Deng, Yanhong

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe diagnosis of antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR) requires input from several transplant professionals. Bringing clinical and laboratory experts together may help standardize care. Yet, little is known about current global practices of multidisciplinary meetings for AMR management.MethodsThe Banff Antibody‐Mediated Injury Working Group approached professional societies worldwide to distribute a survey on the availability, content, participants, perceived value, and barriers to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings.ResultsFour hundred two transplant professionals from six continents caring for kidney (90.55%), liver (21.14%), pancreas (20.65%), heart (15.17%), and lung (14.18%) transplant recipients participated in the survey, and 302 (75.12%) reported attending multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary meetings were more prevalent in academic centers, in high‐ versus low‐to‐middle‐income regions (81.03% and 65.99%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in mid‐to‐large size transplant programs compared to smaller programs. Perceived value included continued professional development (97.68%) and trainee education (95.70%). AMR was reported to be discussed at these meetings by 217 respondents with case presentations reviewing patient characteristics, histology, and HLA antibody data. A third of the respondents reviewed non‐HLA/pathogenic autoantibodies and/or molecular diagnostics, with the latter being more frequently applied in high‐ versus low‐to‐middle‐income regions (46.71% and 12.31%, respectively; p < 0.001). AMR case presentations allowed diagnosis revision, actionable management plans and were perceived as improving care. The primary barrier to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings (63.27%) was the unavailability of transplant professionals (e.g., transplant immunologists).ConclusionFacilitating multidisciplinary meetings through the remote participation of pertinent experts and incentivizing participation through remuneration, protected time, or continued medical education may help standardize AMR diagnosis and harmonize its management.

Background Associations between depression, incident heart failure (HF), and mortality are well documented in predominately White samples. Yet, there are sparse data from racial minorities, including those who are women, and depression is underrecognized and undertreated in the Black population. Thus, we examined associations between baseline depressive symptoms, incident HF, and all‐cause mortality across 10 years. Methods and Results We included Jackson Heart Study (JHS) participants with no history of HF at baseline (n=2651; 63.9% women; median age, 53 years). Cox proportional hazards models tested if the risk of incident HF or mortality differed by clinically significant depressive symptoms at baseline (Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scores ≥16 versus <16). Models were conducted in the full sample and by sex, with hierarchical adjustment for demographics, HF risk factors, and lifestyle factors. Overall, 538 adults (20.3%) reported high depressive symptoms (71.0% were women), and there were 181 cases of HF (cumulative incidence, 0.06%). In the unadjusted model, individuals with high depressive symptoms had a 43% greater risk of HF ( P =0.035). The association remained with demographic and HF risk factors but was attenuated by lifestyle factors. All‐cause mortality was similar regardless of depressive symptoms. By sex, the unadjusted association between depressive symptoms and HF remained for women only ( P =0.039). The fully adjusted model showed a 53% greater risk of HF for women with high depressive symptoms ( P =0.043). Conclusions Among Black adults, there were sex‐specific associations between depressive symptoms and incident HF, with greater risk among women. Sex‐specific management of depression may be needed to improve cardiovascular outcomes.