Search

Background: Five organs (heart, right lung, liver, right, and left kidneys) from a deceased patient were transplanted into five recipients in four US states; the deceased patient was identified as part of a healthcare-associated fungal meningitis outbreak among patients who underwent epidural anesthesia in Matamoros, Mexico., Methods: After transplant surgeries occurred, Fusarium solani species complex, a fungal pathogen with a high case-mortality rate, was identified in cerebrospinal fluid from the organ donor by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and fungal-specific polymerase chain reaction and in plasma by mNGS., Results: Four of five transplant recipients received recommended voriconazole prophylaxis; four were monitored weekly by serum (1-3)-β-d-glucan testing. All five were monitored for signs of infection for at least 3 months following transplantation. The liver recipient had graft failure, which was attributed to an etiology unrelated to fungal infection. No fungal DNA was identified in sections of the explanted liver, suggesting that F. solani species complex did not contribute to graft failure. The remaining recipients experienced no signs or symptoms suggestive of fusariosis., Conclusion: Antifungal prophylaxis may be useful in preventing donor-derived infections in recipients of organs from donors that are found to have Fusarium meningitis., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Kidney transplant is not only the best treatment for patients with advanced kidney disease but it also reduces health care expenditure. The management of transplant patients is complex as they require special care by transplant nephrologists who have expertise in assessing transplant candidates, understand immunology and organ rejection, have familiarity with perioperative complications, and have the ability to manage the long-term effects of chronic immunosuppression. This skill set at the intersection of multiple disciplines necessitates additional training in Transplant Nephrology. Currently, there are more than 250,000 patients with a functioning kidney allograft and over 100,000 waitlisted patients awaiting kidney transplant, with a burgeoning number added to the kidney transplant wait list every year. In 2022, more than 40,000 patients were added to the kidney wait list and more than 25,000 received a kidney transplant. The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, passed in 2019, is aiming to double the number of kidney transplants by 2030 creating a need for additional transplant nephrologists to help care for them. Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the Nephrology-as well Transplant Nephrology-workforce due to a multitude of reasons. The American Society of Transplantation Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice created a workgroup to discuss the Transplant Nephrology workforce shortage. In this article, we discuss the scope of the problem and how the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recognition of Transplant Nephrology Fellowship could at least partly mitigate the Transplant Nephrology work force crisis., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Transplantation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a major innovation that is changing the landscape of kidney transplantation in the United States. We used the 2006-2021 United Network for Organ Sharing data to examine trends over time. KPD is increasing, with 1 in 5 living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) in 2021 facilitated by KPD. The proportion of LDKT performed via KPD was comparable for non-Whites and Whites. An increasing proportion of KPD transplants are going to non-Whites. End-chain recipients are not identified in the database. To what extent these trends reflect how end-chain kidneys are allocated, as opposed to increase in living donation among minorities, remains unclear. Half the LDKT in 2021 in sensitized (panel reactive antibody ≥ 80%) and highly sensitized (panel reactive antibody ≥ 98%) groups occurred via KPD. Yet, the proportion of KPD transplants performed in sensitized recipients has declined since 2013, likely due to changes in the deceased donor allocation policies and newer KPD strategies such as compatible KPD. In 2021, 40% of the programs reported not performing any KPD transplants. Our study highlights the need for understanding barriers to pursuing and expanding KPD at the center level and the need for more detailed and accurate data collection at the national level., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Living donor transplantation provides the best possible recipient outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Yet, identifying potential living donors can be a laborious and resource intensive task that heavily relies on the recipient's means and social network. Social media has evolved to become a key tool in helping to bring recipients and potential living donors together given its ease of utilization, widespread access, and improved recipient's comfort with public solicitation. However, in the USA, formal guidelines to direct the use of social media in this context are lacking., Recent Findings: To better inform the landscape and opportunities utilizing social media in living donation, the OPTN Living Donor Committee surveyed US transplant programs to explore programs' experiences and challenges when helping patients use social media to identify potential living donors (September 2019). A large majority of survey participants ( N  = 125/174, 72%) indicated that their program provided education to use social media to identify potential living donors and most programs tracking referral source confirmed an increase utilization over time. The use of social media was compounded with program and recipient's challenges including concerns about privacy, inadequate technology access, and knowledge gaps. In this review, we discuss the results of this national survey and recent literature, and provide suggestions to inform program practices and guidance provided to patients wishing to use social media to identify potential living donors., Summary: Transplant programs should become competent in the use of social media for potential living donor identification to empower patients interested in using this tool. Social media education should be provided to all patients regardless of voiced interest and, when appropriate, revisited at multiple time points. Programs should consider developing a "team of experts" that can provide focused education and support to patients embarking in social media living donor campaigns. Care should be taken to avoid exacerbating disparities in access to living donor transplantation. Effective and timely guidance to patients in the use of social media could enhance the identification of potential living donors., Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00382-1., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestSAB, LAC, and LL are UNOS staff members, and the other authors served as volunteer members of the OPTN/UNOS Living Donor Committee. ST is an employee of CareDx. KLL is a Senior Scientist of the SRTR, receives research funding related to living donation from the National Institutes of Health (R01DK120551), and is also supported by the Mid-America Transplant/Jane A. Beckman Endowed Chair in Transplantation. KLL is chair of the American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Community of Practice, a member of the ASN policy and Advocacy Committee, and a member of the National Kidney Foundation Transplant Advisory Committee. Unrelated to this work, KLL receives consulting fees from CareDx and speaker honoraria from Sanofi., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Kidney transplantation (KT) remains the treatment of choice for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), but access to transplantation is limited by a disparity between supply and demand for suitable organs. This organ shortfall has resulted in the use of a wider range of donor kidneys and, in parallel, a reexamination of potential alternative renal replacement therapies. Previous studies comparing Canadian intensive home hemodialysis (IHHD) with deceased donor (DD) KT in the United States reported similar survival, suggesting IHHD might be a plausible alternative., Methods: Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and an experienced US-based IHHD program in Lynchburg, VA, we retrospectively compared mortality outcomes of a cohort of IHHD patients with transplant recipients within the same geographic region between October 1997 and June 2014., Results: We identified 3073 transplant recipients and 116 IHHD patients. Living donor KT ( n  = 1212) had the highest survival and 47% reduction in risk of death compared with IHHD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.83). Survival of IHHD patients did not statistically differ from that of DD transplant recipients ( n  = 1834) in adjusted analyses (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.62-1.48) or when exclusively compared with marginal (Kidney Donor Profile Index >85%) transplant recipients (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.84-2.16)., Conclusion: Our study showed comparable overall survival between IHHD and DD KT. For appropriate patients, IHHD could serve as bridging therapy to transplant and a tenable long-term renal replacement therapy., (© 2020 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)