Mao, Michael A.

Longer pre-transplant dialysis duration is known to be associated with worse post-transplant outcomes. Our study aimed to cluster kidney transplant recipients with prolonged dialysis duration before transplant using an unsupervised machine learning approach to better assess heterogeneity within this cohort. We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 5092 kidney transplant recipients who had been on dialysis ≥ 10 years prior to transplant in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We characterized each assigned cluster and compared the posttransplant outcomes. Overall, the majority of patients with ≥10 years of dialysis duration were black (52%) or Hispanic (25%), with only a small number (17.6%) being moderately sensitized. Within this cohort, three clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 patients were younger, non-diabetic and non-sensitized, had a lower body mass index (BMI) and received a kidney transplant from younger donors. Cluster 2 recipients were older, unsensitized and had a higher BMI; they received kidney transplant from older donors. Cluster 3 recipients were more likely to be female with a higher PRA. Compared to cluster 1, cluster 2 had lower 5-year death-censored graft (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.16–1.71) and patient survival (HR 2.98; 95% CI 2.43–3.68). Clusters 1 and 3 had comparable death-censored graft and patient survival. Unsupervised machine learning was used to characterize kidney transplant recipients with prolonged pre-transplant dialysis into three clinically distinct clusters with variable but good post-transplant outcomes. Despite a dialysis duration ≥ 10 years, excellent outcomes were observed in most recipients, including those with moderate sensitization. A disproportionate number of minority recipients were observed within this cohort, suggesting multifactorial delays in accessing kidney transplantation.

Background: Contrast-induced encephalopathy (CIE) is an infrequent but serious neurological condition that occurs shortly after the administration of contrast during endovascular and angiography procedures. Patients suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are considered to be at a higher risk of contrast medium neurotoxicity, due to the delayed elimination of the contrast medium. However, the occurrence and characteristics of CIE in CKD/ESKD patients have not been extensively investigated. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search, utilizing databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, up to September 2022. The purpose was to identify documented cases of CIE among patients with CKD or ESKD. Employing a random-effects model, we calculated the pooled incidence and odds ratio (OR) of CIE in CKD/ESKD patients. Results: Our search yielded a total of eleven articles, comprising nine case reports and two observational studies. Among these studies, 2 CKD patients and 12 ESKD patients with CIE were identified. The majority of the CKD/ESKD patients with CIE (93%) had undergone intra-arterial contrast media and/or endovascular procedures to diagnose acute cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and peripheral artery disease. The male-to-female ratio was 64%, and the median age was 63 years (with an interquartile range of 55 to 68 years). In the two observational studies, the incidence of CIE was found to be 6.8% in CKD patients and 37.5% in ESKD patients, resulting in a pooled incidence of 16.4% (95% CI, 2.4%–60.7%) among the CKD/ESKD patients. Notably, CKD and ESKD were significantly associated with an increased risk of CIE, with ORs of 5.77 (95% CI, 1.37–24.3) and 223.5 (95% CI, 30.44–1641.01), respectively. The overall pooled OR for CIE in CKD/ESKD patients was 32.9 (95% CI, 0.89–1226.44). Although dialysis prior to contrast exposure did not prevent CIE, approximately 92% of CIE cases experienced recovery after undergoing dialysis following contrast exposure. However, the effectiveness of dialysis on CIE recovery remained uncertain, as there was no control group for comparison. Conclusions: In summary, our study indicates an association between CIE and CKD/ESKD. While patients with CIE showed signs of recovery after dialysis, further investigations are necessary, especially considering the lack of a control group, which made the effects of dialysis on CIE recovery uncertain.

Limited data are available on the utilization of sodium thiosulfate (STS) treatment for calciphylaxis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, while it is well-studied in hemodialysis (HD) patients. A systematic literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EBM Reviews—Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify reported cases of PD patients with calciphylaxis who received STS. The search covered the inception of the databases through August 2022. Across 19 articles, this review identified 30 PD patients with calciphylaxis who received STS. These included 15 case reports, 2 case series, and 2 cohort studies. The administration routes and doses varied depending on the study. For intravenous (IV) administration (n = 18), STS doses ranged from 3.2 g twice daily to 25 g three times weekly for 5 weeks to 8 months. Outcomes included 44% of patients experiencing successful wound healing, 6% discontinuing STS due to adverse effects, 67% transitioning to HD, and 50% dying from calciphylaxis complications. For intraperitoneal (IP) administration (n = 5), STS doses ranged from 12.5 to 25 g three to four times weekly for 12 h to 3 months. Results showed 80% of patients achieving successful wound healing, 80% discontinuing STS due to adverse effects, 40% transitioning to HD, and 20% dying from IP STS-related chemical peritonitis. In cases where patients switched from IV to IP STS (n = 3), doses ranged from 12.5 to 25 g two to three times weekly for 2.5 to 5 months. Among them, 67% experienced successful wound healing, while 33% died from sepsis. Two cases utilized oral STS at a dose of 1500 mg twice daily for 6 and 11 months, resulting in successful wound healing without adverse effects or need for HD. However, one patient (50%) died due to small bowel obstruction. This systematic review provides an overview of STS treatment for PD patients with calciphylaxis. Although successful treatment cases exist, adverse effects were significant. Further research, including larger clinical studies and pharmacokinetic data, is necessary to establish the optimal route, dose, and efficacy of STS in PD patients.

Clinical outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplants coming from diabetic donors currently remain inconsistent, possibly due to high heterogeneities in this population. Our study aimed to cluster recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants using an unsupervised machine learning approach in order to identify subgroups with high risk of inferior outcomes and potential variables associated with these outcomes. Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7876 recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database. We determined the important characteristics of each assigned cluster and compared the post-transplant outcomes between the clusters. Consensus cluster analysis identified three clinically distinct clusters. Recipients in cluster 1 (n = 2903) were characterized by oldest age (64 ± 8 years), highest rate of comorbid diabetes mellitus (55%). They were more likely to receive kidney allografts from donors that were older (58 ± 6.3 years), had hypertension (89%), met expanded criteria donor (ECD) status (78%), had a high rate of cerebrovascular death (63%), and carried a high kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Recipients in cluster 2 (n = 687) were younger (49 ± 13 years) and all were re-transplant patients with higher panel reactive antibodies (PRA) (88 [IQR 46, 98]) who received kidneys from younger (44 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (88%) with low numbers of HLA mismatch (4 [IQR 2, 5]). The cluster 3 cohort was characterized by first-time kidney transplant recipients (100%) who received kidney allografts from younger (42 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (98%). Compared to cluster 3, cluster 1 had higher incidence of primary non-function, delayed graft function, patient death and death-censored graft failure, whereas cluster 2 had higher incidence of delayed graft function and death-censored graft failure but comparable primary non-function and patient death. An unsupervised machine learning approach characterized diabetic donor kidney transplant patients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing outcomes. Our data highlight opportunities to improve utilization of high KDPI kidneys coming from diabetic donors in recipients with survival-limiting comorbidities such as those observed in cluster 1.

Abstract Background and Aims Individuals who are most susceptible to developing PTLD are those who are EBV-negative and receive organs from EBV-positive donors (EBV R-/D+). The evidence regarding the connection between ATG induction therapy and PTLD is inconsistent. No studies have specifically examined the relationship between ATG use and PTLD in subgroups of EBV-negative transplant recipients (EBV R-). Using the UNOS database, we studied the association between the use of induction agents and PTLD in EBV R- patients. Method We analyzed data from 2007 to 2022 of EBV R- patients who underwent their first kidney-only transplant and excluded those who received induction agents other than ATG, basiliximab, or alemtuzumab. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association between induction agents and PTLD. Results Of 20,531 recipients, 50.7% received ATG, 19.13% received basiliximab, 13.42% received alemtuzumab, and 16.75% received no induction. The overall PTLD incidence was 2.14%. ATG recipients had higher rates of deceased donor transplants, higher degree of HLA mismatch, longer dialysis vintage, and were less likely to be white, compared to non-ATG recipients. Multivariate analysis showed ATG recipients had a higher risk of PTLD compared to non-ATG (odds ratio = 1.47, p<0.001). After excluding recipients who did not receive induction, ATG remained a significant independent risk factor for PTLD when compared to recipients who received either basiliximab or alemtuzumab (odds ratio = 1.35, p = 0.007). There was no statistically significant difference in PTLD risk among patients treated with basiliximab, alemtuzumab, or no induction (refer to Table 1). Conclusion The use of ATG induction in EBV-negative kidney transplant recipients is associated with a higher risk of PTLD compared to basiliximab, alemtuzumab, and no induction. The risk of PTLD should be considered when choosing induction therapy for this patient population.

Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) ≥ 98% using an unsupervised machine learning approach as clinical outcomes for this population are inferior, despite receiving increased allocation priority. Identifying subgroups with higher risks for inferior outcomes is essential to guide individualized management strategies for these vulnerable recipients. Materials and Methods: To achieve this, we analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2010 to 2019 and performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7458 kidney transplant patients with pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98%. The key characteristics of each cluster were identified by calculating the standardized mean difference. The post-transplant outcomes were compared between the assigned clusters. Results: We identified two distinct clusters and compared the post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 years), male predominant, and more likely to have previously undergone a kidney transplant, but had less diabetic kidney disease. Cluster 2 recipients were older (median 54 years), female predominant, and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant. While patient survival was comparable between the two clusters, cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and higher acute rejection compared to cluster 2. Conclusions: The unsupervised machine learning approach categorized very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients into two clinically distinct clusters with differing post-transplant outcomes. A better understanding of these clinically distinct subgroups may assist the transplant community in developing individualized care strategies and improving the outcomes for very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients.

Background: Better understanding of the different phenotypes/subgroups of non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients may help the transplant community to identify strategies that improve outcomes among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients. This study aimed to cluster non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach; Methods: We conducted a consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant- related characteristics in non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database using recipient, donor, and transplant-related characteristics. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes were compared among the clusters; Results: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 11,300 non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients and identified two distinct clusters best representing clinical characteristics. Cluster 1 patients were notable for young age, preemptive kidney transplant or dialysis duration of less than 1 year, working income, private insurance, non-hypertensive donors, and Hispanic living donors with a low number of HLA mismatch. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were characterized by non-ECD deceased donors with KDPI <85%. Consequently, cluster 1 patients had reduced cold ischemia time, lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys, and lower incidence of delayed graft function after kidney transplant. Cluster 2 had higher 5-year death-censored graft failure (5.2% vs. 9.8%; p < 0.001), patient death (3.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001), but similar one-year acute rejection (4.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.63), compared to cluster 1; Conclusions: Machine learning clustering approach successfully identified two clusters among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients with distinct phenotypes that were associated with different outcomes, including allograft loss and patient survival. These findings underscore the need for individualized care for non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients.

AbstractBackgroundOur study aimed to characterize kidney retransplant recipients using an unsupervised machine‐learning approach.MethodsWe performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient‐, donor‐, and transplant‐related characteristics in 17 443 kidney retransplant recipients in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We identified each cluster's key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes, including death‐censored graft failure and patient death among the assigned clustersResultsConsensus cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters of kidney retransplant recipients. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and were less sensitized. They were most likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant and more likely to be preemptive (30%) or need ≤1 year of dialysis (32%). In contrast, cluster 2 recipients were the most sensitized (median PRA 95%). They were more likely to have been on dialysis >1 year, and receive a nationally allocated, low HLA mismatch, standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be minorities (37% Black; 15% Hispanic). They were moderately sensitized with a median PRA of 87% and were also most likely to have been on dialysis >1 year. They received locally allocated high HLA mismatch kidneys from standard KDPI deceased donors. Thymoglobulin was the most commonly used induction agent for all three clusters. Cluster 1 had the most favorable patient and graft survival, while cluster 3 had the worst patient and graft survival.ConclusionThe use of an unsupervised machine learning approach characterized kidney retransplant recipients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes. Recipients with moderate allosensitization, such as those represented in cluster 3, are perhaps more disadvantaged in the kidney retransplantation process. Potential opportunities for improvement specific to these re‐transplant recipients include working to improve opportunities to improve access to living donor kidney transplantation, living donor paired exchange and identifying strategies for better HLA matching.

Patients with IgA nephropathy (IgAN), including Henoch-Schönlein purpura nephritis (HSP), who present with rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis (RPGN) have a poor prognosis despite aggressive immunosuppressive therapy. The utility of plasmapheresis/plasma exchange (PLEX) for IgAN/HSP is not well established. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of PLEX for IgAN and HSP patients with RPGN. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and through Cochrane Database from inception through September 2022. Studies that reported outcomes of PLEX in IgAN or HSP patients with RPGN were enrolled. The protocol for this systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022356411). The researchers systematically reviewed 38 articles (29 case reports and 9 case series articles) with a total of 102 RPGN patients (64 (62.8%) had IgAN and 38 (37.2%) had HSP). The mean age was 25 years and 69% were males. There was no specific PLEX regimen utilized in these studies, but most patients received at least 3 PLEX sessions that were titrated based on the patient’s response/kidney recovery. The number of PLEX sessions ranged from 3 to 18, and patients additionally received steroids and immunosuppressive treatment (61.6% of patients received cyclophosphamide). Follow-up time ranged from 1 to 120 months, with the majority being followed for at least 2 months after PLEX. Among IgAN patients treated with PLEX, 42.1% (n = 27/64) achieved remission; 20.3% (n = 13/64) achieved complete remission (CR) and 18.7% (n = 12/64) partial remission (PR). 60.9% (n = 39/64) progressed to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Among HSP patients treated with PLEX, 76.3% (n = 29/38) achieved remission; of these, 68.4% (n = 26/38) achieved CR and 7.8% achieved (n = 3/38) PR. 23.6% (n = 9/38) progressed to ESKD. Among kidney transplant patients, 20% (n = 1/5) achieved remission and 80% (n = 4/5) progressed to ESKD. Adjunctive plasmapheresis/plasma exchange with immunosuppressive therapy showed benefits in some HSP patients with RPGN and possible benefits in IgAN patients with RPGN. Future prospective, multi-center, randomized clinical studies are needed to corroborate this systematic review’s findings.