Immediate administration of antiviral therapy after transplantation of hepatitis C‐infected livers into uninfected recipients: Implications for therapeutic planning

The practice of transplanting hepatitis C (HCV)‐infected livers into HCV‐uninfected recipients has not previously been recommended in transplant guidelines, in part because of concerns over uncontrolled HCV infection of the allograft. Direct‐acting antivirals (DAAs) provide an opportunity to treat donor‐derived HCV‐infection and should be administered early in the posttransplant period. However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of an immediate DAA treatment approach, including how to manage logistical barriers surrounding timely DAA procurement, are required prior to broader use of HCV‐positive donor organs. We report the results of a trial in which 14 HCV‐negative patients underwent successful liver transplantation from HCV‐positive donors. Nine patients received viremic (nucleic acid testing [NAT]‐positive) livers and started a 12‐week course of oral glecaprevir‐pibrentasvir within 5 days of transplant. Five patients received livers from HCV antibody‐positive nonviremic donors and were followed using a reactive approach. Survival in NAT‐positive recipients is 100% at a median follow‐up of 46 weeks. An immediate treatment approach for HCV NAT‐positive liver transplantation into uninfected recipients is safe and efficacious. Securing payer approval for DAAs early in the posttransplant course could enable need‐based allocation of HCV‐positive donor organs irrespective of candidate HCV status, while averting chronic HCV allograft infection.     

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) non‐viremic recipients with HCV viremic donors

In the context of organ shortage, the opioid epidemic, and effective direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV), more HCV‐infected donor organs may be used for liver transplantation. Current data regarding outcomes after donor‐derived HCV in previously non‐viremic liver transplant recipients are limited. Clinical data for adult liver transplant recipients with donor‐derived HCV infection from March 2017 to January 2018 at our institution were extracted from the medical record. Ten patients received livers from donors known to be infected with HCV based on positive nucleic acid testing. Seven had a prior diagnosis of HCV and were treated before liver transplantation. All recipients were non‐viremic at the time of transplantation. All 10 recipients derived hepatitis C infection from their donor and achieved sustained virologic response at 12 weeks posttreatment with DAA‐based regimens, with a median time from transplant to treatment initiation of 43 days (IQR 20–59). There have been no instances of graft loss or death, with median follow‐up of 380 days (IQR 263–434) posttransplant. Transplantation of HCV‐viremic livers into non‐viremic recipients results in acceptable short‐term outcomes. Such strategies may be used to expand the donor pool and increase access to liver transplantation.     

Early emergence of anti‐HCV antibody implicates donor origin in recipients of an HCV‐infected organ

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) seroconversion among HCV‐uninfected transplant recipients from HCV‐infected (NAT+/Antibody+) or HCV‐exposed (NAT?/Antibody+) donors has been reported. However, the origin of anti‐HCV antibody and the implications of seroconversion remain unknown. We longitudinally tested plasma from HCV‐uninfected kidney (n = 31) or heart transplant recipients (n = 9) of an HCV NAT+ organ for anti‐HCV antibody (both IgG and IgM isotypes). Almost half of all participants had detectable anti‐HCV antibody at any point during follow‐up. The majority of antibody‐positive individuals became positive within 1‐3 days of transplantation, and 6 recipients had detectable antibody on the first day posttransplant. Notably, all anti‐HCV antibody was IgG, even in samples collected posttransplant day 1. Late seroconversion was uncommon (≈20%‐25% of antibody+ recipients). Early antibody persisted over 30 days in kidney recipients, whereas early antibody dropped below detection in 50% of heart recipients within 2 weeks after transplant. Anti‐HCV antibody is common in HCV‐uninfected recipients of an HCV NAT+ organ. The IgG isotype of this antibody and the kinetics of its appearance and durability suggest that anti‐HCV antibody is donor derived and is likely produced by a cellular source. Our data suggest that transfer of donor humoral immunity to a recipient may be much more common than previously appreciated.     

Transplantation of kidneys from hepatitis C–infected donors to hepatitis C–negative recipients: Single center experience

Our aim was to evaluate the safety of transplanting kidneys from HCV‐infected donors in HCV‐uninfected recipients. Data collected from 53 recipients in a single center, observational study included donor and recipient characteristics, liver and kidney graft function, new infections and de novo donor‐specific antibodies and renal histology. Treatment with a direct‐acting antiviral regimen was initiated when HCV RNA was detected. The mean ± SD age of recipients was 53 ± 11 years, 34% were female, 19% and 79% of recipients were white and African American, respectively. The median and interquartile range (IQR) time between transplant and treatment initiation was 76 (IQR: 68‐88) days. All 53 recipients became viremic (genotype: 1a [N = 34], 1b [N = 1], 2 [N = 3], and 3 [N = 15]). The majority (81%) of recipients did not experience clinically significant increases (>3 times higher than upper limit of the normal value) in aminotransferase levels and their HCV RNA levels were in the 5 to 6 log range. One patient developed fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis with complete resolution. All recipients completed antiviral treatment and 100% were HCV RNA–negative and achieved 12‐week sustained virologic response. The estimated GFRs at end of treatment and 12‐week posttreatment were 67 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² and 67 ± 17 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively. Four recipients developed acute rejection. Kidney transplantation from HCV‐infected donors to HCV‐negative recipients should be considered in all eligible patients.     

Use of HCV Ab+/NAT− donors in HCV naïve renal transplant recipients to expand the kidney donor pool

Hepatitis C (HCV) disease transmission from the use of HCV antibody‐positive and HCV nucleic acid test‐negative (HCV Ab+/NAT?) kidneys have been anecdotally reported to be absent. We prospectively analyzed kidney transplant (KT) outcomes from HCV Ab+/NAT? donors to HCV naïve recipients under T‐cell depleting early steroid withdrawal immunosuppression. Allografts from 40 HCV Ab+/NAT? donors were transplanted to 52 HCV Ab? recipients between July 2016 and February 2018. Thirty‐three (82.5%) of donors met Public Health Service (PHS) increased risk criteria. De novo HCV infection was detected at 3 months post‐KT in one recipient (1.9%). This was a case of transmission from a HCV Ab+ NAT+ donor with an initial false‐negative NAT completed using sample collected on donor hospital admission (day 2). At the time of HCV diagnosis, a stored donor sample collected during procurement (day 4) was tested and resulted NAT‐positive. Subsequently, sustained virologic response (SVR) was achieved with 12 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. One death with functioning graft at 261 days post‐KT was determined not related to HCV or donor factors. This experience provides evidence of a low transmission rate of HCV from HCV Ab+/ NAT? kidney donors, thereby arguing for increasing utilization.     

The effect of donor age on posttransplant mortality in a cohort of adult cardiac transplant recipients aged 18‐45

Hearts from older donors are increasingly utilized for transplantation due to unmet demand. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the prognosis of recipients of advanced age donor hearts, especially in young recipients. A retrospective analysis was performed on 11 433 patients aged 18 to 45 who received a cardiac transplant from 2000 to 2017. Overall, 10 279 patients received hearts from donors less than 45 and 1145 from donors greater than 45. Recipients of older donors were older (37 vs. 34 years, P < .01) and had higher rates of inotropic dependence (48% vs. 42%, P < .01). However, groups were similar in terms of comorbidities and dependence on mechanical circulatory support. Median survival for recipients of older donors was reduced by 2.6 years (12.6 vs. 15.2, P < .01). Multivariable analysis demonstrated donor age greater than 45 to be a predictor of mortality (HR 1.18 [1.05‐1.33], P = .01). However, when restricting the analysis to patients who received a donor with a negative preprocurement angiogram, donor age only had a borderline association with mortality (HR 1.20 [0.98‐1.46], P = .06). Older donor hearts in young recipients are associated with decreased long‐term survival, however this risk is reduced in donors without atherosclerosis. The long‐term hazard of this practice should be carefully weighed against the risk of waitlist mortality.     

Long‐term outcome of renal transplantation from octogenarian donors: A multicenter controlled study

To assess whether biopsy‐guided selection of kidneys from very old brain‐dead donors enables more successful transplantations, the authors of this multicenter, observational study compared graft survival between 37 recipients of 1 or 2 histologically evaluated kidneys from donors older than 80 years and 198 reference‐recipients of non–histologically evaluated single grafts from donors aged 60 years and younger (transplantation period: 2006‐2013 at 3 Italian centers). During a median (interquartile range) of 25 (13‐42) months, 2 recipients (5.4%) and 10 reference‐recipients (5.1%) required dialysis (crude and donor age‐ and sex‐adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.55 [0.34‐7.12], P = .576 and 1.41 [0.10‐19.54], P = .798, respectively). Shared frailty analyses confirmed similar outcomes in a 1:2 propensity score study comparing recipients with 74 reference‐recipients matched by center, year, donor, and recipient sex and age. Serum creatinine was similar across groups during 84‐month follow‐up. Recipients had remarkably shorter waiting times than did reference‐recipients and matched reference‐recipients (7.5 [4.0‐19.5] vs 36 [19‐56] and 40 [24‐56] months, respectively, P < .0001 for both comparisons). Mean (± SD) kidney donor risk index was 2.57 ± 0.32 in recipients vs 1.09 ± 0.24 and 1.14 ± 0.24 in reference‐recipients and matched reference‐recipients (P < .0001 for both comparisons). Adverse events were similar across groups. Biopsy‐guided allocation of kidneys from octogenarian donors permits further expansion of the donor organ pool and faster access to a kidney transplant, without increasing the risk of premature graft failure.     

Organs from deceased donors with false‐positive HIV screening tests: An unexpected benefit of the HOPE act

Organs from deceased donors with suspected false‐positive HIV screening tests were generally discarded due to the chance that the test was truly positive. However, the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act now facilitates use of such organs for transplantation to HIV‐infected (HIV+) individuals. In the HOPE in Action trial, donors without a known HIV infection who unexpectedly tested positive for anti‐HIV antibody (Ab) or HIV nucleic acid test (NAT) were classified as suspected false‐positive donors. Between March 2016 and March 2018, 10 suspected false‐positive donors had organs recovered for transplant for 21 HIV + recipients (14 single‐kidney, 1 double‐kidney, 5 liver, 1 simultaneous liver‐kidney). Median donor age was 24 years; cause of death was trauma (n = 5), stroke (n = 4), and anoxia (n = 1); three donors were labeled Public Health Service increased infectious risk. Median kidney donor profile index was 30.5 (IQR 22‐58). Eight donors were HIV Ab+/NAT‐; two were HIV Ab‐/NAT+. All 10 suspected false‐positive donors were confirmed to be HIV‐noninfected. Given the false‐positive rates of approved assays used to screen > 20 000 deceased donors annually, we estimate 50‐100 HIV false‐positive donors per year. Organ transplantation from suspected HIV false‐positive donors is an unexpected benefit of the HOPE Act that provides another novel organ source.     

Liver,simultaneous liver-kidney,and kidney transplantation from hepatitis C-positive donors in hepatitis C-negative recipients: A single-center study

Transplantation of organs from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-antibody (Ab) and -nucleic acid test (NAT) positive donors into HCV-negative recipients has been proposed to expand the donor pool and shorten waiting times. Data on early single-center outcomes are lacking. Nineteen liver (LT, including seven simultaneous liver-kidney [SLKT]) and 17 kidney transplant (KT) recipients received organs from HCV (+) donors; of these, 13 were HCV NAT (+) in each group. All patients who received organs from HCV NAT (+) donors developed HCV viremia post-transplant except for 2 KT recipients. Patients were treated with a variety of direct-acting antiviral regimens, with high rates of sustained virologic response among those with at least 12 weeks of follow-up past the end of treatment: 12/13 (92%) and 8/8 (100%) among LT/SLKT, and KT recipients. Median time to treatment start was 42 days (interquartile range [IQR] 35-118 days) and 40 days (IQR 26-73) post-LT/SLKT and KT, respectively. One death occurred in a SLKT recipient unrelated to HCV or its treatment. There was no significant increase in rejection, proteinuria, or changes in immunosuppression in any group. Organs from HCV-viremic donors can be utilized for HCV-uninfected recipients with good short-term outcomes.     

Center‐level trends in utilization of HCV‐exposed donors for HCV‐uninfected kidney and liver transplant recipients in the United States

Several single‐center reports of using HCV‐viremic organs for HCV‐uninfected (HCV‐) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV‐exposed donors for HCV‐ recipients (HCV D+/R?) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015‐December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center‐level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R? KTs and LTs. HCV‐viremic (NAT+) D+/R? KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV‐aviremic (Ab+/NAT‐) D+/R? KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV‐ recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2‐1.6) and 1.6 (0.4‐3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5‐4.0) among HCV D?/R?. HCV‐ recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21‐30) and 25 (21‐32) at transplantation versus 29 (23‐36) among HCV D?/R?. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R? transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R? transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R? transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R? transplantation.     

Utilization of HCV viremic donors in kidney transplantation: a chance or a threat?

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in end-stage renal disease. The main issue which does not allow to utilize it fully is the number of organs available for transplant. Introduction of highly effective oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) to the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) enabled transplantation of HCV viremic organs to naive recipients. Despite an increasing number of reports on the satisfying effects of using HCV viremic organs, including kidneys, they are more often rejected than those from HCV negative donors. The main reason is the presence of HCV viremia and not the quality of the organ. The current state of knowledge points to the fact that a kidney transplant from an HCV nucleic acid testing positive (NAT+) donor to naive recipients is an effective and safe solution to the problem of the insufficient number of organs available for transplantation. It does not, however, allow to draw conclusions as to the long-term consequence of such an approach. This review analyzes the possibilities and limitations of the usage of HCV NAT + donor organs. Abbreviations: DAA: direct-acting antivirals; HCV: hepatitis C virus; NAT: nucleic acid testing; OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network; KDIGO: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes; Ab: antigen; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; D: donor; R: recipient; CMV: cytomegalovirus; HBV: hepatitis B virus; UNOS: United Network for Organ Sharing; PHS: Public Health Service; EBR/GZR: elbasvir/grazoprevir; SVR: sustained virologic response; RAS: resistance-associated substitutions; SOF: soforbuvir; GLE/PIB: glecaprevir/pibrentasvir; ACR: acute cellular rejection; AR: acute rejection; DSA: donor-specific antibodies; KTR: kidney transplant recipients; AASLD: American Association for the Study of Liver Disease; IDSA: Infectious Diseases Society of America; PPI: proton pump inhibitors; CKD: chronic kidney disease; GN: glomerulonephritis; KAS: The Kidney Allocation system     

Optimization of heart allocation: The transplant risk score

The new French heart allocation system is designed to minimize waitlist mortality and extend the donor pool without a detrimental effect on posttransplant survival. This study was designed to construct a 1‐year posttransplant graft‐loss risk score incorporating recipient and donor characteristics. The study included all adult first single‐organ recipients transplanted between 2010 and 2014 (N = 1776). This population was randomly divided in a 2:1 ratio into derivation and validation cohorts. The association of variables with 1‐year graft loss was determined with a mixed Cox model with center as random effect. The predictors were used to generate a transplant‐risk score (TRS). Donor‐recipient matching was assessed using 2 separate recipient‐ and donor‐risk scores. Factors associated with 1‐year graft loss were recipient age >50 years, valvular cardiomyopathy and congenital heart disease, previous cardiac surgery, diabetes, mechanical ventilation, glomerular filtration rate and bilirubin, donor age >55 years, and donor sex: female. The C‐index of the final model was 0.70. Correlation between observed and predicted graft loss rate was excellent for the overall cohort (r = 0.90). Hearts from high‐risk donors transplanted to low‐risk recipients had similar survival as those from low‐risk donors. The TRS provides an accurate prediction of 1‐year graft‐loss risk and allows optimal donor‐recipient matching.     

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA level in plasma and kidney tissue in HCV antibody‐positive donors: Quantitative comparison

Kidney transplant from donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody has been limited to HCV viremic recipients only, due to concern of the HCV transmission. However, the new antiviral medications provide an opportunity to expand the utilization of these donors. To study the risk of HCV transmission in kidney transplantation, we used discarded donor kidneys and determined HCV RNA levels by quantitative real‐time PCR in bilateral (right and left) kidney biopsies and plasma from 14 HCV antibody‐positive donors (sensitivity: 15 international unit (IU)/mL plasma; 1.8 IU/50 nL kidney). In three NAT‐negative donors, HCV RNA was negative in plasma and kidney. In all 11 NAT‐positive donors, HCV RNA was positive in plasma (range: 5807‐19 134 177 IU/mL) but negative in six kidneys from four donors with plasma HCV RNA <1.5 million IU/μL. HCV RNA correlated between right and left kidneys (P = 0.75) and between kidney and plasma (r = 0.86). When normalized by volume, HCV RNA median (range) was 49 (0‐957) IU/50 nL plasma and 1.0 (0‐103) IU/50 nL kidney, significantly lower in kidney (P = 0.005) than in plasma (14‐fold). Plasma HCV RNA can be used to predict the kidney HCV load. Future studies are needed if plasma/kidney HCV levels can be used to stratify donors for transmission risk and recipients for post‐transplant management in extended utilization of HCV antibody‐positive donors.     

Impact of US Public Health Service increased risk deceased donor designation on organ utilization

Under US Public Health Service guidelines, organ donors with risk factors for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), or hepatitis C virus (HCV) are categorized as increased risk donors (IRD). Previous studies have suggested that IRD organs are utilized at lower rates than organs from standard risk donors (SRD), but these studies were conducted prior to universal donor nucleic acid test screening. We conducted risk‐adjusted analyses to determine the effect of IRD designation on organ utilization using 2010‐2017 data (21 626 heart, 101 160 kidney, 52 714 liver, and 16 219 lung recipients in the United States) from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. There was no significant difference (P < .05) between risk‐adjusted utilization rates for IRD vs SRD organs for adult hearts and livers and pediatric kidneys, livers, and lungs. Significantly lower utilization was found among IRD adult kidneys, lungs, and pediatric hearts. Analysis of the proportion of transplanted organs recovered from IRD by facility suggests that a subset of facilities contribute to the underutilization of adult IRD kidneys. Along with revised criteria and nomenclature to identify donors with HIV, HBV, or HCV risk factors, educational efforts to standardize informed consent discussions might improve organ utilization.     

Utilization of Organs From Donors According to Hepatitis C Antibody and Nucleic Acid Testing Status: Time for Change

Previous studies have grouped all donors positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody (Ab). Only recently has donor HCV nucleic acid testing (NAT) become routine, and the impact of Ab and NAT status on organ utilization is unknown. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified 9290 donors from 2015 to 2016 for whom both HCV Ab and NAT data were available and compared organ utilization by HCV status. Overall, 93.8% of donors were Ab negative and NAT negative (Ab?NAT?), 0.15% were Ab negative and NAT positive, 1.8% were Ab positive and NAT negative (Ab+NAT?), and 4.2% were both Ab and NAT positive (Ab+NAT+). Ab?NAT? donors donated at the highest rate for all organs except livers, of which Ab+NAT? donors donated at a higher rate (81.2% vs 73.2%, p = 0.03). Livers were discarded for reasons related to abnormal biopsies in Ab+NAT+ donors, whereas kidneys from Ab‐ or NAT‐positive donors were discarded for reasons related to HCV status. Using a propensity score?matched model, we estimated that using Ab+NAT? donors at the same rate as Ab?NAT? donors could result in 48 more kidney donors, 37 more heart donors, and 15 more lung donors annually. We urge the use of HCV Ab+NAT? donors for appropriately selected and consenting recipients.     

Renal transplantation from seropositive hepatitis C virus donors to seronegative recipients in Spain: a prospective study

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive donors are identified in Spain by antibody detection (HCV‐Ab) techniques while a HCV nuclear acid‐testing (HCV‐NAT) is not mandatory. Since it has been shown that HCV‐Ab positive HCV‐NAT negative donors do not universally transmit the infection, we designed a protocol based on the identification of viremia in HCV‐Ab positive donors to start treatment if needed. HCV‐Ab‐positive donors were identified and we performed HCV‐NAT immediately. Donors coinfected with HIV were excluded. Recipients with a low chance to receive a transplant, with no history of liver disease and who were negative for HCV‐Ab were selected after informed consent was signed. Kidney recipients from HCV‐NAT‐positive donors received glecaprevir and pibrentasvir from 6 h before the transplant until 8 weeks after. Recipients from HCV‐NAT‐negative donors were not treated. Regular monitoring by HCV‐NAT was performed to initiate antiviral treatment. We included 11 recipients from six deceased donors Four recipients received grafts from HCV‐NAT‐positive donors and seven patients received grafts from HCV‐NAT‐negative donors. None of our recipients exhibited HCV‐NAT positivity during the minimum follow‐up period of 6 months. Recipients from HCV‐NAT‐positive donors exhibited sustained virologic response at 12 weeks. One recipient from an HCV‐NAT‐negative donor lost his graft via a process thought to be unrelated to HCV. The remaining 10 patients had a stable functioning graft at the end of the follow‐up period. Our preliminary data suggest that renal transplantation from HCV‐Ab‐ positive donors to HCV‐Ab negative recipients is safe when only the recipients of organs from HCV‐NAT‐positive donors are treated.     

Early experience with the use of hepatitis C antibody‐positive,nucleic acid testing‐negative donors in lung transplantation

Historically, potential lung donors who have detectable antibodies to hepatitis C virus have been declined by most centers due to concern for possible disease transmission. We sought to evaluate hepatitis C viral transmission rates from donors who were known to be HCV Ab positive but HCV NAT negative. We performed a single‐center retrospective review of a prospectively collected database for lung transplant recipients at our center including HCV Ab+NAT‐ donors (approved January 2017). Donor and recipient demographic data were compiled, and records were queried to ascertain rate of seroconversion. During the study period (1/1/17 to 8/9/17), a total of 64 recipients underwent lung transplantation. Thirteen (20%) donors were HCV Ab+NAT‐. All recipients of HCV Ab+NAT‐ grafts were HCV Ab‐ at the time of transplant. Recipients of grafts from HCV Ab+NAT‐ donors underwent protocol NAT at 2 and 12 months and all are NAT‐ to date. One recipient developed reactive HCV Ab at 6 months post‐transplant. Follow‐up NAT showed HCV RNA to be undetectable. To date, use of HCV Ab+NAT‐ donors in lung transplantation has yielded favorable outcomes, with evidence of one transient seroconversion suggesting this practice may increase access to life‐saving transplantation to those in need.     

Local and regional variability in utilization and allocation of hepatitis C virus–infected hearts for transplantation

With the advent of direct‐acting antiviral agents, there has been a rapid rise in hepatitis C virus–infected (HCV+) heart transplantation. We aimed to understand local and regional differences in utilization and allocation of HCV+ hearts. Using United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) de‐identified data from January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2019 we compared trends in the utilization rates (hearts transplanted/donors recovered) of HCV‐uninfected (HCV?) to those of HCV+ nonviremic (HCV‐NV) and viremic (HCV‐V) hearts nationally and by UNOS region. We also evaluated allocation rates (hearts successfully allocated/donors recovered) by organ procurement organization (OPO). We found that (1) in 2019, national utilization rates for HCV‐NV and HCV‐V hearts were the same as HCV? hearts (27.6% for HCV‐NV, 30.9 for HCV‐V, and 31.7% for HCV?, P = .277); (2) utilization rates of HCV‐NV hearts were low in regions 3 and 4 and of HCV‐V hearts in regions 3, 4, and 8 even in the contemporary period since 2018; and (3) there was marked variability in allocation of HCV+ hearts at the OPO level even within the same UNOS region. We conclude that despite national strides in the utilization of HCV+ hearts for transplantation, more aggressive allocation of HCV+ hearts at the OPO level may still significantly affect the organ shortage.     

Transplantation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody positive,nucleic acid test negative donor kidneys to HCV negative patients frequently results in seroconversion but not HCV viremia

Anecdotal reports have suggested that transplantation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody positive (Ab+)/nucleic acid test negative (NAT?) donor kidneys into HCV negative recipients is not associated with HCV transmission. We reviewed our center's outcomes of 32 HCV negative patients who received kidney allografts from 25 donors who were HCV Ab+/NAT?. The mean recipient age was 56.9 ± 12.1 years and the mean donor age was 41.5 ± 14 years, with a median Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of 68%. Twelve donors (48%) met Public Health Service (PHS) increased risk status. All patients received antithymocyte globulin induction followed by tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid maintenance immunosuppression. With a mean follow‐up posttransplant of 10 ± 2.7 months, 1‐ and 3‐ month serum creatinine levels were 1.7 ± 0.8 and 1.3 ± 0.4, respectively, and patient and graft survival rates were 100% and 97%, respectively. Fourteen patients (44%) seroconverted and became HCV Ab+ posttransplant. However, all 32 patients were HCV RNA negative at 1‐ and 3‐ months posttransplant, and 27 and 8 patients tested at 6‐ and 12‐months posttransplant, respectively, remain HCV RNA negative. In conclusion, transplantation of HCV Ab+/NAT? kidneys to HCV negative recipients frequently causes HCV Ab seroconversion but not HCV viremia.     

Are we underestimating the quality of aviremic hepatitis C–positive kidneys? Time to reconsider

Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) introduced in 2009 included hepatitis C serologic but not viremic status of the donors. With nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) now being mandatory, further evaluation of these donors is possible. We conducted a retrospective matched case‐control analysis of adult deceased donor kidney transplants performed between December 5, 2014 to December 31, 2016 with the KDRI score and hepatitis C virus antibody (HCV Ab) and NAT testing status obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. The 205 aviremic HCV Ab+ NAT ‐ kidney transplants were compared to KDRI matched control kidneys that were HCV Ab–NAT‐. The aviremic HCV kidneys were recovered from donors who were significantly younger, more likely to be white, and less likely to have hypertension and diabetes. The majority of the recipients of the aviremic HCV kidneys when compared to matched controls were HCV positive: 90.2% vs 4.3%. The recipients were significantly older, were on dialysis for a shorter time, and were transplanted sooner. The graft survival of aviremic HCV kidneys was similar (P < .08). If the HCV status of the aviremic kidneys was assumed to be negative, 122 more kidneys could have been allocated to patients with estimated posttransplant survival <20. Seven kidneys would no longer have Kidney Donor Profile Index >85%. Further policies might consider these findings to appropriately allocate these kidneys.