Citations

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.

ABSTRACT Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are susceptible to risk‐taking behaviors that peak during transfer from pediatric to adult healthcare, resulting in poorer outcomes. Professional guidelines support healthcare transition (HCT) practices to mitigate this risk; however, HCT perspectives and practices among providers, especially adult providers caring for KTR in the US, have not been widely studied. Methods An online survey of American Society of Transplantation (AST) members was conducted targeting both adult providers (AP) and pediatric providers (PP). Results The survey was completed by 135 respondents (predominantly US), including 61 PP and 74 AP. US respondents who disclosed their center ID represented 30% of all programs. Providers agreed that HCT was important (PP 97%, AP 94%) and a shared responsibility (PP 91% and AP 84%). Respondents to our survey frequently worked within transition programs (PP 70% vs. AP 48%), but the majority did not have a formal HCT policy to guide them (PP 43%, AP 21%). Multidisciplinary transition clinics were rare (PP 27%, AP 23%). Only 64% of PP included targeted HCT education either as part of a routine visit or a HCT session. Perceived barriers to providing HCT interventions were similar in both groups, including a lack of provider resources, outcomes tracking, provider communication, and patient/caregiver feedback. Conclusion Providers recognize the importance of HCT and the joint responsibility of PP and AP but have difficulty following best practices. A multipronged approach will be necessary to address barriers. Our survey reminds us of the gap that persists in providing AYAs with a seamless transfer from pediatric to adult care.

Background. Pancreas transplant biopsy practices for the diagnosis of rejection or other pathologies are not well described. Methods. We conducted a survey of staff at US pancreas transplant programs (March 22, 2022, to August 22, 2022) to assess current program practices and perceptions about the utility and challenges in the performance and interpretation of pancreas allograft biopsies. Results. Respondents represented 65% (76/117) of active adult pancreas transplant programs, capturing 66% of recent pancreas transplant volume in the United States. Participants were most often nephrologists (52%), followed by surgeons (46%), and other staff (4%). Pancreas allograft biopsies were performed mostly by interventional radiologists (74%), followed by surgeons (11%), nephrologists (8%), and gastroenterologists (1%). Limitations in the radiologist’s or biopsy performer’s comfort level or expertise to safely perform a biopsy, or to obtain sufficient/adequate samples were the two most common challenges with pancreas transplant biopsies. Pancreas transplant biopsies were read by local pathologists at a majority (86%) of centers. Challenges reported with pancreas biopsy interpretation included poor reliability, lack of reporting of C4d staining, lack of reporting of rejection grading, and inconclusive interpretation of the biopsy. Staff at a third of responding programs (34%) stated that they rarely or never perform pancreas allograft biopsies and treat presumed rejection empirically. Conclusions. This national survey identified significant variation in clinical practices related to pancreas allograft biopsies and potential barriers to pancreas transplant utilization across the United States. Consideration of strategies to improve program experience with percutaneous pancreas biopsy and to support optimal management of pancreas allograft rejection informed by histology is warranted.

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.

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.