Search

Young adult and adolescent kidney transplant recipients have shorter graft survival than older and younger recipients. Although multifactorial, the tendency toward premature graft loss in young kidney transplant recipients has often been attributed to medication nonadherence and the transition from pediatric to adult care. Multiple interventions for medication nonadherence in kidney transplant recipients have been studied. Potential preventative interventions include pre-transplant screening, transition and young adult clinics, technologies such as reminders or mobile applications, and simplification of the post-transplant medication regimen. There are also recent advances in monitoring interventions for nonadherence in transplant recipients, including electronic monitoring devices such as wireless pill bottles and the Ingestible Sensor System, which incorporates ingestible microsensors into medications. Treatment interventions for medication nonadherence include cognitive behavioral programs, behavioral contracts, and screening and treatment for depression. Several of the interventions reviewed are currently available to providers caring for young kidney transplant recipients, without any complex programmatic changes. Further research in all of these areas would be of great value.

BACKGROUND The number of Public Health Service increased-risk organ donors (PHS IRD) is growing, largely from an increase in intravenous drug use overdoses due to the current opioid epidemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective case series review using our single-center data. We reviewed 82 PHS IRD kidney transplant offers between 2015 and 2017, 20 of which were declined. We reviewed outcomes of patients who declined vs. accepted PHS IRD offers. We studied the effect of education on these patients' willingness to consider another PHS IRD. RESULTS Twenty patients declined PHS IRD over a 2-year period. They waited on average 9 months for another transplant, and tended to be transplanted with a higher-KDPI kidney than the one originally offered. Patients who declined PHS IRD were more likely to be predialysis, women, and Asian American, and to require an interpreter. Ninety-two percent of patients who received education on PHS IRD after declining an offer stated that they would consider another PHS IRD offer in the future. Four of these patients received a PHS IRD transplant. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that education of patients may have a positive impact on patient attitudes toward PHS IRD.

BACKGROUND Implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) changed how kidneys are allocated and the information on which organ utilization decisions are based. We aimed to evaluate how KAS implementation changed kidney utilization and recipient outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified recipients of kidney transplants from donors with kidney donor profile index (KDPI) of 61-90% in the 5-years pre- and 18-months post-KAS implementation and examined patient and graft survival and donor kidney discard rates based on standard criteria donor (SCD) or expanded criteria donor (ECD) status. RESULTS The proportion of ECD kidneys was unchanged pre- versus post-KAS. Post-KAS, SCD kidneys were less likely to be transplanted into young recipients while ECD kidneys were more likely to be transplanted. SCD kidneys in the post-KAS period conferred a 1.42 (95% CI: 1.18-1.73) times higher adjusted mortality and 2% lower 1-year survival (94.2% vs. 96.2%, P

The Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) and Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) assist clinicians with the selection of deceased donor kidneys. This scoring system is based on 10 donor factors including Hepatitis C virus (HCV) status from serological or NAT testing. The donor HCV status (i.e., having either a positive hepatitis C antibody (Ab) or nucleic acid testing (NAT) result) increases the hazard ratio for graft failure by 1.27 and the KDPI by approximately 20%. Whether this increase in KDPI is a true reflection of graft quality for HCV seropositive but not viremic donors is unknown. Further investigations are needed to maximize the use of these organs.