Cooper, Matthew

Background. There is no standard definition for “HLA incompatible” transplants. For the first time, we systematically assessed how HLA incompatibility was defined in contemporary peer-reviewed publications and its prognostic implication to transplant outcomes. Methods. We combined 2 independent searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2015 to 2019. Content-expert reviewers screened for original research on outcomes of HLA-incompatible transplants (defined as allele or molecular mismatch and solid-phase or cell-based assays). We ascertained the completeness of reporting on a predefined set of variables assessing HLA incompatibility, therapies, and outcomes. Given significant heterogeneity, we conducted narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias in studies examining the association between death-censored graft failure and HLA incompatibility. Results. Of 6656 screened articles, 163 evaluated transplant outcomes by HLA incompatibility. Most articles reported on cytotoxic/flow T-cell crossmatches (n = 98). Molecular genotypes were reported for selected loci at the allele-group level. Sixteen articles reported on epitope compatibility. Pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies were often considered (n = 143); yet there was heterogeneity in sample handling, assay procedure, and incomplete reporting on donor-specific HLA antibodies assignment. Induction (n = 129) and maintenance immunosuppression (n = 140) were frequently mentioned but less so rejection treatment (n = 72) and desensitization (n = 70). Studies assessing death-censored graft failure risk by HLA incompatibility were vulnerable to bias in the participant, predictor, and analysis domains. Conclusions. Optimization of transplant outcomes and personalized care depends on accurate HLA compatibility assessment. Reporting on a standard set of variables will help assess generalizability of research, allow knowledge synthesis, and facilitate international collaboration in clinical trials.

Background: This study aimed to better characterize morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes by using an unsupervised machine learning approach. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was applied to OPTN/UNOS data from 2010 to 2019 based on recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics in kidney transplant recipients with a pre-transplant BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. Key cluster characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection, were compared among the clusters. Results: Consensus clustering analysis identified 3204 kidney transplant recipients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. In this cohort, five clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and non-sensitized, had a short dialysis time or were preemptive, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 2 recipients were older and diabetic. They were likely to have been on dialysis >3 years and receive a standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Cluster 3 recipients were young, black, and had kidney disease secondary to hypertension or glomerular disease. Cluster 3 recipients had >3 years of dialysis and received non-ECD, young, deceased donor kidney transplants with a KDPI < 85%. Cluster 4 recipients were diabetic with variable dialysis duration who either received non-ECD standard KDPI kidneys or living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 5 recipients were young retransplants that were sensitized. One-year patient survival in clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 98.0%, 94.4%, 98.5%, 98.7%, and 97%, and one-year death-censored graft survival was 98.1%, 93.0%, 96.1%, 98.8%, and 93.0%, respectively. Cluster 2 had the worst one-year patient survival. Clusters 2 and 5 had the worst one-year death-censored graft survival. Conclusions: With the application of unsupervised machine learning, variable post-transplant outcomes are observed among morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients. Recipients with earlier access to transplant and living donation show superior outcomes. Unexpectedly, reduced graft survival in cluster 3 recipients perhaps underscores socioeconomic access to post-transplant support and minorities being disadvantaged in access to preemptive and living donor transplants. Despite obesity-related concerns, one-year patient and graft survival were favorable in all clusters, and obesity itself should be reconsidered as a hard barrier to kidney transplantation.

Background: There have been concerns regarding increased perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, and rates of graft loss in kidney transplant recipients with functional limitations. The application of machine learning consensus clustering approach may provide a novel understanding of unique phenotypes of functionally limited kidney transplant recipients with distinct outcomes in order to identify strategies to improve outcomes. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 3205 functionally limited kidney transplant recipients (Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) < 40% at transplant) in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Posttransplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection were compared among the clusters Results: Consensus cluster analysis identified two distinct clusters that best represented the clinical characteristics of kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status prior to transplant. Cluster 1 patients were older in age and were more likely to receive deceased donor kidney transplant with a higher number of HLA mismatches. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were younger, had shorter dialysis duration, were more likely to be retransplants, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants from HLA mismatched donors. As such, cluster 2 recipients had a higher PRA, less cold ischemia time, and lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys. Despite having a low KPS, 5-year patient survival was 79.1 and 83.9% for clusters 1 and 2; 5-year death-censored graft survival was 86.9 and 91.9%. Cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and patient survival but higher acute rejection, compared to cluster 2. Conclusion: Our study used an unsupervised machine learning approach to characterize kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status into two clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes.

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: Lower patient survival has been observed in sickle cell disease (SCD) patients who go on to receive a kidney transplant. This study aimed to assess the post-transplant outcomes of SCD kidney transplant recipients in the contemporary era. Methods: We used the OPTN/UNOS database to identify first-time kidney transplant recipients from 2010 through 2019. We compared patient and allograft survival between recipients with SCD (n = 105) vs. all other diagnoses (non-SCD, n = 146,325) as the reported cause of end-stage kidney disease. We examined whether post-transplant outcomes improved among SCD in the recent era (2010–2019), compared to the early era (2000–2009). Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, SCD was significantly associated with lower patient survival (HR 2.87; 95% CI 1.75–4.68) and death-censored graft survival (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.30–3.01), compared to non-SCD recipients. The lower patient survival and death-censored graft survival in SCD recipients were consistently observed in comparison to outcomes of recipients with diabetes, glomerular disease, and hypertension as the cause of end-stage kidney disease. There was no significant difference in death censored graft survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.51–1.73, p = 0.98) and patient survival (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.50–1.74, p = 0.82) of SCD recipients in the recent versus early era. Conclusions: Patient and allograft survival in SCD kidney recipients were worse than recipients with other diagnoses. Overall SCD patient and allograft outcomes in the recent era did not improve from the early era. The findings of our study should not discourage kidney transplantation for ESKD patients with SCD due to a known survival benefit of transplantation compared with remaining on dialysis. Urgent future studies are needed to identify strategies to improve patient and allograft survival in SCD kidney recipients. In addition, it may be reasonable to assign risk adjustment for SCD patients.

Background. Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. Methods. We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. Results. After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. Conclusions. Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.