Search

BackgroundDespite the institution of a new Kidney Allocation System in 2014, A2/A2B to B transplantation has not increased as expected. The current Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy requires subtyping on two separate occasions, and in the setting of discrepant results, defaulting to the A1 subtype. However, there is significant inherent variability in the serologic assays used for blood group subtyping and genotyping is rarely done.MethodsThe National Kidney Registry, a kidney paired donation (KPD) program, performs serological typing on all A/AB donors, and in cases of non-A1/non-A1B donors, confirmatory genotyping is performed.ResultsBetween 2/18/2018 and 9/15/2020, 13.0% (145) of 1,111 type A donors registered with the NKR were ultimately subtyped as A2 via genotyping. Notably, 49.6% (72) of these were subtyped as A1 at their donor center, and in accordance with OPTN policy, ineligible for allocation as A2.ConclusionInaccurate A2 subtyping represents a significant lost opportunity in transplantation, especially in KPD where A2 donors can not only facilitate living donor transplantation for O and highly sensitized candidates, but can also facilitate additional living donor transplants. This study highlights the need for improved accuracy of subtyping technique, and the need for policy changes encouraging optimal utilization of A2 donor kidneys.

ImportancePolicy makers, transplant professionals, and patient organizations agree that there is a need to increase the number of kidney transplants by facilitating living donation. Vouchers for future transplant provide a means of overcoming the chronological incompatibility that occurs when the ideal time for living donation differs from the time at which the intended recipient actually needs a transplant. However, uncertainty remains regarding the actual change in the number of living kidney donors associated with voucher programs and the capability of voucher redemptions to produce timely transplants.ObjectiveTo examine the consequences of voucher-based kidney donation and the capability of voucher redemptions to provide timely kidney allografts.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study of 79 transplant centers across the US used data from the National Kidney Registry from January 1, 2014, to January 31, 2021, to identify all family vouchers and patterns in downstream kidney-paired donations. The analysis included living kidney donors and recipients participating in the National Kidney Registry family voucher program.ExposuresA voucher was provided to the intended recipient at the time of donation. Vouchers had no cash value and could not be sold, bartered, or transferred to another person. When a voucher was redeemed, a living donation chain was used to return a kidney to the voucher holder.Main outcomes and measuresDeidentified demographic and clinical data from each kidney donation were evaluated, including the downstream patterns in kidney-paired donation. Voucher redemptions were separately evaluated and analyzed.ResultsBetween 2014 and 2021, 250 family voucher-based donations were facilitated. Each donation precipitated a transplant chain with a mean (SD) length of 2.3 (1.6) downstream kidney transplants, facilitating 573 total transplants. Of those, 111 transplants (19.4%) were performed in highly sensitized recipients. Among 250 voucher donors, the median age was 46 years (range, 19-78 years), and 157 donors (62.8%) were female, 241 (96.4%) were White, and 104 (41.6%) had blood type O. Over a 7-year period, the waiting time for those in the National Kidney Registry exchange pool decreased by more than 3 months. Six vouchers were redeemed, and 3 of those redemptions were among individuals with blood type O. The time from voucher redemption to kidney transplant ranged from 36 to 155 days.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the family voucher program appeared to mitigate a major disincentive to living kidney donation, namely the reluctance to donate a kidney in the present that could be redeemed in the future if needed. The program facilitated kidney donations that may not otherwise have occurred. All 6 of the redeemed vouchers produced timely kidney transplants, indicating the capability of the voucher program.

The limited effectiveness of rituximab plus intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in desensitization may be due to incomplete B cell depletion. Obinutuzumab is a type 2 anti-CD20 antibody that induces increased B cell depletion relative to rituximab and may therefore be more effective for desensitization. This open-label phase 1b study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of obinutuzumab in highly sensitized patients with end-stage renal disease. Patients received 1 (day 1, n = 5) or 2 (days 1 and 15; n = 20) infusions of 1000-mg obinutuzumab followed by 2 doses of IVIG on days 22 and 43. Eleven patients received additional obinutuzumab doses at the time of transplant and/or at week 24. The median follow-up duration was 9.4 months. Obinutuzumab was well tolerated, and most adverse events were grade 1-2 in severity. There were 11 serious adverse events (SAEs) in 9 patients (36%); 10 of these SAEs were infections and 4 occurred after kidney transplant. Obinutuzumab plus IVIG resulted in profound peripheral B cell depletion and appeared to reduce B cells in retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Reductions in anti-HLA antibodies, number of unacceptable antigens, and the calculated panel reactive antibody score as centrally assessed using single-antigen bead assay were limited and not clinically meaningful for most patients (NCT02586051).

Introduction: Living liver donation improves survival of end‐stage liver disease (ESLD) patients. Yet, it continues to represent a small proportion of United States (U.S.) liver transplantation with existing racial disparities. We investigated the interplay of donor–recipient relationship and donor race to understand donor subgroups with no significant increase. Methods: We studied 4407 living liver donors in the U.S. from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2022 (median age = 36 years, and 59% were biologically related to the recipient). We quantified the change in the number of donors per 3‐year increment using negative binomial regression (incidence rate ratio [IRR]), stratified by donor–recipient relationship and race/ethnicity. Results: Among biologically related donors, the observed annual number of White donors increased from 146 to 253, Hispanic donors from 18 to 53, and Black donors decreased from 11 to 10. Among unrelated donors, White donors increased from 65 to 221, Hispanic donors from 4 to 25, and Black donors from 3 to 11. For the IRR of biologically related donors aged <40 and ≥40 years, White donors increased by 18% and 22%; Hispanic donors increased by 25% and 54%; and Black donors did not change. Likewise, the IRR of unrelated donors aged <40 and ≥40 years, White donors increased by 48% and 55%; Hispanic donors increased by 52% and 65%; and Black donors did not change. Conclusions: While biologically related donors represent the majority of donors, unrelated donors have substantially risen in recent years, primarily driven by White donors. Although the rate of unrelated donations increased among Hispanic donors, the absolute number remains very small (≤25 donors/year). Interventions are needed to increase education among Hispanic and Black communities to grow unrelated living liver donations across race/ethnicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deceased donor kidney allocation was reorganized in the United States to address several problems, including the highly sensitized patients disadvantaged with large, diverse repertoires of antibodies. Here, five transplant surgeons review their center's experience with the new allocation changes: highlighting areas of accomplishment, opportunities for improvement and, in some cases, stark differences in practice. Across these five centers the highly sensitized patients (CPRA ⩾98%) range from 5.5 to 9.2% of the 12,364 candidates on their collective waitlist. All centers reported greater rates of kidney transplantations in highly sensitized patients (12.4-27%). Three of the programs (Emory, UCSF, UW) relied upon the virtual crossmatch prior to organ acceptance in a majority of cases (70-86%)-the mere presence of antibody on HLA antibody screen was sufficient to exclude the donor in most cases at Emory and UCSF. Penn and UAB relied upon the physical flow crossmatch in almost all cases prior to proceeding with transplantation. Current or historical donor-specific antibody was occasionally crossed in certain cases at UW and UAB necessitating IVIG/plasmapheresis and/or B cell depletion perioperatively. Some authors raised concerns for cost efficiency given the increased need for organ/specimen transportation, and extensive use of hospital resources and ancillary services. In general, we found that the new allocation system has successfully achieved one of its primary goals-increased kidney transplantation in the disadvantaged, highly sensitized patients; the long-term outcomes in all patients and the cost ramifications of these changes will require continued reassessment and clarification.

Introduction: Medication use in living kidney donor (LKD) candidates may have important implications for evaluation and donation care. We sought to characterize LKD candidate medication use through medication histories conducted at nephrologist evaluation and transplant pharmacist preoperative visits. Methods: This retrospective single‐center cohort study included adult LKD candidates evaluated for donation between October 1, 2019 and October 1, 2021. Scheduled and as‐needed medications for each candidate were abstracted from pre‐donation medication histories collected at the evaluation visit with the nephrologist and the preoperative visit with the transplant pharmacist, if approved for donation. Medication histories from each visit were compared with each other and evaluated by therapeutic class frequency. Results: Among 213 LKD candidates (112 approved for donation and 101 declined for donation), 198 (93.0%) candidates were taking at least one prescription medication, over‐the‐counter agent, or dietary supplement. Antidepressants and antihypertensives were the most common prescription agents used among candidates, with antihypertensives more common among declined donors (20.8% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.042). Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs were more commonly identified at the evaluation visit of approved candidates compared to the preoperative visit (29.5% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001) and dietary supplements were more commonly identified at the preoperative visit compared to the evaluation visit (49.1% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.023). Conclusions: The frequency of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs decreased greatly between the evaluation and preoperative visit, likely reflective of discontinuation pre‐donation. Characterizing medication use among candidates evaluated for LKD donation may assist donor programs with developing more targeted patient medication education. Nearly all LKD candidates were taking a medication or dietary supplement pre‐donation. Transplant pharmacists are uniquely positioned to perform medication reconciliations and can also offer guidance to other team providers on best practices for this process. A better understanding of medication patterns in this population may also aid with further developing care guidelines for LKD evaluation and pre‐/postoperative LKD care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveThe M184V mutation in the HIV-1 reverse transcriptase gene is frequent (>50%) in patients, both in resource-rich and resource-limited countries, conferring high-level resistance (>100-fold) to the cytosine analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors lamivudine and emtricitabine. The reverse transcriptase enzyme of M184V HIV-1 mutants has reduced processivity, resulting in reduced viral replication, particularly at low deoxynucleotide (dNTP) levels. We hypothesized that lowering intracellular dNTPs with resveratrol, a dietary supplement, could interfere with replication of M184V HIV-1 mutants.Design and methodsEvaluation of the activity of resveratrol on infection of primary peripheral blood lymphocytes by wild-type and M184V mutant HIV-1. We assayed both molecular clones and primary isolates of HIV-1, containing M184V alone and in combination with other reverse transcriptase mutations. Viral infection was quantified by p24 ELISA and by quantitative real-time PCR analysis. Cell viability was measured by colorimetric 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assays.ResultsIn virus-infectivity assays, resveratrol did not inhibit replication of wild-type NL4-3 (resveratrol EC50 > 10 μmol/l), but it inhibited NL4-3 184V mutant (resveratrol EC50 = 5.8 μmol/l). These results were confirmed by real-time PCR analysis of early and late products of reverse transcription. Resveratrol inhibited molecular clones and primary isolates carrying M184V, alone or in combination with other reverse transcriptase mutations (resveratrol EC50 values ranging from 2.5 to 7.7 μmol/l).ConclusionsResveratrol inhibits HIV-1 strains carrying the M184V mutation in reverse transcriptase. We propose resveratrol as a potential adjuvant in HIV-1 therapy, particularly in resource-limited settings, to help control emtricitabine-resistant M184V HIV-1 mutants.

Introduction: Racial/ethnic disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) are a persistent challenge. Although nearly all directed donations are from members of patients' social networks, little is known about which social network members take steps toward living kidney donation, which do not, and what mechanisms contribute to racial/ethnic LDKT disparities. Methods: We describe the design and rationale of the Friends and Family of Kidney Transplant Patients Study, a factorial experimental fielding two interventions designed to promote LKD discussions. Participants are kidney transplant candidates at two centers who are interviewed and delivered an intervention by trained center research coordinators. The search intervention advises patients on which social network members are most likely to be LKD contraindication‐free; the script intervention advises patients on how to initiate effective LKD discussions. Participants are randomized into four conditions: no intervention, search only, script only, or both search and script. Patients also complete a survey and optionally provide social network member contact information so they can be surveyed directly. This study will seek to enroll 200 transplant candidates. The primary outcome is LDKT receipt. Secondary outcomes include live donor screening and medical evaluations and outcomes. Tertiary outcomes include LDKT self‐efficacy, concerns, knowledge, and willingness, measured before and after the interventions. Conclusion: This study will assess the effectiveness of two interventions to promote LKD and ameliorate Black‐White disparities. It will also collect unprecedented information on transplant candidates' social network members, enabling future work to address network member structural barriers to LKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]