 at 14 centers, there were 75 HIV+ KTs: 25 D+ and 50 D- (22 recipients from D- with false positive HIV tests). Median follow-up was 1.7 years. There were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (63 mL/min D+ vs 57 mL/min D-, P = .31), HIV breakthrough (4% D+ vs 6% D-, P > .99), infectious hospitalizations (28% vs 26%, P = .85), or opportunistic infections (16% vs 12%, P = .72). One-year rejection was higher for D+ recipients (50% vs 29%, HR: 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.95, P = .13) but did not reach statistical significance; rejection was lower with lymphocyte-depleting induction (21% vs 44%, HR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.87, P = .03). In this multicenter pilot study directly comparing HIV D+/R+ with HIV D-/R+ KT, overall transplant and HIV outcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further investigation.

Multicenter Study to Transplant Hepatitis C-Infected Kidneys (MYTHIC): An Open-Label Study of Combined Glecaprevir and Pibrentasvir to Treat Recipients of Transplanted Kidneys from Deceased Donors with Hepatitis C Virus Infection.

BACKGROUND: Single-center trials and retrospective case series have reported promising outcomes using kidneys from donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, multicenter trials are needed to determine if those findings are generalizable. METHODS: We conducted a prospective trial at seven centers to transplant 30 kidneys from deceased donors with HCV viremia into HCV-uninfected recipients, followed by 8 weeks of once-daily coformulated glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, targeted to start 3 days posttransplant. Key outcomes included sustained virologic response (undetectable HCV RNA 12 weeks after completing treatment with glecaprevir and pibrentasvir), adverse events, and allograft function. RESULTS: We screened 76 patients and enrolled 63 patients, of whom 30 underwent kidney transplantation from an HCV-viremic deceased donor (median kidney donor profile index, 53%) in May 2019 through October 2019. The median time between consent and transplantation of a kidney from an HCV-viremic donor was 6.3 weeks. All 30 recipients achieved a sustained virologic response. One recipient died of complications of sepsis 4 months after achieving a sustained virologic response. No severe adverse events in any patient were deemed likely related to HCV infection or treatment with glecaprevir and pibrentasvir. Three recipients developed acute cellular rejection, which was borderline in one case. Three recipients developed polyomavirus (BK) viremia near or >10,000 copies/ml that resolved after reduction of immunosuppression. All recipients had good allograft function, with a median creatinine of 1.2 mg/dl and median eGFR of 57 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our multicenter trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of transplantation of 30 HCV-viremic kidneys into HCV-negative recipients, followed by early initiation of an 8-week regimen of glecaprevir and pibrentasvir.

Discontinuation of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.

Purpose: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used medications and are historically well tolerated. Recent studies have linked PPI use to the development of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease. This study investigated the impact of discontinuing PPIs on renal function in patients with CKD. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with established CKD, defined as 2 eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) measurements of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least 90 days apart, who were on a PPI from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, with a medication possession ratio greater than or equal to 70%. We compared baseline eGFR to a final eGFR after at least 6 months of discontinuation or continuation of a PPI. After power analysis, we targeted an enrollment of 200 patients (100 in each group) to achieve a power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05. Summary: A total of 97 patients in the PPI discontinuation group and 100 patients in the PPI continuation group met the study inclusion criteria. Baseline eGFR in the PPI continuation group was 47.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 50.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the discontinuation group. Final eGFR in the PPI continuation group was significantly higher than baseline at 51.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 (+3.25 ± 12.8, P = .01). Final eGFR in the PPI discontinuation group was 51.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 (+1.09 ± 12.8, P = .3). The average time between baseline and final eGFRs was 270 days in the PPI continuation group and 301 days in the discontinuation group. There was no statistically significant difference in the change in eGFRs between groups (95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.48-2.03, P = .37). Conclusions: Proton pump inhibitor discontinuation after prolonged continuous use in patients with CKD was not associated with a significant change in renal function after 1 year.

Outcomes of cPRA 100% deceased donor kidney transplant recipients under the new Kidney Allocation System: A single-center cohort study.

In light of changes in donor/recipient case-mix and increased cold ischemia times under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS), there is some concern that cPRA 100% recipients might be doing poorly under KAS. We used granular, single-center data on 109 cPRA 100% deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients to study post-KAS posttransplant outcomes not readily available in national registry data. We found that 3-year patient (96.4%) and death-censored graft survival (96.8%) was excellent. We also found that cPRA 100% recipients had a relatively low incidence of T cell-mediated rejection (9.2%) and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (13.8%). T cell-mediated rejection episodes tended to be relatively mild-50% (5 episodes) were grade 1, 50% (5 episodes) were grade 2, and none were grade 3. Only 1 episode was associated with graft loss, but this was in the context of a mixed rejection. Although only 15 recipients (13.8%) developed an AMR episode, 2 of these were associated with a graft loss. Despite the rejection episodes, the vast majority of recipients had excellent graft function 3 years posttransplant (median serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL). In conclusion, cPRA 100% DDKT recipients are doing well under KAS, although every effort should be made to prevent AMR to ensure long-term outcomes remain excellent.

Identifying scenarios of benefit or harm from kidney transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic: A stochastic simulation and machine learning study.

Clinical decision-making in kidney transplant (KT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is understandably a conundrum: both candidates and recipients may face increased acquisition risks and case fatality rates (CFRs). Given our poor understanding of these risks, many centers have paused or reduced KT activity, yet data to inform such decisions are lacking. To quantify the benefit/harm of KT in this context, we conducted a simulation study of immediate-KT vs delay-until-after-pandemic for different patient phenotypes under a variety of potential COVID-19 scenarios. A calculator was implemented (http://www.transplantmodels.com/covid_sim), and machine learning approaches were used to evaluate the important aspects of our modeling. Characteristics of the pandemic (acquisition risk, CFR) and length of delay (length of pandemic, waitlist priority when modeling deceased donor KT) had greatest influence on benefit/harm. In most scenarios of COVID-19 dynamics and patient characteristics, immediate KT provided survival benefit; KT only began showing evidence of harm in scenarios where CFRs were substantially higher for KT recipients (eg, ≥50% fatality) than for waitlist registrants. Our simulations suggest that KT could be beneficial in many centers if local resources allow, and our calculator can help identify patients who would benefit most. Furthermore, as the pandemic evolves, our calculator can update these predictions.

How do highly sensitized patients get kidney transplants in the United States? Trends over the last decade.

Prioritization of highly sensitized (HS) candidates under the kidney allocation system (KAS) and growth of large, multicenter kidney-paired donation (KPD) clearinghouses have broadened the transplant modalities available to HS candidates. To quantify temporal trends in utilization of these modalities, we used SRTR data from 2009 to 2017 to study 39 907 adult HS (cPRA ≥ 80%) waitlisted candidates and 19 003 recipients. We used competing risks regression to quantify temporal trends in likelihood of DDKT, KPD, and non-KPD LDKT for HS candidates (Era 1: January 1, 2009-December 31, 2011; Era 2: January 1, 2012-December 3, 2014; Era 3: December 4, 2014-December 31, 2017). Although the likelihood of DDKT and KPD increased over time for all HS candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] Era 3 vs 1 for DDKT: 1.74 1.851.97 , P < .001 and for KPD: 1.70 2.202.84 , P < .001), the likelihood of non-KPD LDKT decreased (aSHR: 0.69 0.820.97 , P = .02). However, these changes affected HS recipients differently based on cPRA. Among recipients, more cPRA 98%-99.9% and 99.9%+ recipients underwent DDKT (96.2% in Era 3% vs 59.1% in Era 1 for cPRA 99.9%+), whereas fewer underwent non-KPD LDKT (1.9% vs 30.9%) or KPD (2.0% vs 10.0%). Although KAS increased DDKT likelihood for the most HS candidates, it also decreased the use of non-KPD LDKT to transplant cPRA 98%+ candidates.

Changes in offer and acceptance patterns for pediatric kidney transplant candidates under the new Kidney Allocation System.

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding decreased deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rates for pediatric candidates under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). To better understand what might be driving this, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients kidney offer data for 3642 pediatric (age <18 years) kidney-only transplant candidates between December 31, 2012 to December 3, 2014 (pre-KAS) and December 4, 2014 to January 6, 2017 (post-KAS). We used negative binomial regression and multilevel logistic regression to compare offer and acceptance rates pre- and post-KAS. We stratified by donor age (<18, 18-34, and 35+ years) and KDPI (<35% and ≥35%) to reflect differing allocation prioritization pre-KAS and post-KAS. As might be expected from prioritization changes, post-KAS candidates were less likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old with KDPI ≥ 35% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 0.18 0.210.25 , P < .001), and more likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% (aIRR: 1.12 1.201.29 , P < .001). However, offer acceptance practices also changed post-KAS: kidneys from donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% were 23% less likely to be accepted post-KAS (adjusted odds ratio: 0.61 0.770.98 , P = .03). Using kidneys from donors 18-34 years old with KDPI < 35% post-KAS to the same extent they were used pre-KAS might be an effective strategy to mitigate any decrease in DDKT rates for pediatric candidates.

Isohemagglutinin titering performed on an automated solid-phase and hemagglutinin-based analyzer is comparable to results obtained by manual gel testing.

BACKGROUND: Isohemagglutinins (anti-A and anti-B) mediate hemolytic transfusion reactions, antibody-mediated rejection of solid-organ transplants, and delayed engraftment after stem cell transplant. However, quantification of isohemagglutinins is often labor intensive and operator dependent, limiting availability and interfacility comparisons. We evaluated an automated, solid-phase and agglutination-based antibody titer platform versus manual gel testing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Plasma samples were obtained from 54 randomly selected patients. Titers were determined by our laboratory's standard assay (manual dilution followed by manual gel testing) and were compared to results obtained on a fully automated blood bank analyzer (Galileo NEO, Immucor). The analyzer determined immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies using solid-phase and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies by direct hemagglutination. RESULTS: Isohemagglutinin titers obtained by manual gel versus the automated assay generally (>80%) agreed within one doubling dilution, and always (100%) agreed within two dilutions. Among O samples, the gel titer and the highest titer obtained with the automated assay (either IgG or IgM) were similar in paired, nonparametric analysis (p = 0.06 for anti-A; p = 0.13 for anti-B). Gel titers from group A and group B patients were slightly higher than the highest titer obtained using the automated assay (p = 0.04 for group A; p = 0.009 for group B), although these differences were within the accepted error of measurement. CONCLUSION: Manual and automated methodologies yielded similar isohemagglutinin titers. Separate quantification of IgM and IgG isohemagglutinins via automated titration may yield additional insight into hemolysis, graft survival after ABO-incompatible transplantation, and red blood cell engraftment after ABO-incompatible stem cell transplant.

Pancreatic volume does not correlate with histologic fibrosis in adult patients with recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES: Reduced pancreatic volume, often referred to as atrophy, is a commonly reported imaging feature of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This study evaluated whether there is an association between pancreatic volume and fibrosis, the criterion standard of CP, in patients undergoing total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) for recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP) and CP. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent TPIAT between 2010 and 2019 were categorized into 3 groups: RAP, definite CP and indeterminate CP. Pancreatic volume was calculated by summing up the areas from each thin section of the pancreas on 3D CT imaging. Excisional biopsies of the pancreatic head as well as body/tail region were obtained at the time of TPIAT. Two different fibrosis scores were used for histologic assessment. RESULTS: A total of 16, 29 and 15 patients underwent TPIAT for RAP, definite CP and indeterminate CP, respectively. The mean pancreatic volumes for patients with RAP, definite CP and indeterminate CP were 65.7 ± 28.5 cc, 54.9 ± 22.9 cc and 61.8 ± 23.6 cc, respectively (p = 0.3). The mean fibrosis scores were significantly higher in patients with definite CP compared to RAP (p < 0.001) and indeterminate CP (p < 0.001). Pancreatic volume was not associated with either fibrosis score after adjusting for age, gender, duration of disease, BMI and diabetes in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: While the fibrosis scores were higher in definite CP compared to both RAP and indeterminate CP, there was no correlation between pancreatic volume and fibrosis. This suggests that atrophy alone cannot be used to diagnose CP.

Steroid-sparing maintenance immunosuppression is safe and effective after simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation.

Optimization of maintenance immunosuppression (mIS) regimens in the transplant recipient requires a balance between sufficient potency to prevent rejection and avoidance of excessive immunosuppression to prevent toxicities and complications. The optimal regimen after simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplantation remains unclear, but small single-center reports have shown success with steroid-sparing regimens. We studied 4184 adult SLK recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, from March 1, 2002, to February 28, 2017, on tacrolimus-based regimens at 1 year post-transplant. We determined the association between mIS regimen and mortality and graft failure using Cox proportional hazard models. The use of steroid-sparing regimens increased post-transplant, from 16.1% at discharge to 88.0% at 5 years. Using multi-level logistic regression modeling, we found center-level variation to be the major contributor to choice of mIS regimen (ICC 44.5%; 95% CI: 36.2%-53.0%). In multivariate analysis, use of a steroid-sparing regimen at 1 year was associated with a 21% decreased risk of mortality compared to steroid-containing regimens (aHR 0.79, P = .01) and 20% decreased risk of liver graft failure (aHR 0.80, P = .01), without differences in kidney graft loss risk (aHR 0.92, P = .6). Among SLK recipients, the use of a steroid-sparing regimen appears to be safe and effective without adverse effects on patient or graft survival.

Eplet mismatch analysis and allograft outcome across racially diverse groups in a pediatric transplant cohort: a single-center analysis.

HLA eplet mismatch load has been suggested as an improvement to HLA antigen mismatch determination for organ selection. Given that eplet mismatches are determined based on amino acid sequence difference among HLA alleles, and that the frequency of HLA alleles varies between racial groups, we investigated the correlation between eplet mismatch load and allograft outcomes in 110 pediatric kidney transplant recipients who received their first organ from a donor of the same race (SRT) versus a donor of a different race (DRT). Adjusted modified Poisson regression was used to assess the interaction between eplet mismatch load and race mismatch and its effect on outcome. Caucasians and living donor recipients had lower eplet mismatched loads against their donors compared with non-Caucasian and deceased donor recipients. Overall, for the entire population, the risk of de novo HLA-DSA development was significantly increased with higher eplet loads (p < 0.001). Compared with the SRT group, the DRT group had higher eplet loads when compared with their donor, for HLA class I but not HLA class II molecules; however, there was no significant difference in the incidence of de novo HLA-DSA between the 2 groups. The risk of rejection increased significantly for DRT compared with SRT, only when class I eplet load was ≥ 70 (p = 0.04). Together this data show that eplet mismatch load analysis is an effective tool for alloimmune risk assessment. If considered for donor selection, acceptable eplet mismatch loads determined from studies in homogenous populations may restrict transplantation across racially diverse donor and patient groups with no evidence of poor outcome. Therefore, an acceptable eplet mismatch load threshold must consider the heterogeneity of the transplant population.

Correction to: Eplet mismatch analysis and allograft outcome across racially diverse groups in a pediatric transplant cohort: a single-center analysis.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. In the third paragraph of "Discussion," two references were missing.