Citations

Renal dysfunction is highly prevalent among patients with cirrhosis and has major implications for management, prognostication, and liver transplant decision-making. Both acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) occur frequently in this population and are driven by a complex interplay of hemodynamic derangements, systemic inflammation, and intrinsic or functional renal injury. Accurate assessment of kidney function is essential, as serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculations directly influence MELD-based transplant allocation, eligibility for simultaneous liver–kidney transplantation (SLKT), and clinical decisions such as drug dosing and peri-transplant immunosuppression strategies. However, creatinine-based assessments are fundamentally limited in cirrhosis due to reduced creatinine production, sarcopenia, expanded volume of distribution, increased tubular secretion, and assay interference from hyperbilirubinemia, resulting in frequent overestimation of true GFR. Alternative methods, including cystatin C-based equations, combined creatinine–cystatin C equations, timed urine clearances, and direct GFR measurement using exogenous filtration markers (iohexol, iothalamate), offer potential advantages but also carry important limitations, particularly in decompensated disease with ascites or inflammation. Newer cirrhosis-specific eGFR equations such as the GRAIL and Royal Free Hospital formulas attempt to address these shortcomings, yet validation studies demonstrate inconsistent accuracy across patient cohorts. This review summarizes the pathophysiologic contributors to renal dysfunction in cirrhosis, evaluates the performance and pitfalls of existing kidney function assessment tools, and highlights the ongoing need for reliable, validated methods tailored to this unique population. Until improved approaches are widely accessible, serum creatinine remains the most practical—albeit imperfect—marker guiding clinical decision-making in cirrhotic patients.

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe incidence of mortality late in the pandemic, particularly after widespread vaccine availability, is not well understood. Herein, we elucidate the effect of this impact of the COVID pandemic as well as risk factors for mortality during it.MethodsThe primary end point was death with a functioning graft with secondary endpoints of mortality rates in subgroups and at different time intervals during the pandemic.ResultsDespite widespread vaccination, mortality rates for kidney transplant (KTx) recipients almost doubled during the COVID‐19 era (6.40 deaths per 100 person years vs. 3.54 pre‐COVID). Mortality increased in all racial/ethnic groups but increased more in Native Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans compared to non‐Hispanic Caucasians. The highest mortality rate occurred during the Delta and Omicron time frames. In contrast to the general population, mortality was more evenly spread across age groups in KTx recipients.ConclusionsMortality rates during the COVID‐19 era were extremely high, more than doubling in some racial/ethnic groups. We conclude that the KTx population was a particularly vulnerable group during the COVID‐19 era and suggests the need for further research into the management of variants in the future.

AbstractBackgroundThe aim of this study was to correlate peripheral blood gene expression profile (GEP) results during the first post‐transplant year with outcomes after kidney transplantation.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, multicenter observational study of obtaining peripheral blood at five timepoints during the first post‐transplant year to perform a GEP assay. The cohort was stratified based on the pattern of the peripheral blood GEP results: Tx‐all GEP results normal, 1 Not‐TX had one GEP result abnormal and >1 Not‐TX two or more abnormal GEP results. We correlated the GEP results with outcomes after transplantation.ResultsWe enrolled 240 kidney transplant recipients. The cohort was stratified into the three groups: TX n = 117 (47%), 1 Not‐TX n = 59 (25%) and >1 Not‐TX n = 64 (27%). Compared to the TX group, the >1 Not‐TX group had lower eGFR (p < .001) and more chronic changes on 1‐year surveillance biopsy (p = .007). Death censored graft survival showed inferior graft survival in the >1 Not‐TX group (p < .001) but not in the 1 Not‐TX group. All graft losses in the >1 Not‐TX group occurred after 1‐year post‐transplant.ConclusionsWe conclude that a pattern of persistently Not‐TX GEP assay correlates with inferior graft survival.

Abstract Background Treatment burden refers to the work involved in managing one’s health and its impact on well-being and has been associated with nonadherence in patients with chronic illnesses. No kidney transplant (KT)-specific measure of treatment burden exists. The aim of this study was to develop a KT-specific supplement to the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), a general measure of treatment burden. Methods After drafting and pretesting KT-specific survey items, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving KT recipients from Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify domains for scaling the KT-specific supplement. Construct and known-groups validity were determined. Results Survey respondents (n = 167) had a mean age of 61 years (range 22–86) and received a KT on average 4.0 years ago. Three KT-specific scales were identified (transplant function, self-management, adverse effects). Higher scores on the KT-specific scales were correlated with higher PETS treatment burden, worse physical and mental health, and lower self-efficacy (p < 0.0001). Patients taking more medications reported higher transplant self-management burden. Conclusions We developed a KT-specific supplement to the PETS general measure of treatment burden. Scores may help providers identify recipients at risk for nonadherence.

Background. Improving both patient and graft survival after kidney transplantation are major unmet needs. The goal of this study was to assess risk factors for specific causes of graft loss to determine to what extent patients who develop either death with a functioning graft (DWFG) or graft failure (GF) have similar baseline risk factors for graft loss. Methods. We retrospectively studied all solitary renal transplants performed between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018, at 3 centers and determined the specific causes of DWFG and GF. We examined outcomes in different subgroups using competing risk estimates and cause-specific Cox models. Results. Of the 5752 kidney transplants, graft loss occurred in 21.6% (1244) patients, including 12.0% (691) DWFG and 9.6% (553) GF. DWFG was most commonly due to malignancy (20.0%), infection (19.7%), cardiac disease (12.6%) with risk factors of older age and pretransplant dialysis, and diabetes as the cause of renal failure. For GF, alloimmunity (38.7%), glomerular diseases (18.6%), and tubular injury (13.9%) were the major causes. Competing risk incidence models identified diabetes and older recipients with higher rates of both DWFG and nonalloimmune GF. Conclusions. These data suggest that at baseline, 2 distinct populations can be identified who are at high risk for renal allograft loss: a younger, nondiabetic patient group who develops GF due to alloimmunity and an older, more commonly diabetic population who develops DWFG and GF due to a mixture of causes—many nonalloimmune. Individualized management is needed to improve long-term renal allograft survival in the latter group.

AbstractHistologic findings on 1‐year biopsies such as inflammation with fibrosis and transplant glomerulopathy predict renal allograft loss by 5 years. However, almost half of the patients with graft loss have a 1‐year biopsy that is either normal or has only interstitial fibrosis. The goal of this study was to determine if there was a gene expression profile in these relatively normal 1‐year biopsies that predicted subsequent decline in renal function. Using transcriptome microarrays we measured intragraft mRNA levels in a retrospective Discovery cohort (170 patients with a normal/minimal fibrosis 1‐year biopsy, 54 with progressive decline in function/graft loss and 116 with stable function) and developed a nested 10‐fold cross‐validated gene classifier that predicted progressive decline in renal function (positive predictive value = 38 ± 34%%; negative predictive value = 73 ± 30%, c‐statistic = .59). In a prospective, multicenter Validation cohort (270 patients with Normal/Interstitial Fibrosis [IF]), the classifier had a 20% positive predictive value, 85% negative predictive value and .58 c‐statistic. Importantly, the majority of patients with graft loss in the prospective study had 1‐year biopsies scored as Normal or IF. We conclude predicting graft loss in many renal allograft recipients (i.e., those with a relatively normal 1‐year biopsy and eGFR > 40) remains difficult.