Search

Donor/recipient incompatibility in kidney transplantation classically refers to ABO/HLA-incompatibility. Kidney paired donation (KPD) was historically established to circumvent ABO/HLA-incompatibility, with the goal of identifying ABO/HLA-compatible matches. However, there is a broad range of donor factors known to impact recipient outcomes beyond ABO/HLA-incompatibility, such as age and weight, and quantitative tools are now available to empirically compare potential living donors across many of these factors, such as the living donor kidney donor profile index (LKDPI). Moreover, the detrimental impact of mismatch at other HLA antigens (such as DQ) and epitope mismatching on post-transplant outcomes has become increasingly recognized. Thus, it is time for a new paradigm of incompatibility that considers all of these risks factors together in assessing donor/recipient compatibility and the potential utility for KPD. Under this new paradigm of incompatibility, we show how the LKDPI and other tools can be used to identify donor/recipient incompatibilities that could be improved through KPD, even for those with a traditionally 'compatible' living donor.

COVID-19 has profoundly affected the American health care system; its effect on the liver transplant (LT) waitlist based on COVID-19 incidence has not been characterized. Using SRTR data, we compared observed LT waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, deceased donor LTs (DDLT), and living donor LTs (LDLT) 3/15/2020-8/31/2020 to expected values based on historical trends 1/2016-1/2020, stratified by statewide COVID-19 incidence. Overall, from 3/15 to 4/30, new listings were 11% fewer than expected (IRR = 0.84 0.890.93 ), LDLTs were 49% fewer (IRR = 0.37 0.510.72 ), and DDLTs were 9% fewer (IRR = 0.85 0.910.97 ). In May, new listings were 21% fewer (IRR = 0.74 0.790.84 ), LDLTs were 42% fewer (IRR = 0.39 0.580.85 ) and DDLTs were 13% more (IRR = 1.07 1.151.23 ). Centers in states with the highest incidence 3/15-4/30 had 59% more waitlist deaths (IRR = 1.09 1.592.32 ) and 34% fewer DDLTs (IRR = 0.50 0.660.86 ). By August, waitlist outcomes were occurring at expected rates, except for DDLT (13% more across all incidences). While the early COVID-affected states endured major transplant practice changes, later in the pandemic the newly COVID-affected areas were not impacted to the same extent. These results speak to the adaptability of the transplant community in addressing the pandemic and applying new knowledge to patient care.

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0‐4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5‐9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1‐year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high‐intensity desensitization (P, Among living donor kidney transplant recipients, infections are most common in patients who receive high‐intensity desensitization, and patients with more than 4 infections in the first year posttransplant are at increased risk of adverse outcomes.

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) have pre-existing donor-specific antibody (DSA) that, despite desensitization, may persist or reappear with resulting consequences, including delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). To quantify the risk of DGF and AR in ILDKT and downstream effects, we compared 1406 ILDKTr to 17 542 compatible LDKT recipients (CLDKTr) using a 25-center cohort with novel SRTR linkage. We characterized DSA strength as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF); positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC); or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC). DGF occurred in 3.1% of CLDKT, 3.5% of PLNF, 5.7% of PFNC, and 7.6% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher DGF for PCC recipients (aOR = 1.03 1.682.72 ). However, the impact of DGF on mortality and DCGF risk was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction > .1). AR developed in 8.4% of CLDKT, 18.2% of PLNF, 21.3% of PFNC, and 21.7% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher AR (aOR PLNF = 1.45 2.093.02 ; PFNC = 1.67 2.403.46 ; PCC = 1.48 2.243.37 ). Although the impact of AR on mortality was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction = .1), its impact on DCGF risk was less consequential for ILDKT (aHR = 1.34 1.621.95 ) than CLDKT (aHR = 1.96 2.292.67 ) (p interaction = .004). Providers should consider these risks during preoperative counseling, and strategies to mitigate them should be considered.

Organs from uncontrolled DCD donors (uDCDs) have expanded donation in Europe since the 1980s, but are seldom used in the United States. Cited barriers include lack of knowledge about the potential donor pool, lack of robust outcomes data, lack of standard donor eligibility criteria and preservation methods, and logistical and ethical challenges. To determine whether it would be appropriate to invest in addressing these barriers and building this practice, we sought to enumerate the potential pool of uDCD donors. Using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, the largest all-payer emergency department (ED) database, between 2013 and 2016, we identified patients who had refractory cardiac arrest in the ED. We excluded patients with contraindications to both deceased donation (including infection, malignancy, cardiopulmonary disease) and uDCD (including hemorrhage, major polytrauma, burns, and poisoning). We identified 9828 (range: 9454-10 202) potential uDCDs/y; average age was 32 years, and all were free of major comorbidity. Of these, 91.1% had traumatic deaths, with major causes including nonhead blunt injuries (43.2%) and head injuries (40.1%). In the current era, uDCD donors represent a significant potential source of unused organs. Efforts to address barriers to uDCD in the United States should be encouraged.

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

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.

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

With implementation of the Kidney Allocation System, the growth of kidney paired donation programs, and advances in desensitization and immunosuppression, the outlook for "untransplantable" kidney transplantation candidates has never been more promising. The Kidney Allocation System prioritized compatible matches for candidates with calculated panel-reactive antibody levels of 98%, 99%, or 100% and broadened allocation of non-A1 and non-A1-B subgroup kidneys to blood group type B candidates. Concurrently, the growth of kidney paired donation programs and use of incompatible transplantation as part of kidney paired donation to achieve "more compatible" kidney transplantation has improved options for candidates with an incompatible living donor. Finally, advances in desensitization and immunosuppression have strengthened the ability to manage donor-specific antibodies and antibody-mediated rejection. Although no patient should be labeled "untransplantable" due to blood group type or donor-specific antibody, all candidates should be provided with individualized and realistic counseling regarding their anticipated wait times for deceased donor or kidney paired donation matching, with early referral to expert centers when needed. In this Perspective, we consider blood group type ABO incompatibility, HLA antigen incompatibility, antibody-mediated rejection, kidney paired donation, and recent developments in incompatible transplantation in more depth and recommend an approach to the sensitized candidate.

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) has resulted in fewer pediatric kidneys being allocated to pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant (pDDKT) recipients. This had prompted concerns that post-pDDKT outcomes may worsen. To study this, we used SRTR data to compare the outcomes of 953 pre-KAS pDDKT (age

The impact of donor quality on post-kidney transplant (KT) survival may vary by candidate condition. Characterizing this variation would increase access to KT without sacrificing outcomes. We developed a tool to estimate post-KT survival for combinations of donor quality and candidate condition. We studied deceased donor KT recipients (n = 120 818) and waitlisted candidates (n = 376 272) between 2005 and 2016 by using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Donor quality and candidate condition were measured by using the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and the Estimated Post Transplant Survival (EPTS) score. We estimated 5-year post-KT survival based on combinations of KDPI and EPTS score using random forest algorithms and waitlist survival by EPTS score using Weibull regressions. Survival benefit was defined as absolute reduction in mortality risk with KT. For candidates with an EPTS score of 80, 5-year waitlist survival was 47.6%, and 5-year post-KT survival was 78.9% after receiving kidneys with a KDPI of 20 and was 70.7% after receiving kidneys with a KDPI of 80. The impact of KDPI on survival benefit varied greatly by EPTS score. For candidates with low EPTS scores (eg,40), the KDPI had limited impact on survival benefit. For candidates with middle or high EPTS scores (eg,40), survival benefit decreased with higher KDPI but was still substantial even with a KDPI of 100 (16 percentage points). Our prediction tool (www.transplantmodels.com/kdpi-epts) can support individualized decision-making on kidney offers in clinical practice.

Background Neoantigens derived from tumor-associated mutations can elicit T cell-mediated antitumor immunity and facilitate tumor rejection. Here, we assessed the safety and efficacy of personalized neoantigen peptide vaccination (PPV) in advanced NSCLC patients who had failed conventional therapy. Methods 24 stage III/IV recurrent NSCLC patients were immunized with mixtures of short and long neoantigen peptides based on personalized tumor-associated mutations and predicted HLA peptide binding affinities. Primary study endpoints were feasibility and safety. Secondary endpoints were PPV-induced immune responses, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Aside from transient rash, fatigue and/or fever in 3 patients, no treatment-related adverse events were observed. The median PFS and OS of the 24 PPV patients was 6.0 and 8.9 months, respectively. Of the 16 PPV patients bearing EGFR mutations, 7 experienced objective tumor response by RECIST 1.1, including 6 PR and 1 CR. Of the 8 patients expressing wild-type EGFR, 4 showed SD and no PR or CR. Importantly, 9 PPV patients who continued EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi) therapy in spite of prior progression showed extended survival compared to 7 patients who stopped EGFRi prior to initiating PPV (median OS: 13.8 vs. 7.6 months, P = 0.038), though both patient groups experienced similar objective response rates. Immune monitoring demonstrated the immunogenicity of two highly shared EGFR mutations in multiple responding patients. Robust PPV-specific immune responses were observed in 4 responding patients, with ELISPOT and tetramer staining showing incremental increases in peripheral blood neoantigen-specific CD8+ T cell frequencies for up to 3 months during PPV. T-cell receptor (TCR) Vb sequencing also demonstrated significantly increased frequencies of neoantigen-specific CD8+ TCR clones in both peripheral blood and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes following PPV. Conclusions These results suggest that PPV is safe and potentially beneficial for advanced stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients. Survival analyses imply that PPV in combination with EGFRi may be a viable treatment option for NSCLC, in spite of prior EGFRi failure. Clinical trial identification ChiCTR-INR-16009867. Legal entity responsible for the study Tianjin Beichen Hospital. Funding Tianjin HengJia Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. Disclosure F. Li: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Tianjin HengJia Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. G. Lizee: Advisory / Consultancy: HengJia Neoantigen Biotechnology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. P. Hwu: Advisory / Consultancy: Dragonfly Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: GlaxoSmithKline; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Immatics; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech. L. Deng: Full / Part-time employment: Tianjin HengJia Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. Q. Zou: Full / Part-time employment: Tianjin HengJia Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. M.A. Stairs: Advisory / Consultancy: HengJia Neoantigen Biotechnology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. C. Chen: Full / Part-time employment: Tianjin HengJia Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. C. Huo: Full / Part-time employment: Tianjin HengJia Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. Y. Wang: Full / Part-time employment: Tianjin HengJia Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.