Jackson, Scott

AbstractBackgroundThe HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) act afforded transplantation of organs from donors who have HIV. Herein we compared the long‐term outcomes of recipients with HIV by donor HIV testing status.MethodsUsing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified all primary adult kidney transplant recipients who were HIV‐positive between 1/1/16‐12/31/21. Recipients were grouped into three cohorts according to the donor HIV status based on antibody (Ab) and nucleic acid testing (NAT): Donor Ab−/NAT− (n = 810), Donor Ab+ /NAT− (n = 98), and Donor Ab+/NAT+ (n = 90). We compared recipient and death‐censored graft survival (DCGS) by donor HIV testing status using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression, censored at 3 years posttransplant. Secondary outcomes were delayed graft function (DGF) and the following 1‐year outcomes: acute rejection, re‐hospitalization, and serum creatinine.ResultsIn Kaplan–Meier analyses, patient survival and DCGS were similar by donor HIV status (log rank p = .667; log rank p = .388). DGF occurred more frequently in donors with HIV Ab−/NAT− testing compared with Ab+/NAT− or Ab+/NAT+ testing (38.0% vs. 28.6% vs. 26.7%, p = .028). Average dialysis time before transplant was twice as long for recipients who received organs from donors with Ab−/NAT− testing (p < .001). Acute rejection, re‐hospitalization and serum creatinine at 12 months did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsPatient and allograft survival for recipients living with HIV remains comparable irrespective of donor HIV testing status. Utilizing kidneys from deceased donors with HIV Ab+/NAT− or Ab+/NAT+ testing shortens dialysis time prior to transplant. image

Background. Long-term outcome data by induction type in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) is limited. Methods. Utilizing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we examined all primary SPK transplants between 2000 and 2020, excluding crossmatch-positive recipients. We grouped recipients according to induction regimen into 3 groups: rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (r-ATG) (n = 5678), alemtuzumab (n = 1199), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2RA; n = 1593). We analyzed the 10-y recipient and composite (kidney and pancreas) graft survival using the Kaplan-Meier survival function. Cox-proportion hazard models were generated to examine the association between induction type, the 10-y recipient, and graft survival. Models were adjusted for recipient age, sex, ethnicity, HLA-mismatch, diabetes type, dialysis dependency, cold-ischemia time, local versus imported organs, panel reactive antibody, steroid maintenance, and Pancreas Donor Risk Index. Results. r-ATG was associated with the lowest 1-y kidney and pancreas rejection rates compared with other agents (P < 0.001). In the univariable analysis, induction type was not associated with recipient (log-rank P = 0.11) or graft survival (log-rank P = 0.36). In the multivariable model for the composite graft survival, alemtuzumab use was associated with 22% increased kidney or pancreas graft loss compared with r-ATG (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.42), whereas IL-2RA use was not a predictor of graft survival. Induction type did not influence recipient survival in the adjusted model. Conclusions. r-ATG use was associated with the lowest SPK rejection rates. Compared with r-ATG, alemtuzumab but not IL-2RA was associated with worse long-term death-censored SPK graft outcome. Our analysis supports the common use of r-ATG for induction in US primary SPK recipients.

Background. Induction choices for kidney-after-heart transplant recipients are variable. We examined the impact of kidney induction types on kidney graft and patient survival in heart transplant recipients. Methods. We analyzed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient database from inception through the end of 2018 to study kidney and patient outcomes in the United States after heart transplantation. We only included recipients who were discharged on tacrolimus and mycophenolate maintenance. We grouped recipients by induction type into 3 groups: depletional (N = 307), nondepletional (n = 253), and no-induction (steroid only) (n = 57). We studied patients and kidney survival using Cox PH regression, with transplant centers included as a random effect. We adjusted the models for heart induction, recipient and donor age, gender, time between heart and kidney transplant, heart transplant indication, HLA mismatches, payor, live-donor kidney, transplant year, dialysis status, and diabetes mellitus at the time of kidney transplant. Results. The 1-y kidney rejection rates and creatinine levels were similar in all groups. The 1-y rehospitalization rate was higher in the depletional group (51.7%) and nondepletional group (50.7%) than in the no-induction group (39.1%) although this was not statistically significant. There were no differences in recipient or kidney survival by kidney induction type. Live-donor kidney was associated with improved patient (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.0; P = 0.05) and kidney survival (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.84; P = 0.012]. Conclusions. Type of kidney induction did not influence patient or kidney graft survival in heart transplant recipients. No-induction may be the preferred choice due to the lack of clinical benefits associated with induction use.