Socioeconomic deprivation and kidney transplant outcomes

Outcomes of Pediatric Kidney Transplantation in Recipients of a Previous Non-Renal Solid Organ Transplant.

What the editors are reading: Population and health services

Long-term Clinical Outcomes of First and Second Kidney Transplantation in Patients With Biopsy-Proven IgA Nephropathy

BackgroundThe effect of pretransplant peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) modality on outcomes of kidney transplantation (KT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is debatable. We evaluated the outcomes these modalities in KT from donor after cardiac death (DCD).MethodsA cohort of 251 patients on HD, PD or pre-emptive who underwent first KT from DCD between January 2014 and December 2016 were prospectively analyzed to compare for outcomes on recovery of renal function, complications as well as patient and graft survival. The patients were followed till August 2017. Data on 104 HD and 98 PD were available for final comparative outcome analysis, 5 pre-emptive were analyzed as the control group.ResultsBoth HD and PD group patients were well matched for demographic and baseline characteristics. The follow-up period was 12.5 (3.0, 22.0) months in HD and 12.0 (6.0, 20.0) months in PD patients. Post-transplant renal functions between the two groups showed no differences. Among PD patients, 16 (16.3%) suffered delayed graft function, versus 19 (18.3%) in HD, with no statistical differences (p = 0.715). Complications of acute rejection, infections were comparable between the groups. The patient survival, graft survival and death-censored graft survival were similar for HD and PD after adjusting for other multiple risk factors.ConclusionsOur results indicate that outcome of first KT from DCD is not affected by pretransplant dialysis modality of PD or HD in aspects of recovery of renal function, complications as well as patient and graft survival.

While the COVID-19 pandemic enters a new phase and the proportion of individuals with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis increases, the national patterns in kidney use and medium-term kidney transplant (KT) outcomes among patients receiving kidneys from active or resolved COVID-19-positive donors remain unknown. To evaluate the patterns in kidney use and KT outcomes among adult recipients of kidneys from deceased donors with active or resolved COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study was conducted using national US transplant registry data from 35 851 deceased donors (71 334 kidneys) and 45 912 adult patients who received KTs from March 1, 2020, to March 30, 2023. The exposure was donor SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAT) results, with positive NAT results within 7 days before procurement defined as active COVID-19 and positive NAT results 1 week (>7 days) before procurement defined as resolved COVID-19. Primary outcomes were kidney nonuse, all-cause kidney graft failure, and all-cause patient death. Secondary outcomes were acute rejection (ie, rejection in the first 6 months after KT), transplant hospitalization length of stay (LOS), and delayed graft function (DGF). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed for kidney nonuse, rejection, and DGF; multivariable linear regression analyses were performed for LOS; and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed for graft failure and all-cause death. All models were adjusted for inverse probability treatment weighting. Among 35 851 deceased donors, the mean (SD) age was 42.5 (15.3) years; 22 319 (62.3%) were men and 23 992 (66.9%) were White. Among 45 912 recipients, the mean (SD) age was 54.3 (13.2) years; 27 952 (60.9%) were men and 15 349 (33.4%) were Black. The likelihood of nonuse of kidneys from active or resolved COVID-19-positive donors decreased over time. Overall, kidneys from active COVID-19-positive donors (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.38-1.76) and kidneys from resolved COVID-19-positive donors (AOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.48) had a higher likelihood of nonuse compared with kidneys from COVID-19-negative donors. From 2020 to 2022, kidneys from active COVID-19-positive donors (2020: AOR, 11.26 [95% CI, 2.29-55.38]; 2021: AOR, 2.09 [95% CI, 1.58-2.79]; 2022: AOR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.70]) had a higher likelihood of nonuse compared with kidneys from donors without COVID-19. Kidneys from resolved COVID-19-positive donors had a higher likelihood of nonuse in 2020 (AOR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.26-11.90) and 2021 (AOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.54-2.45) but not in 2022 (AOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94-1.28). In 2023, kidneys from both active COVID-19-positive donors (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.75-1.63) and resolved COVID-19-positive donors (AOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.80-1.73) were not associated with higher odds of nonuse. No higher risk of graft failure or death was found in patients receiving kidneys from active COVID-19-positive donors (graft failure: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.37]; patient death: AHR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.84-1.66]) or resolved COVID-19-positive donors (graft failure: AHR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.88-1.39]; patient death: AHR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.70-1.28]). Donor COVID-19 positivity was not associated with longer LOS, higher risk of acute rejection, or higher risk of DGF. In this cohort study, the likelihood of nonuse of kidneys from COVID-19-positive donors decreased over time, and donor COVID-19 positivity was not associated with worse KT outcomes within 2 years after transplant. These findings suggest that the use of kidneys from donors with active or resolved COVID-19 is safe in the medium term; further research is needed to assess longer-term transplant outcomes.

Recent national organ distribution rule changes could have implications on distance between donor and recipient hospitals and cold ischemia time. With cold ischemia time being an unavoidable detriment to organ quality, any strategies that minimize it should maximize organ quality. This study evaluated the significance of the kidney allocation system and the Share 35 rule changes on kidney and liver transplant outcomes. This retrospective study included deceased liver and kidney donor and their recipient data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Variables were analyzed using propensity score matching and Cox hazards model distance (from donor hospital to organ recovery center), and effects on survival outcomes of trans-planted livers and kidneys in the context of the recent rule changes were analyzed. Transplanted organs have significantly better outcomes when the distance is 0 miles versus median distances for locally transported organs of 18 and 22 miles for kidney and liver, respectively. Cold ischemia time, when corrected, accounts for this finding, thus suggesting that cold ischemia time is the factor most responsible for viability of a transplanted organ. This significance remains evident for liver transplants even after the Share 35 rule change but not for kidney transplants following the December 2014 kidney allocation system change. Liver transplants showed a higher risk of lower viability with travel, and the Share 35 rule did not appear to change this result. Kidney transplant outcomes appear to have improved after the kidney allocation system change. Potential strategies for minimizing cold ischemia time and improving outcomes include more free-standing organ recovery centers in centralized locations.

The Malnutrition-Inflammation Score: A Valid Nutritional Tool to Assess Mortality Risk in Kidney Transplant Patients

Recipient APOL1 Genotype Effects on Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation

In the Netherlands, organ donation after euthanasia (donation after circulatory death type V [DCD-V]) has been increasingly performed since 2012. However, the outcomes of DCD-V kidney grafts have not been thoroughly investigated. It is critical to assess the outcomes of these kidney grafts to ascertain whether DCD-V is a safe and valuable way to increase the kidney donor pool. To investigate the outcomes of DCD-V kidney transplantation and compare them with outcomes of kidney transplantation after circulatory death after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies (DCD type III [DCD-III]) and donation after brain death (DBD). A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the database from the Dutch Transplant Foundation. All kidney transplants in the Netherlands between January 2012 (start of the euthanasia program) and July 2023 were included. Follow-up was obtained through 5 years after transplantation. Data analysis was performed from November 2023 until February 2024. Kidney transplantation with a DCD-V graft compared with DCD-III and DBD grafts. The primary outcome was death-censored graft survival until 5 years after transplantation. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF), permanent nonfunction (PNF), serum creatinine concentration, and patient survival until 5 years after kidney transplantation. A total of 145 DCD-V kidney transplants were compared with 1936 DCD-III and 1255 DBD kidney transplants. Median (IQR) recipient age was 59 (46-66) years in the DCD-V cohort, compared with 61 (50-68) years in the DCD-III cohort and 61 (50-68) years in the DBD cohort. The incidence of DGF with DCD-V kidney transplants (26%) was significantly less than that with DCD-III kidney transplants (49%; P < .001) and similar to that with DBD kidney transplants (22%; P = .46). PNF occurrence with DCD-V kidneys (6%) was similar to that with DCD-III kidneys (6%; P = .79) and higher than in DBD kidneys (4%; P < .001). There was no difference in 5-year death-censored graft survival between DCD-V grafts (82%) and DCD-III (86%; P = .99) or DBD (84%; P = .99) grafts. There was no difference in 5-year patient survival between DCD-V kidney transplants (69%) and DCD-III (76%; P = .45) or DBD (73%; P = .74) kidney transplants. A propensity score analysis was performed to match the DCD-V and DCD-III cohort, showing results similar to those of the unmatched cohort. This study found that DCD-V kidney transplantation yielded a lower incidence of DGF compared with DCD-III kidney transplantation and yielded long-term results similar to those of DCD-III and DBD kidney transplantation. The findings suggest that DCD-V is a safe and valuable way to increase the kidney donor pool.

There is a long-standing perception among the transplant community that blacks and generally other ethnic minorities are disadvantaged with respect to the opportunity for and outcomes after kidney transplantation. The evidence in support of this supposition is well documented, but the discussion of

Outcome of Kidney Transplantation From Donor After Cardiac Death: Reanalysis of the US Mycophenolic Renal Transplant Registry

Background.Insurance type, a marker of socioeconomic status, has been associated with poor access to kidney transplant (KT) and worse KT outcomes before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the revised Kidney Allocation System (KAS). In this study, we assessed if insurance type remained a risk marker for worse waitlist and transplant outcomes after ACA and KAS.Methods.Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we assessed insurance type of waitlisted candidates pre- (2008–2014) versus post- (2014–2021) KAS/ACA using chi-square tests. Next, we performed a competing risk analysis to study the effect of private versus public (Medicare, Medicaid, or government-sponsored) insurance on waitlist outcomes and a Cox survival analysis to study posttransplant outcomes while controlling for candidate, and recipient and donor variables, respectively.Results.The proportion of overall KT candidates insured by Medicaid increased from pre-KAS/ACA to post-KAS/ACA (from 12 667 [7.3%] to 21 768 [8.8%], P < 0.0001). However, KT candidates with public insurance were more likely to have died or become too sick for KT (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] = 1.33, confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.36) or to receive a deceased donor KT (SHR = 1.57, CI, 1.54-1.60) but less likely to receive a living donor KT (SHR = 0.87, CI, 0.85-0.89). Post-KT, KT recipients with public insurance had greater risk of mortality (relative risks = 1.22, CI, 1.15-1.31) and allograft failure (relative risks = 1.10, CI, 1.03-1.29).Conclusions.Although the implementation of ACA marginally increased the proportion of waitlisted candidates with Medicaid, publicly insured KT candidates remained at greater risk of being removed from the waitlist, had lower probability of living donor kidney transplantation, and had greater probability of dying post-KT and allograft failure. Concerted efforts to address factors contributing to these inequities in future studies are needed, with the goal of achieving equity in KT for all.

Introduction: The ongoing expansion of the donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor pool raises questions as to the suitability of using kidneys from very old donors. Double kidney transplantation (DKT) may enable utilisation of a proportion of these kidneys that would otherwise have been discarded. Here we report a single-centre experience of DCD kidney transplants from donors aged 70 years and older, comparing outcomes of single kidney transplants (SKT) and DKT. Methods: Outcomes were assessed for SKT and DKT from DCD donors aged 70 years old between 1 January 2009 and 31 August 2011, with follow-up ceasing on 31 December 2011. The decision to implant a double or single kidney was based on donor and recipient characteristics, macroscopic appearance, and pre-implantation histological score (Remuzzi G et al, NEJM 2006). Estimated GFR (eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2) was calculated using the 4-variable MDRD equation; delayed graft function (DGF) was defined as the need for dialysis within a week post-transplantation. Continuous variables were described using median (range). Results: Forty-three kidneys were implanted (27 SKT and 8 DKT), with a median follow-up of 13 months. Donor ages were similar in both groups (SKT 73 (70-78) years vs DKT 74.5 (70-79) years; p=0.20). Although median donor terminal creatinine was lower in the SKT group, it did not reach significance (66 (41-88) μmol/L vs 81 (40-235) μmol/L; p=0.07); likewise, there was no difference in donor terminal eGFR (SKT 90 (62-111) mL/min/1.73m2 vs DKT 74 (25-143) mL/min/1.73m2; p=0.25). As expected, kidneys subsequently used as DKT had significantly higher pre-implantation biopsy scores (DKT 5 (3-6) vs SKT 3 (2-6); p< 0.01). Recipients were generally elderly, but median ages were similar between the two groups (SKT 65 (48-75) years vs DKT 64 (57-70) years; p=0.37), as were the cold ischaemic times (SKT 13h18m (9h59m-20h57m) vs DKT 15h40m (11h45m-23h45m); p=0.14). DGF was more frequent in the SKT GROUP, however this did not reach significance (66% (n = 18) for SKT vs 37.5% (n = 3) for DKT, p = 0.15). Graft function (eGFR) was better in recipients of DKT, though this did not reach significance at either one month (SKT 36.7 (19.3-63) mL/min/1.73m2 vs DKT 43.3 (26.5-67.7) mL/min/1.73m2; p=0.46) or 6 months (SKT 34.5 (26.8-58.9) vs DKT 50.8 (28.3-72.7); p=0.26). There were 2 primary non functions and 3 deaths in the SKT group (heart failure, sepsis, invasive aspergillosis), but none of either in the DKT group. Actuarial one-year graft and patient survivals were 92.6% and 88.6% SKT vs 100% and 100% DKT (p=0.44, p=0.37, respectively). Discussion: These early results demonstrate that the DCD donor pool can be expanded through careful selection of donors and recipients. Recipients of DKT from elderly DCD donors had similar outcomes to those receiving SKT, implying that our selection algorithms are adequate. Utilisation of organs from this source is an acceptable strategy to reduce the growing number of older patients waiting for renal transplantation.

Does Expanded Criteria Donor Status Modify the Outcomes of Kidney Transplantation From Donors After Cardiac Death?

Background/Aims: Ischemia reperfusion injury in the early posttransplant period affects immediate graft function and late allograft dysfunction. Recently, we showed that pharmacologic preconditioning with a calcineurin inhibitor improved transplant outcomes in rat syngeneic kidney transplantation. There is also evidence that cellular cholesterol content increases after many types of renal injury. Methods: In this study, we looked at the effect of cyclosporine (CsA) on the donor kidney free cholesterol (FC) content in this model. Donor rats were pretreated with one dose of CsA 10 mg/kg administered 24 h or 7 days before being subjected to 2 h cold ischemia and then transplanted. Results: Pharmacologic preconditioning with CsA significantly improved renal function and histology and increased donor kidney FC content. On the other hand, fluvastatin co-administration with CsA abrogated that beneficial effect in association with a decrease in donor kidney FC content. Conclusion: CsA preconditioning leads to better outcomes in kidney transplantation and is associated with up-regulation of renal FC content. The latter may then contribute to acquired cytoresistance, possibly by stabilizing the plasma membrane. Thus, use of statins around the time of transplantation may need to be evaluated until further studies are conducted to determine the clinical relevance of this observation.