Dunn, Ty B

Background. Pancreas transplantation (PT), historically limited to patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), is currently performed successfully in selected patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, contemporary practice patterns and eligibility criteria for PT in T2D remain incompletely characterized. Methods. The International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association Pancreas Transplant Interest Group developed an electronic survey to assess center-level approaches to patient phenotyping, candidacy, and peri- and posttransplant management for PT in patients with T2D. The survey was distributed to international transplant professionals during an International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association Pre-Congress meeting on June 15, 2025. Results. Thirty-seven participants completed the survey. Most respondents’ programs offer PT for T2D only when a kidney transplant is also indicated. Fewer respondents’ programs also offer PT alone (10%), evaluate T2D candidates on a case-by-case basis (3%), or do not offer PT to patients with T2D (10%). Total daily insulin requirement and body mass index (BMI) were the most selected factors in determining eligibility. Considerable variability existed in metabolic thresholds: 62% of programs reported no C-peptide cutoff, whereas nearly half required a BMI of <30 kg/m 2 for C-peptide-positive candidates. Respondents frequently recommend weight-optimization strategies, including lifestyle modification, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and bariatric surgery for candidates exceeding acceptable BMI thresholds. Surgical technique, induction, and maintenance immunosuppression and early posttransplant glycemic management were largely uniform between T2D and T1D recipients. Conclusions. International practice reflects broad but heterogeneous adoption of PT for T2D, with most participants restricting its use to candidates requiring kidney transplantation and emphasizing integrated clinical phenotyping approaches.

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.

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.