Basu, Arpita

ABSTRACT Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are susceptible to risk‐taking behaviors that peak during transfer from pediatric to adult healthcare, resulting in poorer outcomes. Professional guidelines support healthcare transition (HCT) practices to mitigate this risk; however, HCT perspectives and practices among providers, especially adult providers caring for KTR in the US, have not been widely studied. Methods An online survey of American Society of Transplantation (AST) members was conducted targeting both adult providers (AP) and pediatric providers (PP). Results The survey was completed by 135 respondents (predominantly US), including 61 PP and 74 AP. US respondents who disclosed their center ID represented 30% of all programs. Providers agreed that HCT was important (PP 97%, AP 94%) and a shared responsibility (PP 91% and AP 84%). Respondents to our survey frequently worked within transition programs (PP 70% vs. AP 48%), but the majority did not have a formal HCT policy to guide them (PP 43%, AP 21%). Multidisciplinary transition clinics were rare (PP 27%, AP 23%). Only 64% of PP included targeted HCT education either as part of a routine visit or a HCT session. Perceived barriers to providing HCT interventions were similar in both groups, including a lack of provider resources, outcomes tracking, provider communication, and patient/caregiver feedback. Conclusion Providers recognize the importance of HCT and the joint responsibility of PP and AP but have difficulty following best practices. A multipronged approach will be necessary to address barriers. Our survey reminds us of the gap that persists in providing AYAs with a seamless transfer from pediatric to adult care.

AbstractWell‐selected patients with kidney disease and diabetes mellitus who undergo simultaneous kidney‐pancreas transplantation often experience dramatic improvements in quality of life and long‐term survival compared to those who remain on medical therapy. Over the past several years the importance of frailty in the pancreas transplant candidate and recipient populations has grown. More patients with advanced age have entered the waitlist, and complications from prolonged diabetes, even in younger patients, have created increased evidence of risk for frailty. Given these concerns, and the broad challenges facing pancreas transplantation volumes overall, we generated this review to help establish the impact and implications. We summarize the interplay of immunological factors, aging, environmental factors, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease that put these patients at risk for frailty. We discuss its measurement and recommend a combination of two instruments (both well‐validated and one entirely objective). We describe the outcomes for patients before and after pancreas transplantation who may have frailty, and what interventions can be taken to mitigate its effects. Broader investigation into frailty in the pancreas transplant population is needed to better understand how to select patients for pancreas transplantation and to how manage its consequences thereafter.

AbstractBackgroundDue to a substantial decline in pancreas transplantation (PT) across the United States over the past 15 years, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices of US PT programs.MethodsSurveys were sent to members of the American Society of Transplantation Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation by email and professional society postings between August 2019 and November 2019.ResultsOne hundred twenty three responses were recorded from 56 unique programs. Program characteristics were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Respondents were transplant surgeons (71%), transplant nephrologists (17%), trainees (9%), and allied professionals (3%). Programs were defined according to annual volume as: low (<5 PT/year), intermediate (6–20), or high (>20). High‐volume programs reported that these factors were most important for increased PT: expansion of recipient selection, more aggressive donor utilization, and hiring of PT program‐specific personnel. At both the program and national level, the vast majority (82% and 79%, respectively) felt the number of PTs currently performed are not in balance with patients' needs.ConclusionsOverall, programs reported that the option of PT is not offered adequately to diabetic patients and that strategies to maintain higher PT volume are most evident at intermediate, and especially, high‐volume programs.

Background: Fabry disease (FD) is a rare X-linked lysosomal storage disorder with progressive systemic deposition of globotriaosylceramide, leading to life-threatening cardiac, central nervous system, and kidney disease. Current therapy involves symptomatic medical management, enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), dialysis, kidney transplantation, and, more recently, gene therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to assess outcomes of kidney transplantation among patients with FD. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database, from inception through to 28 February 2020, to identify studies that evaluate outcomes of kidney transplantation including patient and allograft survival among kidney transplant patients with FD. Effect estimates from each study were extracted and combined using the random-effects generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. Results: In total, 11 studies, including 424 kidney transplant recipients with FD, were enrolled. The post-transplant median follow-up time ranged from 3 to 11.5 years. Overall, the pooled estimated rates of all-cause graft failure, graft failure before death, and allograft rejection were 32.5% (95%CI: 23.9%–42.5%), 14.5% (95%CI: 8.4%–23.7%), and 20.2% (95%CI: 15.4%–25.9%), respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, limited only to the recent studies (year 2001 or newer when ERT became available), the pooled estimated rates of all-cause graft failure, graft failure before death, and allograft rejection were 28.1% (95%CI: 20.5%–37.3%), 11.7% (95%CI: 8.4%–16.0%), and 20.2% (95%CI: 15.5%–26.0%), respectively. The pooled estimated rate of biopsy proven FD recurrence was 11.1% (95%CI: 3.6%–29.4%), respectively. There are no significant differences in the risks of all-cause graft failure (p = 0.10) or mortality (0.48) among recipients with vs. without FD. Conclusions: Despite possible FD recurrence after transplantation of 11.1%, allograft and patient survival are comparable among kidney transplant recipients with vs. without FD.

Background: C3 glomerulopathy (C3G), a rare glomerular disease mediated by alternative complement pathway dysregulation, is associated with a high rate of recurrence and graft loss after kidney transplantation (KTx). We aimed to assess the efficacy of different treatments for C3G recurrence after KTx. Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database) were searched from inception through 3 May, 2019. Studies were included that reported outcomes of adult KTx recipients with C3G. Effect estimates from individual studies were combined using the random-effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird., The protocol for this meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42019125718). Results: Twelve studies (7 cohort studies and 5 case series) consisting of 122 KTx patients with C3G (73 C3 glomerulonephritis (C3GN) and 49 dense deposit disease (DDD)) were included. The pooled estimated rates of allograft loss among KTx patients with C3G were 33% (95% CI: 12–57%) after eculizumab, 42% (95% CI: 2–89%) after therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), and 81% (95% CI: 50–100%) after rituximab. Subgroup analysis based on type of C3G was performed. Pooled estimated rates of allograft loss in C3GN KTx patients were 22% (95% CI: 5–46%) after eculizumab, 56% (95% CI: 6–100%) after TPE, and 70% (95% CI: 24–100%) after rituximab. Pooled estimated rates of allograft loss in DDD KTx patients were 53% (95% CI: 0–100%) after eculizumab. Data on allograft loss in DDD after TPE (1 case series, 0/2 (0%) allograft loss at 6 months) and rituximab (1 cohort, 3/3 (100%) allograft loss) were limited. Among 66 patients (38 C3GN, 28 DDD) who received no treatment (due to stable allograft function at presentation and/or clinical judgment of physicians), pooled estimated rates of allograft loss were 32% (95% CI: 7–64%) and 53% (95% CI: 28–77%) for C3GN and DDD, respectively. Among treated C3G patients, data on soluble membrane attack complex of complement (sMAC) were limited to patients treated with eculizumab (N = 7). 80% of patients with elevated sMAC before eculizumab responded to treatment. In addition, all patients who responded to eculizumab had normal sMAC levels after post-eculizumab. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the lowest incidence of allograft loss (33%) among KTX patients with C3G are those treated with eculizumab. Among those who received no treatment for C3G due to stable allograft function, there is a high incidence of allograft loss of 32% in C3GN and 53% in DDD. sMAC level may help to select good responders to eculizumab.

Background. We examined the 10-year experience of Mayo Clinic's kidney paired donation (KPD).We aimed to determine the benefits for the recipients of enrolled ABO/HLA compatible pairs and determine the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time. Methods. We performed a retrospective study of 332 kidney transplants facilitated by the Mayo 3-site KPD program from September 2007 to June 2018. Results. The median (interquartile range) time from KPD entry to transplantation was 89 days (42-187 days). The factors independently associated with receiving a transplant >3 months after KPD entry included recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies ≥98%. Fifty-four ABO/HLA compatible pairs participated in KPD for the following reasons: cytomegalovirus mismatch (18.5% [10/54]), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mismatch (EBV) (9.3% [5/54]), age/size mismatch (51.9% [28/54]), or altruistic reasons (20.3% [11/54]). Cytomegalovirus and EBV mismatch were avoided in 90% (9/10) and 100% (5/5) of cases. Recipients who entered KPD for age/size mismatch and altruistic reasons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual donor (median [interquartile range] 31.5 [12.3-47]; P < 0.001 and 26 (-1 to 46); P = 0.01 points lower, respectively). Median time to transplant from KPD entry for compatible pair recipients was 70 days (41-163 days), and 44.4% (24/54) of these transplants were preemptive. All chains/swaps incorporating compatible pairs included ABO/HLA incompatible pairs. Conclusions. KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of these pairs can derive personal benefit from KPD while increasing the donor pool for difficult to match pairs.