Use of expanded-criteria donors and > 85 KDPI kidneys for pediatric kidney transplantation in the United States

Pediatric kidney transplant outcomes associated with expanded-criteria donors (ECD) and high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) kidneys are unknown. We reviewed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 1987-2017 to identify 96 ECD and 92 > 85 KDPI kidney recipients (<18 years). Using propensity scores, we created comparison groups of 375 non-ECD and 357 ≤ 85 KDPI recipients for comparisons with ECD and > 85 KDPI transplants, respectively. We used Cox regression for patient/graft survival and sequential Cox approach for survival benefit of ECD and > 85 KDPI transplantationvs remaining on the waitlist. After adjustment, ECD recipients were at significantly increased risk of graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.6; P = .001) but not of mortality (aHR = 1.33; P = .15) compared with non-ECD recipients. We observed no survival benefit of ECD transplants vs remaining on the waitlist (aHR = 1.05; P = .83). We found no significant difference in graft failure (aHR = 1.27; P = .12) and mortality (aHR = 1.41; P = .13) risks between > 85 KDPI and ≤ 85 KDPI recipients. However, > 85 KDPI transplants were associated with a survival benefit vs remaining on the waitlist (aHR = 0.41; P = .01). ECD transplantation in children is associated with a high graft loss risk and no survival benefit, whereas > 85 KDPI transplantation is associated with a survival benefit for children vs remaining on the waitlist.     

Turn down for what? Patient outcomes associated with declining increased infectious risk kidneys

Transplant candidates who accept a kidney labeled increased risk for disease transmission (IRD) accept a low risk of window period infection, yet those who decline must wait for another offer that might harbor other risks or never even come. To characterize survival benefit of accepting IRD kidneys, we used 2010‐2014 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 104 998 adult transplant candidates who were offered IRD kidneys that were eventually accepted by someone; the median (interquartile range) Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of these kidneys was 30 (16‐49). We followed patients from the offer decision until death or end‐of‐study. After 5 years, only 31.0% of candidates who declined IRDs later received non‐IRD deceased donor kidney transplants; the median KDPI of these non‐IRD kidneys was 52, compared to 21 of the IRDs they had declined. After a brief risk period in the first 30 days following IRD acceptance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] accept vs decline: _1.222.06_3.49, P = .008) (absolute mortality 0.8% vs. 0.4%), those who accepted IRDs were at 33% lower risk of death 1‐6 months postdecision (aHR _0.500.67_0.90, P = .006), and at 48% lower risk of death beyond 6 months postdecision (aHR _0.460.52_0.58, P < .001). Accepting an IRD kidney was associated with substantial long‐term survival benefit; providers should consider this benefit when counseling patients on IRD offer acceptance.     

Shipping living donor kidneys and transplant recipient outcomes

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Concerns remain over prolonged cold ischemia times (CIT) associated with shipping kidneys long distances through KPD. We examined the association between CIT and delayed graft function (DGF), allograft survival, and patient survival for 1267 shipped and 205 nonshipped/internal KPD LDKTs facilitated by the National Kidney Registry in the United States from 2008 to 2015, compared to 4800 unrelated, nonshipped, non‐KPD LDKTs. Shipped KPD recipients had a median CIT of 9.3 hours (range = 0.25‐23.9 hours), compared to 1.0 hour for internal KPD transplants and 0.93 hours for non‐KPD LDKTs. Each hour of CIT was associated with a 5% increased odds of DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02‐1.09, P < .01). However, there was not a significant association between CIT and all‐cause graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98‐1.04, P = .4), death‐censored graft failure ( [aHR]: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98‐1.06, P = .4), or mortality (aHR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.96‐1.04, P > .9). This study of KPD‐facilitated LDKTs found no evidence that long CIT is a concern for reduced graft or patient survival. Studies with longer follow‐up are needed to refine our understanding of the safety of shipping donor kidneys through KPD.     

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: A cohort study of data from a long‐standing deceased‐donor kidney transplantation program

Despite good long‐term outcomes of kidney transplants from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there are few uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs. This longitudinal study compares outcomes for all uDCD (N = 774) and all donation after brain death (DBD) (N = 613) kidney transplants performed from 1996 to 2015 at our center. DBD transplants were divided into those from standard‐criteria (SCD) (N = 366) and expanded‐criteria (N = 247) brain‐dead donors (ECD). One‐, 5‐, and 10‐year graft survival rates were 91.7%, 85.7%, and 80.6% for SCD; 86.0%, 75.8%, and 61.4% for ECD; and 85.1%, 78.1%, and 72.2% for uDCD, respectively. Graft survival was worse in recipients of uDCD kidneys than of SCD (P = .004) but better than in transplants from ECD (P = .021). The main cause of graft loss in the uDCD transplants was primary nonfunction. Through logistic regression, donor death due to pulmonary embolism (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.65‐11.23), extrahospital CPR time ≥75 minutes (OR1.94, 95%CI 1.18‐3.22), and in‐hospital CPR time ≥50 minutes (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.09‐2.93) emerged as predictive factors of primary nonunction. According to the outcomes of our long‐standing kidney transplantation program, uDCD could help expand the kidney donor pool.     

Better graft outcomes from offspring donor kidneys among living donor kidney transplant recipients in the United States

A recent study reported that kidney transplant recipients of offspring living donors had higher graft loss and mortality. This seemed counterintuitive, given the excellent HLA matching and younger age of offspring donors; we were concerned about residual confounding and other study design issues. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2001‐2016 to evaluate death‐censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality for recipients of offspring versus nonoffspring living donor kidneys, using Cox regression models with interaction terms. Recipients of offspring kidneys had lower DCGF than recipients of nonoffspring kidneys (15‐year cumulative incidence 21.2% vs 26.1%, P < .001). This association remained after adjustment for recipient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = _0.730.77_0.82, P < .001), and was attenuated among African American donors (aHR _0.770.85_0.95; interaction: P = .01) and female recipients (aHR _0.770.84_0.91, P < .001). Although offspring kidney recipients had higher mortality (15‐year mortality 56.4% vs 37.2%, P < .001), this largely disappeared with adjustment for recipient age alone (aHR = _1.021.06_1.10, P = .002) and was nonsignificant after further adjustment for other recipient characteristics (aHR = _0.930.97_1.01, P = .1). Kidneys from offspring donors provided lower graft failure and comparable mortality. An otherwise eligible donor should not be dismissed because they are the offspring of the recipient, and we encourage continued individualized counseling for potential donors.     

The duration of asystolic ischemia determines the risk of graft failure after circulatory‐dead donor kidney transplantation: A Eurotransplant cohort study

Circulatory death donor (DCD) kidney transplantations are steadily increasing. Consensus reports recommend limiting donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) in DCD donation, although an independent effect on graft outcome has not been demonstrated. We investigated death‐censored graft survival in 18 065 recipients of deceased‐donor kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant region: 1059 DCD and 17 006 brain‐dead donor (DBD) kidney recipients. DWIT was defined as time from circulatory arrest until cold flush. DCD donation was an independent risk factor for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.10‐1.46), due to an increased risk of primary nonfunction (62/1059 vs 560/17 006; P < .0001). With DWIT in the model, DCD donation was no longer a risk factor, demonstrating that DWIT explains the inferior graft survival of DCD kidneys. Indeed, DCD transplants with short DWIT have graft survival comparable to that of standard‐criteria DBD transplants (P = .59). DWIT also associated with graft failure in DCDs (adjusted HR 1.20 per 10‐minute increase, 95% CI 1.03‐1.42). At 5 years after transplantation, graft failure occurred in 14 of 133 recipients (10.5%) with DWIT <10 minutes, 139 of 555 recipients (25.0%) with DWIT between 10 and 19 minutes, and 117 of 371 recipients (31.5%) with DWIT ≥20 minutes. These findings support the expert opinion–based guidelines to limit DWIT.     

Outcomes of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation based on donor resuscitation

It has been hypothesized that transplanting simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) grafts from donors with a history of cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CACPR) leads to inferior posttransplant outcomes due to organ hypoperfusion during cardiac arrest and mechanical trauma during resuscitation. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 13 095 SPK transplants from 2000‐2018, of which 810 (6.2%) were from donors with a history of CACPR. After inverse probability of treatment weighting on donor and recipient characteristics, we found that 1‐, 5‐, and 10‐year patient (CACPR: 96.4%, 89.9%, and 78.9%; non‐CACPR: 96.3%, 88.9%, and 76.0%; P = .3), death‐censored pancreas graft survival (CACPR: 89.3%, 82.7%, 75.0%; non‐CACPR: 89.9%, 82.7%, 76.3%; P = .7), and death‐censored kidney graft survival (CACPR: 97.0%, 89.5%, 78.2%; non‐CACPR: 96.9.9%, 88.7%, 80.0%; P = .4) were comparable between the two groups. There were no differences in the risk of pancreatitis (CACPR: 2.9%, non‐CACPR: 2.4%; weighted OR = _0.74 1.22 _2.02; P = .4), anastomotic leak (CACPR: 1.6%, non‐CACPR: 2.0%; weighted OR = _0.54 1.02 _1.93; P > .9), or median length of hospital stay (CACPR: 8 days, non‐CACPR: 9 days; P = .6) for recipients of CACPR vs non‐CACPR donors. Our findings suggest that CACPR donors could be used to expand the SPK donor pool without compromising short‐ or long‐term outcomes.     

Lung transplant outcomes are influenced by severity of neutropenia and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor treatment

Although neutropenia is a common complication after lung transplant, its relationship with recipient outcomes remains understudied. We evaluated a retrospective cohort of 228 adult lung transplant recipients between 2008 and 2013 to assess the association of neutropenia and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (GCSF) treatment with outcomes. Neutropenia was categorized as mild (absolute neutrophil count 1000‐1499), moderate (500‐999), or severe (<500) and as a time‐varying continuous variable. Associations with survival, acute rejection, and chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) were assessed with the use of Cox proportional hazards regression. GCSF therapy impact on survival, CLAD, and acute rejection development was analyzed by propensity score matching. Of 228 patients, 101 (42.1%) developed neutropenia. Recipients with severe neutropenia had higher mortality rates than those of recipients with no (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05‐8.41, P = .040), mild (aHR 14.508, 95% CI 1.58‐13.34, P = .018), or moderate (aHR 3.27, 95% CI 0.89‐12.01, P = .074) neutropenia. Surprisingly, GCSF treatment was associated with a higher risk for CLAD in mildly neutropenic patients (aHR 3.49, 95% CI 0.93‐13.04, P = .063), although it did decrease death risk in severely neutropenic patients (aHR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07‐0.88, P = .031). Taken together, our data point to an important relationship between neutropenia severity and GCSF treatment in lung transplant outcomes.     

Transplanting kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors with acute kidney injury

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) donors have historically been considered independent risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF), allograft failure, and inferior outcomes. With growing experience, updated analyses have shown good outcomes. There continues to be limited data, however, on outcomes specific to DCD donors who have AKI. Primary outcomes for this study were post–kidney transplant patient and allograft survival comparing two donor groups: DCD AKIN stage 2‐3 and DBD AKIN stage 2‐3. In comparing these groups, there were no short‐ or long‐term differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54‐1.93, P = .83) or allograft survival (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.64‐2.97, P = .32). In multivariate models, the DCD/DBD status had no significant impact on the estimated GFR (eGFR) at 1 (P = .38), 2 (P = .60), and 3 years (P = .52). DGF (57.9% vs 67.9%, P = .09), rejection (12.1% vs 13.9%, P = .12), and progression of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) on protocol biopsy (P = .16) were similar between the two groups. With careful selection, good outcomes can be achieved utilizing severe AKI DCD kidneys. Historic concerns regarding primary nonfunction, DGF resulting in interstitial fibrosis and rejection, and inferior outcomes were not observed. Given the ongoing organ shortage, increased effort should be undertaken to further utilize these donors.     

The benefit to waitlist patients in a national paired kidney exchange program: Exploring characteristics of chain end living donor transplants

Nondirected kidney donors can initiate living donor chains that end to patients on the waitlist. We compared 749 National Kidney Registry (NKR) waitlist chain end transplants to other transplants from the NKR and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between February 2008 and September 2020. Compared to other NKR recipients, chain end recipients were more often older (53 vs. 52 years), black (32% vs. 15%), publicly insured (71% vs. 46%), and spent longer on dialysis (3.0 vs. 1.0 years). Similar differences were noted between chain end recipients and non-NKR living donor recipients. Black patients received chain end kidneys at a rate approaching that of deceased donor kidneys (32% vs. 34%). Chain end donors were older (52 vs. 44 years) with slightly lower glomerular filtration rates (93 vs. 98 ml/min/1.73 m²) than other NKR donors. Chain end recipients had elevated risk of graft failure and mortality compared to control living donor recipients (both p < .01) but lower graft failure (p = .03) and mortality (p < .001) compared to deceased donor recipients. Sharing nondirected donors among a multicenter network may improve the diversity of waitlist patients who benefit from living donation.     

Outcomes of organ transplants when the donor is a prior recipient

Organ shortage continues to challenge the field of transplantation. One potential group of donors are those who have been transplant recipients themselves, or Organ Donation After Transplant (ODAT) donors. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe ODAT donors and to compare outcomes of ODAT grafts versus conventional grafts. From October 1, 1987 to June 30, 2015, 517 former recipients successfully donated 803 organs for transplant. Former kidney recipients generally survived a median of approximately 4 years before becoming an ODAT donor whereas liver, lung, and heart recipients generally survived less than a month prior to donation. In the period June 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014, liver grafts from ODAT donors had a significantly higher risk of graft failure compared to non‐ODAT liver transplants (P = .008). Kidney grafts donated by ODAT donors whose initial transplant occurred >1 year prior were associated with significantly increased graft failure (P = .012). Despite increased risk of graft failure amongst certain ODAT grafts, 5‐year survival was still high. ODAT donors should be considered another form of expanded criteria donor under these circumstances.     

The “oldest and coldest” shipped living donor kidneys transplanted through kidney paired donation

To date, thousands of living donor kidneys have been shipped through kidney paired donation (KPD). To expand on this growing segment of living donor transplantation, we evaluated the effect of advanced age donation (“oldest kidneys”) and prolonged cold ischemia time (“coldest kidneys”) on graft function and survival using the National Kidney Registry database from February 2008 to May 2018. Donors were stratified by age at time of donation (<65 or ≥65 years) and kidneys were stratified by cold ischemia time (<16 or ≥16 hours). We evaluated delayed graft function and death‐censored graft failure (DCGF) for up to seven posttransplant years. Of the 2363 shipped living donor kidney transplants, 4.1% of donors were ≥65 years and 6.0% of transplanted kidneys had cold ischemia times ≥16 hours. Delayed graft function and DCGF occurred in 5.2% and 4.7% of cases. There were no significant associations between delayed graft function and donor age (P = .947) or cold ischemia (P = .532). Donor age and cold ischemia time were not predictive of delayed graft function (OR = 0.86,1.20; P = .8, .6) or DCGF (HR = 1.38,0.35, P = .5, .1). These findings may alleviate concerns surrounding the utilization of kidneys from older donors or those originating from distant transplant centers.     

A Share 21 model in liver transplantation: Impact on waitlist outcomes

With the introduction of Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease‐Sodium (MELD‐Na)–based allocation, the score at which patients benefit from liver transplantation (LT) has shifted from a score of 15 to 21. This study aimed to evaluate waitlist outcomes in patients with MELD‐Na scores <21 and explore the utility of replacing “Share 15” with “Share 21.” The study uses data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing registry. All adult patients registered for LT after implementation of the MELD‐Na–based allocation were evaluated. Waitlist patients with initial and final scores <21 were eligible. Patients with exception scores were excluded. To explore the potential impact of a Share 21 model, patients with an initial MELD‐Na score of 6‐14 (Group 1) and those with a score of 15‐20 (Group 2) were compared for waitlist outcomes. There were 3686 patients with an initial score of 6‐14 (Group 1) and 3282 with a score of 15‐20 (Group 2). Group 2, when compared to Group 1, showed comparable risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.00, P = .97), higher transplant probability (aHR 3.25, P < .001), and lower likelihood of removal from listing because of improvement (aHR 0.74, P = .011). Share 21 may enhance transplant opportunities and increase parity for patients with higher MELD‐Na scores without compromising waitlist outcomes.     

Organ donor screening for carbapenem‐resistant gram‐negative bacteria in Italian intensive care units: the DRIn study

The 759 cases of brain death declaration (BDD [Italian law, 6 hours of observation time]) that occurred in 190 Italian intensive care units (ICUs) between May and September 2012 were studied to quantify carbapenem‐resistant gram‐negative bacteria (CR‐GN) isolated in organ donors, to evaluate adherence to national screening guidelines, and to identify risk factors for CR‐GN isolation. Mandatory blood, bronchoalveolar lavage, and urine cultures were performed on the BDD day in 99% of used donors. Because results were rarely made available before transplant, >20% of transplants were performed before obtaining any microbiological information, and organs from 15 of 22 CR‐GN cases were used. Two (lung–liver) of the 37 recipients died, likely because of donor‐derived early CR‐GN sepsis. ICU stay >3 days (odds ratio [OR] = 7.49, P = .004), fever (OR = 3.11, P = .04), age <60 years (OR = 2.80, P = .06), and positive ICU epidemiology (OR = 8.77, P = .07) were associated with CR‐GN isolation. An association between single ICU and risk of CR‐GN was observed, as a result of differences across ICUs (ICC = 29%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5%‐72%) probably related to inadequate practices of infection control. Continuous education aimed at implementing priority actions, including stewardship programs for a rational use of antimicrobials, is a priority in healthcare systems and transplant networks. Improved awareness among ICU personnel regarding the importance of early CR‐GN detection and timely alert systems might facilitate decisions regarding organ suitability and eventually save recipient lives.     

Survival benefit of accepting livers from deceased donors over 70 years old

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009‐2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time‐of‐offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five‐year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR:_0.450.52_0.59, P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35‐40) candidates (aHR:_0.100.24_0.55, P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long‐term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35‐40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers.     

Hospital readmissions following HLA‐incompatible live donor kidney transplantation: A multi‐center study

Thirty percent of kidney transplant recipients are readmitted in the first month posttransplantation. Those with donor‐specific antibody requiring desensitization and incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) constitute a unique subpopulation that might be at higher readmission risk. Drawing on a 22‐center cohort, 379 ILDKTs with Medicare primary insurance were matched to compatible transplant‐matched controls and to waitlist‐only matched controls on panel reactive antibody, age, blood group, renal replacement time, prior kidney transplantation, race, gender, diabetes, and transplant date/waitlisting date. Readmission risk was determined using multilevel, mixed‐effects Poisson regression. In the first month, ILDKTs had a 1.28‐fold higher readmission risk than compatible controls (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13‐1.46; P < .001). Risk peaked at 6‐12 months (relative risk [RR] 1.67, 95% CI 1.49‐1.87; P < .001), attenuating by 24‐36 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10‐1.40; P < .001). ILDKTs had a 5.86‐fold higher readmission risk (95% CI 4.96‐6.92; P < .001) in the first month compared to waitlist‐only controls. At 12‐24 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77‐0.95; P = .002) and 24‐36 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66‐0.84; P < .001), ILDKTs had a lower risk than waitlist‐only controls. These findings of ILDKTs having a higher readmission risk than compatible controls, but a lower readmission risk after the first year than waitlist‐only controls should be considered in regulatory/payment schemas and planning clinical care.     

Kidney transplant from uncontrolled donation after circulatory death donors maintained by nECMO has long‐term outcomes comparable to standard criteria donation after brain death

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) increases organ availability for kidney transplant (KT) with short‐term outcomes similar to those obtained from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. However, heterogeneous results in the long term have been reported. We compared 10‐year outcomes between 237 KT recipients from uDCD donors maintained by normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (nECMO) and 237 patients undergoing KT from standard criteria DBD donors during the same period at our institution. We further analyzed risk factors for death‐censored graft survival in the uDCD group. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common in the uDCD group (73.4% vs 46.4%; P < .01), although glomerular filtration rates at the end of follow‐up were similar in the 2 groups. uDCD and DBD groups had similar rates for 10‐year death‐censored graft (82.1% vs 80.4%; P = .623) and recipient survival (86.2% vs 87.6%; P = .454). Donor age >50 years was associated with graft loss in the uDCD group (hazard ratio: 1.91; P = .058), whereas the occurrence of DGF showed no significant effect. uDCD KT under nECMO support resulted in similar graft function and long‐term outcomes compared with KT from standard criteria DBD donors. Increased donor age could negatively affect graft survival after uDCD donation.     

Decreasing deceased donor transplant rates among children (≤6 years) under the new kidney allocation system

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was implemented in December 2014 with unknown impact on the pediatric waitlist. To understand the effect of KAS on pediatric registrants, deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rate was assessed using interrupted time series analysis and time‐to‐event analysis. Two allocation eras were defined with an intermediary washout period: Era 1 (01/01/2013‐09/01/2014), Era 2 (09/01/2014‐03/01/2015), and Era 3(03/01/2015‐03/01/2017). When using Cox proportional hazards, there was no significant association between allocation era and DDKT likelihood as compared to Era 1 (Era 3: aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97‐1.18, P = .17). However, this was not consistent across all subgroups. Specifically, while highly sensitized pediatric registrants were consistently less likely to be transplanted than their less sensitized counterparts, this disparity was attenuated in Era 3 (Era 1 aHR: 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01‐0.14, P < .001; Era 3 aHR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21‐0.53, P < .001) whereas the youngest registrants aged 0‐6 experienced a 21% decrease in DDKT likelihood in Era 3 as compared to Era 1 (aHR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64‐0.98, P = .03). Thus, while overall DDKT likelihood remained stable with the introduction of KAS, registrants ≤ 6 years of age were disadvantaged, warranting further study to ensure equitable access to transplantation.     

Monitoring of alphatorquevirus DNA levels for the prediction of immunosuppression‐related complications after kidney transplantation

The replication kinetics of nonpathogenic anelloviruses belonging to the Alphatorquevirus genus (such as torque teno virus) might reflect the overall state of posttransplant immunosuppression. We analyzed 221 kidney transplant (KT) recipients in whom plasma alphatorquevirus DNA load was quantified by real‐time polymerase chain reaction at baseline and regularly through the first 12 posttransplant months. Study outcomes included posttransplant infection and a composite of opportunistic infection and/or de novo malignancy (immunosuppression‐related adverse event [iRAE]). Alphatorquevirus DNA loads at month 1 were higher among patients who subsequently developed posttransplant infection (P  = .023) or iRAE (P  = .009). Likewise, those with iRAE beyond months 3 and 6 also exhibited higher peak viral loads over the preceding periods. Areas under the curve for log₁₀ alphatorquevirus DNAemia estimated by months 1 or 6 were significantly higher in patients experiencing study outcomes. Alphatorquevirus DNA loads above 3.15 and 4.56 log₁₀ copies/mL at month 1 predicted the occurrence of posttransplant infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13‐7.36; P  = .027) and iRAE (aHR: 5.17; 95% CI: 2.01‐13.33; P  = .001). In conclusion, posttransplant monitoring of plasma alphatorquevirus DNA kinetics may be useful to identify KT recipients at increased risk of immunosuppression‐related complications.     

Marijuana use should not preclude consideration for kidney transplantation

Transplant eligibility for tobacco and/or marijuana using candidates varies among transplant centers. This study compared the impact of marijuana use and tobacco use on kidney transplant recipient outcomes. Kidney transplant recipients at a single center from 2001 to 2015 were reviewed for outcomes of all‐cause graft loss, infection, biopsy‐proven acute rejection, and estimated glomerular filtration rate between four groups: marijuana‐only users, marijuana and tobacco users, tobacco‐only users, and nonusers. The cohort (N = 919) included 48 (5.2%) marijuana users, 45 (4.8%) marijuana and tobacco users, 136 (14.7%) tobacco users, and 75% nonusers. Smoking status was not significantly associated with acute rejection, estimated glomerular filtration rate or pneumonia within one‐year post‐transplant in an adjusted model. Compared to nonuse, marijuana and tobacco use and tobacco‐only use was significantly associated with increased risk of graft loss (aHR 1.68, P = .034 and 1.52, P = .006, respectively). Patients with isolated marijuana use had similar overall graft survival compared to nonusers (aHR 1.00, P = .994). Marijuana use should not be an absolute contraindication to kidney transplant.