Novel Risk Factors for Progression of Diabetic and Nondiabetic CKD: Findings From the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study

1. Download : Download high-res image (451KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Best practices to optimize utilization of the National Living Donor Assistance Center for the financial assistance of living organ donors

Living organ donors face direct costs when donating an organ, including transportation, lodging, meals, and lost wages. For those most in need, the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) provides reimbursement to defray travel and subsistence costs associated with living donor evaluation, surgery, and follow‐up. While this program currently supports 9% of all US living donors, there is tremendous variability in its utilization across US transplant centers, which may limit patient access to living donor transplantation. Based on feedback from the transplant community, NLDAC convened a Best Practices Workshop on August 2, 2018, in Arlington, VA, to identify strategies to optimize transplant program utilization of this valuable resource. Attendees included team members from transplant centers that are high NLDAC users; the NLDAC program team; and Advisory Group members. After a robust review of NLDAC data and engagement in group discussions, the workgroup identified concrete best practices for administrative and transplant center leadership involvement; for individuals filing NLDAC applications at transplant centers; and to improve patient education about potential financial barriers to living organ donation. Multiple opportunities were identified for intervention to increase transplant programs’ NLDAC utilization and reduce financial burdens inhibiting expansion of living donor transplantation in the United States.     

Immunosuppression and the Risk of Post-Transplant Malignancy Among Cadaveric First Kidney Transplant Recipients

The success of renal transplantation may be counterbalanced by serious adverse medical events. The effect of immunosuppression on the incidence of de novo neoplasms among kidney recipients should be monitored continuously. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied the association of induction therapy by immunosuppression with antilymphocyte antibodies, with the development of de novo neoplasms. The study population included more than 41 000 recipients who received a cadaveric first kidney transplant after December 31, 1995, and were followed through February 28, 2002. Using Cox regression models, we estimated time to development of two types of malignancy: de novo solid tumors and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). We made adjustments for several patient demographic factors and comorbidities. Induction therapy was significantly associated with a higher relative risk (RR) of PTLD (RR = 1.78, p < 0.001), but not with a greater likelihood of de novo tumors (RR = 1.07, p = 0.42). Treatment with maintenance tacrolimus vs. cyclosporine showed a significantly different RR of developing de novo tumors for recipients with induction than for those not receiving induction (p = 0.024). These new estimates of the magnitude of malignancy risk associated with induction therapy may be useful for clinical practice.     

Six-Month Prophylaxis Is Cost Effective in Transplant Patients at High Risk for Cytomegalovirus Infection

The risk of late-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a concern in seronegative kidney and/or pancreas transplant recipients of seropositive organs despite the use of antiviral prophylaxis. The optimal duration of prophylaxis is unknown. We studied the cost effectiveness of 6- versus 3-mo prophylaxis with valganciclovir. A total of 222 seronegative recipients of seropositive kidney and/or pancreas transplants received valganciclovir prophylaxis for either 3 or 6 mo during two consecutive time periods. We assessed the incidence of CMV infection and disease 12 mo after completion of prophylaxis and performed cost-effectiveness analyses. The overall incidence of CMV infection and disease was 26.7% and 24.4% in the 3-mo group and 20.9% and 12.1% in the 6-mo group, respectively. Six-month prophylaxis was associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk for CMV disease (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.72), but not infection (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.14). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that 6-mo prophylaxis combined with a one-time viremia determination at the end of the prophylaxis period incurred an incremental cost of $34,362 and $16,215 per case of infection and disease avoided, respectively, and $8,304 per one quality adjusted life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses supported the cost effectiveness of 6-mo prophylaxis over a wide range of valganciclovir and hospital costs, as well as variation in the incidence of CMV disease. In summary, 6-mo prophylaxis with valganciclovir combined with a one-time determination of viremia is cost effective in reducing CMV infection and disease in seronegative recipients of seropositive kidney and/or pancreas transplants.Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains one of most common opportunistic infections in solid organ transplant patients despite availability of specific and efficacious anti-viral drugs.^1,2 Solid organ transplant patients who have a negative CMV serology and receive an organ from a positive CMV serologic donor (D+/R−) have the highest incidence of CMV disease with and without prophylaxis.^2–5 Although the risk for CMV disease persists for life, the majority of cases occur shortly after completion of prophylaxis, often within the first year after transplant.⁶ CMV disease causes significant morbidity, increases mortality, and is associated with inferior transplant outcomes, particularly in the case of kidney transplantation.^7–10 Furthermore, the presence of CMV disease is one of the most frequent infectious causes of hospitalization early after transplantation, increasing the total cost of kidney transplantation and reducing its overall effectiveness.^7,11–13Valganciclovir (VGCV) is an effective anti-CMV agent for prophylaxis and treatment of CMV disease that is widely used in transplantation.^2,14–16 Although the recommended dose for CMV prophylaxis is 900 mg daily adjusted for renal function, a recent study showed that VGCV at 450 mg daily provides similar drug exposure compared with oral ganciclovir (GCV) at 1000 mg three times daily in kidney transplant patients, a dose similarly effective for CMV prophylaxis.^2,17 In most studies, VGCV prophylaxis consisted of 100 d after transplant, after which time the risk of CMV infection and disease increased.^2,18,19 Extending the duration of VGCV prophylaxis beyond the early post-transplant period may abrogate this transient increase in the risk of infection and disease.^20,21 In this regard, the optimal duration of prophylaxis for CMV D+/R− patients has not been determined and is the subject of ongoing study.²² Cost, efficacy, and safety are important factors in determining the optimal duration of VGCV prophylaxis. Over the past two decades, various strategies have been used including pre-emptive versus universal prophylaxis and shorter versus longer period of prophylaxis.^20,21,23,24 Although several clinical studies comparing universal prophylaxis versus pre-emptive anti-viral therapy have found similar efficacy and cost in managing CMV infection across various combinations of donor and recipient CMV serologic status, two meta-analyses did find that the use of universal prophylaxis was associated with reduced risk for CMV disease and death.^23–26This study is based on a single center experience comparing two CMV prophylaxis strategies. We report here the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analyses of 6- versus 3-mo VGCV prophylaxis in CMV D+/R− de novo kidney and/or pancreas transplant patients.     

The time interval between kidney and pancreas transplantation and the clinical outcomes of pancreas after kidney transplantation

Pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplantation is one of the accepted pancreas transplant modalities. We studied the impact of time interval between kidney and pancreas transplantation on the outcomes of PAK transplantation. Using OPTN/SRTR data, we included 1853 PAK transplants performed between 1996 and 2005 with follow-up until November 1, 2008. Kaplan-Meier survival and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed using the time interval between kidney and pancreas transplantation either as a categorical (less than one yr, between one and less than three yr, and greater than or equal to three yr) or as a continuous variable (months) to assess kidney graft and patient survival. Patients who received a pancreas transplant three yr or later after kidney transplantation had higher risk of death-censored kidney graft loss (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.04, 2.32, p = 0.03). Each month beyond three yr between kidney and pancreas transplantation incurred 1% higher risk of subsequent death-censored kidney graft loss (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001, 1.02, p = 0.03). In conclusion, time interval between pancreas and kidney transplantation is an independent risk factor of kidney graft loss following pancreas transplantation. Shortening the time interval between pancreas and kidney transplantation to less than three yr may reduce the risk of kidney graft loss in qualified PAK transplant candidates.     

Cardiovascular complications after renal transplantation and their prevention

By the time of renal transplantation, end-stage renal disease patients have a huge burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and are heavily saturated with atherosclerotic risk factors. Worsening of preexisting risk factors or new CVD risk factors may develop in the posttransplant period consequent in part to the diabetogenic and atherogenic potential of immunosuppressive drugs. The annual risk of a fatal or non-fatal CVD event of 3.5 to 5% in kidney transplant recipients is 50-fold higher than the general population. Renal allograft dysfunction, proteinuria, anemia, moderate hyperhomocysteinemia and elevated serum C-reactive protein concentrations, each dependently confer greater risk of CVD morbidity and mortality in the posttransplant period. Long-term care of renal transplant recipients should programmatically incorporate the recommendations of the National Kidney Foundation Working Groups and European Best Practice Guidelines Expert Group on Renal Transplantations into the management of hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, and posttransplant diabetes mellitus. Timely utilization of coronary revascularization procedures should be undertaken as these treatments are equally effective in the kidney transplant population.