Survival benefit of accepting kidneys from older donation after cardiac death donors

Kidneys from older (age ≥50 years) donation after cardiac death (DCD50) donors are less likely to be transplanted due to inferior posttransplant outcomes. However, candidates who decline a DCD50 offer must wait for an uncertain future offer. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting DCD50 kidneys, we used 2010-2018 Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data to identify 92 081 adult kidney transplantation candidates who were offered a DCD50 kidney that was eventually accepted for transplantation. DCD50 kidneys offered to candidates increased from 590 in 2010 to 1441 in 2018. However, 34.6% of DCD50 kidneys were discarded. Candidates who accepted DCD50 offers had 49% decreased mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] _0.460.51_0.55, cumulative mortality at 6-year 23.3% vs 34.0%, P < .001) compared with those who declined the same offer (decliners). Six years after their initial DCD50 offer decline, 43.0% of decliners received a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT), 6.3% received living donor kidney transplant (LDKT), 22.6% died, 22.0% were removed for other reasons, and 6.0% were still on the waitlist. Comparable survival benefit was observed even with DCD donors age ≥60 (aHR: _0.420.52_0.65, P < .001). Accepting DCD50 kidneys was associated with a substantial survival benefit; providers and patients should consider these benefits when evaluating offers.     

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.     

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.     

Kidney transplant outcomes associated with the use of increased risk donors in children

Increased risk donors (IRDs) may inadvertently transmit blood‐borne viruses to organ recipients through transplant. Rates of IRD kidney transplants in children and the associated outcomes are unknown. We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to identify pediatric deceased donor kidney transplants that were performed in the United States between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015. We used the Cox regression analysis to compare patient and graft survival between IRD and non‐IRD recipients, and a sequential Cox approach to evaluate survival benefit after IRD transplants compared with remaining on the waitlist and never accepting an IRD kidney. We studied 328 recipients with and 4850 without IRD transplants. The annual IRD transplant rates ranged from 3.4% to 13.2%. IRDs were more likely to be male (P = .04), black (P < .001), and die from head trauma (P = .006). IRD recipients had higher mean cPRA (0.085 vs 0.065, P = .02). After multivariate adjustment, patient survival after IRD transplants was significantly higher compared with remaining on the waitlist (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26‐0.88, P = .018); however, patient (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.54‐1.59, P = .79) and graft survival (aHR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70‐1.13, P = .32) were similar between IRD and non‐IRD recipients. We recommend that IRDs be considered for transplant in children.     

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.     

Temporal trends in utilization and outcomes of steatotic donor livers in the United States

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization–level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non‐SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005‐2007:_13.1515.28_17.74; 2008‐2011:_11.7713.41_15.29; 2012‐2014:_9.8711.37_13.10; 2015‐2017:_7.798.89_10.15, P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: _0.430.54_0.68, P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: _0.420.53_0.67, P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: _0.901.04_1.21, P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: _0.901.04_1.20, P = .6) to recipients of non‐SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool.     

Racial differences in completion of the living kidney donor evaluation process

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) persist but the most effective target to eliminate these disparities remains unknown. One potential target could be delays during completion of the live donor evaluation process. We studied racial differences in progression through the evaluation process for 247 African American (AA) and 664 non‐AA living donor candidates at our center between January 2011 and March 2015. AA candidates were more likely to be obese (38% vs 22%: P < .001), biologically related (66% vs 44%: P < .001), and live ≤50 miles from the center (64% vs 37%: P < .001) than non‐AAs. Even after adjusting for these differences, AAs were less likely to progress from referral to donation (aHR for AA vs non‐AA: _0.260.47 _0.83; P = .01). We then assessed racial differences in completion of each step of the evaluation process and found disparities in progression from medical screening to in‐person evaluation (aHR: _0.410.62_0.94; P = .02) and from clearance to donation (aHR: _0.28 0.51_0.91; P = .02), compared with from referral to medical screening (aHR: _0.781.02_1.33; P = .95) and from in‐person evaluation to clearance (aHR: _0.59 0.93_1.44; P = .54). Delays may be a manifestation of the transplant candidate's social network, thus, targeted efforts to optimize networks for identification of donor candidates may help address LDKT disparities.     

How do highly sensitized patients get kidney transplants in the United States? Trends over the last decade

Prioritization of highly sensitized (HS) candidates under the kidney allocation system (KAS) and growth of large, multicenter kidney‐paired donation (KPD) clearinghouses have broadened the transplant modalities available to HS candidates. To quantify temporal trends in utilization of these modalities, we used SRTR data from 2009 to 2017 to study 39 907 adult HS (cPRA ≥ 80%) waitlisted candidates and 19 003 recipients. We used competing risks regression to quantify temporal trends in likelihood of DDKT, KPD, and non‐KPD LDKT for HS candidates (Era 1: January 1, 2009‐December 31, 2011; Era 2: January 1, 2012‐December 3, 2014; Era 3: December 4, 2014‐December 31, 2017). Although the likelihood of DDKT and KPD increased over time for all HS candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] Era 3 vs 1 for DDKT: _1.741.85_1.97, P < .001 and for KPD: _1.702.20_2.84, P < .001), the likelihood of non‐KPD LDKT decreased (aSHR: _0.690.82_0.97, P = .02). However, these changes affected HS recipients differently based on cPRA. Among recipients, more cPRA 98%‐99.9% and 99.9%+ recipients underwent DDKT (96.2% in Era 3% vs 59.1% in Era 1 for cPRA 99.9%+), whereas fewer underwent non‐KPD LDKT (1.9% vs 30.9%) or KPD (2.0% vs 10.0%). Although KAS increased DDKT likelihood for the most HS candidates, it also decreased the use of non‐KPD LDKT to transplant cPRA 98%+ candidates.     

Utilization of high donor sequence number grafts in cardiac transplantation

Donor sequence number (DSN) represents the number of candidates to whom a graft was offered and declined prior to acceptance for transplantation. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients receiving high DSN grafts. Consecutive isolated adult cardiac transplantations performed at a single‐center were reviewed. Recipients were grouped into standard (≤75th percentile) DSN and high (>75th percentile) DSN. A previously validated donor risk index was used to quantify the risk associated with donor grafts, and recipient outcomes were assessed. Overall, 254 patients were included: 194 standard DSN (range 1‐79) and 60 high DSN (range 82‐1723). High DSN grafts were harvested at greater distance (P < .001) with increased ischemia time (P < .001), resulting in a modest increase in donor risk index (1 point median difference, P = .014). High DSN recipients were less frequently listed as UNOS status 1A (P < .001). Despite a nonsignificant trend toward increased in‐hospital/30‐day mortality in high DSN recipients, there were no differences in primary graft dysfunction or 1‐year survival (high DSN 89% vs standard DSN 88%, P = .82). After adjustment for risk factors, high DSN was not associated with increased 1‐year mortality (hazard ratio 1.18, 95%‐CI 0.54‐2.58, P = .68).     

The landscape of international living kidney donation in the United States

In the United States, kidney donation from international (noncitizen/nonresident) living kidney donors (LKDs) is permitted; however, given the heterogeneity of healthcare systems, concerns remain regarding the international LKD practice and recipient outcomes. We studied a US cohort of 102 315 LKD transplants from 2000‐2016, including 2088 international LKDs, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. International LKDs were more tightly clustered among a small number of centers than domestic LKDs (Gini coefficient 0.76 vs 0.58, P < .001). Compared with domestic LKDs, international LKDs were more often young, male, Hispanic or Asian, and biologically related to their recipient (P < .001). Policy‐compliant donor follow‐up was substantially lower for international LKDs at 6, 12, and 24 months postnephrectomy (2015 cohort: 45%, 33%, 36% vs 76%, 71%, 70% for domestic LKDs, P < .001). Among international LKDs, Hispanic (aOR = _0.230.36_0.56, P < .001) and biologically related (aOR = _0.390.59_0.89, P < .01) donors were more compliant in donor follow‐up than white and unrelated donors. Recipients of international living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) had similar graft failure (aHR = _0.780.89_1.02, P = .1) but lower mortality (aHR = _0.530.62_0.72, P < .001) compared with the recipients of domestic LDKT after adjusting for recipient, transplant, and donor factors. International LKDs may provide an alternative opportunity for living donation. However, efforts to improve international LKD follow‐up and engagement are warranted.     

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.     

Geographic disparities in donor lung supply and lung transplant waitlist outcomes: A cohort study

Despite the Final Rule mandate for equitable organ allocation in the United States, geographic disparities exist in donor lung allocation, with the majority of donor lungs being allocated locally to lower‐priority candidates. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 19 622 lung transplant candidates waitlisted between 2006 and 2015. We used multivariable adjusted competing risk survival models to examine the relationship between local lung availability and waitlist outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of death and removal from the waitlist for clinical deterioration. Waitlist candidates in the lowest quartile of local lung availability had an 84% increased risk of death or removal compared with candidates in the highest (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51‐2.24, P < .001). The transplantation rate was 57% lower in the lowest quartile compared with the highest (SHR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.39‐0.47). The adjusted death or removal rate decreased by 11% with a 50% increase in local lung availability (SHR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.85‐0.93, P < .001) and the adjusted transplantation rate increased by 19% (SHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.17‐1.22, P < .001). There are geographically disparate waitlist outcomes in the current lung allocation system. Candidates listed in areas of low local lung availability have worse waitlist outcomes.     

Patterns and predictors of fatigue following living donor nephrectomy: Findings from the KDOC Study

This study sought to identify the prevalence, pattern, and predictors of clinical fatigue in 193 living kidney donors (LKDs) and 20 healthy controls (HCs) assessed at predonation and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation. Relative to HCs, LKDs had significantly higher fatigue severity (P = .01), interference (P = .03), frequency (P = .002), and intensity (P = .01), and lower vitality (P < .001), at 1‐month postdonation. Using published criteria, significantly more LKDs experienced clinical fatigue at 1 month postdonation, compared to HCs, on both the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (60% vs. 37%, P < .001) and SF‐36 Vitality scale (67% vs. 16%, P < .001). No differences in fatigue scores or clinical prevalence were observed at other time points. Nearly half (47%) reported persistent clinical fatigue from 1 to 6 months postdonation. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs presenting for evaluation with a history of affective disorder and low vitality, those with clinical mood disturbance and anxiety about future kidney failure after donation, and those with less physical activity engagement were at highest risk for persistent clinical fatigue 6 months postdonation. Findings confirm inclusion of fatigue risk in existing OPTN informed consent requirements, have important clinical implications in the care of LKDs, and underscore the need for further scientific examination in this population.     

Changes in offer and acceptance patterns for pediatric kidney transplant candidates under the new Kidney Allocation System

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding decreased deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rates for pediatric candidates under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). To better understand what might be driving this, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients kidney offer data for 3642 pediatric (age <18 years) kidney‐only transplant candidates between December 31, 2012 to December 3, 2014 (pre‐KAS) and December 4, 2014 to January 6, 2017 (post‐KAS). We used negative binomial regression and multilevel logistic regression to compare offer and acceptance rates pre‐ and post‐KAS. We stratified by donor age (<18, 18‐34, and 35+ years) and KDPI (<35% and ≥35%) to reflect differing allocation prioritization pre‐KAS and post‐KAS. As might be expected from prioritization changes, post‐KAS candidates were less likely to receive offers for donors 18‐34 years old with KDPI ≥ 35% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: _0.180.21_0.25, P < .001), and more likely to receive offers for donors 18‐34 years old and KDPI < 35% (aIRR: _1.121.20_1.29, P < .001). However, offer acceptance practices also changed post‐KAS: kidneys from donors 18‐34 years old and KDPI < 35% were 23% less likely to be accepted post‐KAS (adjusted odds ratio: _0.610.77_0.98, P = .03). Using kidneys from donors 18‐34 years old with KDPI < 35% post‐KAS to the same extent they were used pre‐KAS might be an effective strategy to mitigate any decrease in DDKT rates for pediatric candidates.     

A donor risk index for graft loss in pediatric living donor kidney transplantation

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates often have multiple potential living donors (LDs); no evidence‐based tool exists to compare potential LDs, or to decide between marginal LDs and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation (KT). We developed a pediatric living kidney donor profile index (P‐LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI by using Cox regression to model the risk of all‐cause graft loss as a function of living donor characteristics and DD KDPI. HLA‐B mismatch (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per mismatch = _1.041.27_1.55), HLA‐DR mismatch (aHR per mismatch = _1.021.23_1.49), ABO incompatibility (aHR = _1.203.26_8.81), donor systolic blood pressure (aHR per 10 mm Hg = _1.011.07_1.18), and donor estimated GFR (eGFR; aHR per 10 mL/min/1.73 m² = _0.880.94_0.99) were associated with graft loss after LDKT. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) P‐LKDPI was ?25 (?56 to 12). 68% of donors had P‐LKDPI <0 (less risk than any DD kidney) and 25% of donors had P‐LKDPI >14 (more risk than median DD kidney among pediatric KT recipients during the study period). Strata of LDKT recipients of kidneys with higher P‐LKDPI had a higher cumulative incidence of graft loss (39% at 10 years for P‐LDKPI ≥20, 28% for 20> P‐LKDPI ≥?20, 23% for ?20 > P‐LKDPI ≥?60, 19% for P‐LKDPI <?60 [log rank P < .001]). The P‐LKDPI can aid in organ selection for pediatric KT recipients by allowing comparison of potential LD and DD kidneys.     

Factors associated with perceived donation‐related financial burden among living kidney donors

The perception of living kidney donation–related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self‐reported and ZIP code–level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation‐related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income <$60 000 (86% vs. 20%, P = .002), or have had predonation cost concerns (43% vs. 7%, P = .03). Perceived financial burden was 3.6‐fold as likely among those with predonation cost concerns and 10.6‐fold as likely for those with incomes <$60 000. Collecting socioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation‐related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support interventions toward potential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation‐related financial burden.     

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.     

The national landscape of deceased donor kidney transplantation for the highly sensitized: Transplant rates,waitlist mortality,and posttransplant survival under KAS

Deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) rates for highly sensitized (HS) candidates increased early after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in 2014. However, this may represent a bolus effect, and a granular investigation of the current state of DDKT for HS candidates remains lacking. We studied 270 722 DDKT candidates from the SRTR from 12/4/2011 to 12/3/2014 (“pre‐KAS”) and 12/4/2014 to 12/3/2017 (“post‐KAS”), analyzing DDKT rates for HS candidates using adjusted negative binomial regression. Post‐KAS, candidates with the highest levels of sensitization had an increased DDKT rate compared with pre‐KAS (cPRA 98% adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]:_1.271.77_2.46 P = .001, cPRA 99% aIRR:_3.184.36_5.98 P < .001, cPRA 99.5–99.9% aIRR:_16.9124.29_34.89 P < .001, and cPRA 99.9%+ aIRR: _{8 .79}11.58_15.26 P < .001). To determine whether these changes produced more equitable access to DDKT, we compared DDKT rates of HS to non‐HS candidates (cPRA 0–79%). Post‐KAS, cPRA, 98% candidates had an equivalent DDKT rate (aIRR:_0.650.94_1.36, P = .8) to non‐HS candidates, whereas 99% candidates had a higher DDKT rate (aIRR:_1.191.68_2.38, P = .02). Although cPRA 99.5–99.9% candidates had an increased DDKT rate (aIRR:_2.463.50_4.98, P < .001) compared to non‐HS candidates, cPRA 99.9%+ candidates had a significantly lower DDKT rate (aIRR:_0.290.40_0.56, P < .001). KAS has improved access to DDKT for HS candidates, although substantial imbalance exists between cPRA 99.5–99.9% and 99.9%+ candidates.     

Geographic disparities in liver supply/demand ratio within fixed‐distance and fixed‐population circles

Recent OPTN proposals to address geographic disparity in liver allocation have involved circular boundaries: the policy selected 12/17 allocated to 150‐mile circles in addition to DSAs/regions, and the policy selected 12/18 allocated to 150‐mile circles eliminating DSA/region boundaries. However, methods to reduce geographic disparity remain controversial, within the OPTN and the transplant community. To inform ongoing discussions, we studied center‐level supply/demand ratios using SRTR data (07/2013‐06/2017) for 27 334 transplanted deceased donor livers and 44 652 incident waitlist candidates. Supply was the number of donors from an allocation unit (DSA or circle), allocated proportionally (by waitlist size) to the centers drawing on these donors. We measured geographic disparity as variance in log‐transformed supply/demand ratio, comparing allocation based on DSAs, fixed‐distance circles (150‐ or 400‐mile radius), and fixed‐population (12‐ or 50‐million) circles. The recently proposed 150‐mile radius circles (variance = 0.11, P = .9) or 12‐million‐population circles (variance = 0.08, P = .1) did not reduce the geographic disparity compared to DSA‐based allocation (variance = 0.11). However, geographic disparity decreased substantially to 0.02 in both larger fixed‐distance (400‐mile, P < .001) and larger fixed‐population (50‐million, P < .001) circles (P = .9 comparing fixed distance and fixed population). For allocation circles to reduce geographic disparities, they must be larger than a 150‐mile radius; additionally, fixed‐population circles are not superior to fixed‐distance circles.     

Financial burden associated with time to return to work after living kidney donation

Many living kidney donors undertake a significant financial burden in order to donate. We studied the association between time to return to work and reported financial burden. Kidney donors who donated from 2/2005 through 12/2015 (n = 1012) were surveyed 6 months after donation and asked about occupation, time to return to work, and financial burden (on a 10‐point Likert scale). Of 856 donors working for pay, 629 (73%) responded. After adjusting for donor characteristics, increased length of time to return to work was a significant predictor of financial burden (P < .001). It is notable that those in manual/skilled trade occupations, compared with all other occupations, experienced greater financial burden for each week away from work (P = .003). Older age at donation and nondirected (vs directed) donation were associated with significantly decreased financial burden. These observations provide additional information to better inform donor candidates, and further emphasize the need to develop policies so that living kidney donation can be financially neutral.