Search

Background: Pediatric (age < 18 years) kidney transplant (KT) candidates face increasingly complex choices. The 2014 kidney allocation system nearly doubled wait times for pediatric recipients. Given longer wait times and new ways to optimize compatibility, more pediatric candidates may consider kidney‐paired donation (KPD). Motivated by this shift and the potential impact of innovations in KPD practice, we studied pediatric KPD procedures in the US from 2008 to 2021. Methods: We describe the characteristics and outcomes of pediatric KPD recipients with comparison to pediatric non‐KPD living donor kidney transplants (LDKT), pediatric LDKT recipients, and pediatric deceased donor (DDKT) recipients. Results: Our study cohort includes 4987 pediatric DDKTs, 3447 pediatric non‐KPD LDKTs, and 258 pediatric KPD transplants. Fewer centers conducted at least one pediatric KPD procedure compared to those that conducted at least one pediatric LDKT or DDKT procedure (67, 136, and 155 centers, respectively). Five centers performed 31% of the pediatric KPD transplants. After adjustment, there were no differences in graft failure or mortality comparing KPD recipients to non‐KPD LDKT, LDKT, or DDKT recipients. Discussion: We did not observe differences in transplant outcomes comparing pediatric KPD recipients to controls. Considering these results, KPD may be underutilized for pediatric recipients. Pediatric KT centers should consider including KPD in KT candidate education. Further research will be necessary to develop tools that could aid clinicians and families considering the time horizon for future KT procedures, candidate disease and histocompatibility characteristics, and other factors including logistics and donor protections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A successful living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is the culmination of a multifaceted process coordinated among key stakeholders. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey of US liver transplant (LT) centers (August 26, 2021–October 10, 2021) regarding attitudes, barriers, and facilitators of LDLT to learn how to expand LDLT safely and effectively in preparation for the American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Liver Transplant Consensus Conference. Results: Responses were received from staff at 58 programs (40.1% of US LT centers). There is interest in broadening LDLT (100% of LDLT centers, 66.7% of non‐LDLT centers) with high level of agreement that LDLT mitigates donor shortage (93.3% of respondents) and that it should be offered to all suitable candidates (87.5% of respondents), though LDLT was less often endorsed as the best first option (29.5% of respondents). Key barriers at non‐LDLT centers were institutional factors and surgical expertise, whereas those at LDLT centers focused on waitlist candidate and donor factors. Heterogeneity in candidate selection for LDLT, candidate reluctance to pursue LDLT, high donor exclusion rate, and disparities in access were important barriers. Conclusion: Findings from this study may help guide current and future expansion of LDLT more efficiently in the US. These efforts require clear and cohesive messaging regarding LDLT benefits, engagement of the public community, and dedicated resources to equitably increase LDLT access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is limited to transplant centers with specific experience. However, the impact of recipient characteristics on procedure selection (LDLT vs. deceased donor liver transplant [DDLT]) within these centers has not been described. Transplant registry data for centers that performed ≥1 LDLT in 2002–2019 were analyzed using hierarchal regression modeling to quantify the impact of patient and center factors on the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of LDLT (vs DDLT). Among 73,681 adult recipients, only 4% underwent LDLT, varying from <1% to >60% of total liver transplants. After risk adjustment, the likelihood of receiving an LDLT rose by 73% in recent years (aOR 1.73 for 2014‐2019 vs. 2002‐2007) but remained lower for older adults, men, racial and ethnic minorities, and obese patients. LDLT was less commonly used in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or alcoholic cirrhosis, and more frequently in those with hepatitis C and with lower severity of illness (Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score < 15). Patients with public insurance, lower educational achievement, and residence in the Northwest and Southeast had decreased access. While some differences in access to LDLT reflect clinical factors, further exploration into disparities in LDLT utilization based on center practice and socioeconomic determinants of health is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After 2 decades of limited growth, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been increasingly accepted as a promising solution to the growing organ shortage in the US. With experience, LDLT offers superior graft and patient survival with low rates of rejection. However, not all waitlisted patients have equal access to LDLT, with financial toxicity representing a substantial barrier. Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity costs associated with donation as well as insurance-based discrimination and variable employer leave policies. There are multiple potential national, local, and patient-centered solutions to address some of the cost-related issues associated with living LDLT. These include standardization of employer leave policies, creation of federal and state-led tax relief programs, optimization of National Living Donor Assistance Center use, engagement of independent living donor advocates, creation of financial toolkits, and encouragement of recipient or donor-led fundraising. In this piece, members of the North American Living Liver Donation Group, a consortium of 37 LDLT programs, explore these financial challenges and discuss solutions to achieve financial neutrality, where individuals can donate free from financial constraints or gains. As a community, it is imperative that we confront factors driving financial toxicity to improve equity and access to LDLT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The discovery of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) has raised important ethical and clinical questions about genetic testing in the context of living and deceased kidney donation. Largely missing from this discussion are the perspectives of those African Americans (AA) most likely to be impacted by ApoL1 testing. We surveyed 331 AA potential and former living kidney donors (LKDs), kidney transplant candidates and recipients, and nonpatients at three United States transplant programs about their ApoL1 testing attitudes. Overall, 72% felt that transplant programs should offer ApoL1 testing to AA potential LKDs. If a potential LKD has the high-risk genotype, 79% felt that the LKD should be allowed to make their own donation decision or participate in shared decision-making with transplant doctors. More than half of the potential LKDs (58%) would undergo ApoL1 testing and 81% of former LKDs would take the test now if offered. Most transplant candidates expressed a low likelihood of accepting a kidney from a LKD (79%) or a deceased donor (67%) with the high-risk genotype. There is strong support among LKDs and transplant patients for ApoL1 testing when evaluating potential kidney donors of African ancestry. Inclusion of AA stakeholders in developing guidelines and educational programs for ApoL1 testing is critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is debate over whether Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene risk variants contribute to African American (AA) live donors' (LD) increased risk of kidney failure. Little is known about factors influencing physicians' integration of APOL1 genetic testing of AA LDs into donor evaluation. Design: We conducted a cross-sectional survey, informed by Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory, among nephrology and surgeon members of the American Society of Nephrology, American Society of Transplantation, and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their practices of and attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing of AA potential LDs. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed. Results: Of 383 completed surveys, most physicians believed that APOL1 testing can help AA LDs make more informed donation decisions (87%), and the addition of APOL1 testing offers better clinical information about AA LD's eligibility for donation than existing evaluation approaches (74%). Among respondents who evaluate LDs (n = 345), 63% would definitely or probably begin or continue using APOL1 testing in the next year, however, few use APOL1 testing routinely (4%) or on a case-by-case basis (14%). Most did not know the right clinical scenario to order APOL1 testing (59%), but would use educational materials to counsel AA LDs about APOL1 testing (97%). Discussion: Although physicians were highly supportive of APOL1 genetic testing for AA LDs, few physicians use APOL1 testing. As more physicians intend to use APOL1 testing, an ethical framework and clinical decision support are needed presently to assist clinicians in clarifying the proper indication of APOL1 genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than three-fourths of adults in the USA use the Internet to access health-related information. Adults exploring the possibility of living donation should have access to online content that is readable and comprehensive. We simulated a search of online information about living kidney donation and evaluated readability, topics covered, and racial/ethnic diversity of 21 websites meeting inclusion criteria (eg, hosted by a nonprofit or patient advocacy organization, English content, based in USA). Using standard readability metrics, 62% of sites were classified as 'Difficult to read' and none achieved the recommended reading level of sixth grade. On average, websites covered 18.5 (62%) of 30 recommended information topics (range: 7 to 28) and only 2.1 (23%) of 9 racial/ethnic diversity items (range: 0 to 6). Overall, the most common nonprofit or patient advocacy organization websites do not meet the readability standards established by the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association, many lack fundamental information about living kidney donation, and most are not racially/ethnically diverse. We encourage the transplant community to consider playing a more active role in improving the overall quality of online information disseminated to the general public. Further, there is a need to more critically examine the accuracy of online living donation content in future investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the increasing number of patients with end-stage renal disease, there is a growing demand for transplants for recipients and donors aged 60 years and older. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we performed survival analyses and multivariate logistic regression to help guide transplant professional decisions regarding the selection of graft type (living vs deceased) and donor age (60-69 vs 70+ years) for recipients aged 60 years and older. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organ transplantation has enriched and prolonged the lives of many patients who otherwise would have died of organ failure. Many of these advances, which occurred in the later part of the 20th century, are due to improved techniques and pharmacological management. Today, almost every organ can be transplanted. However; donor and recipient criteria can vary widely according to the organ(s) in question. This article reviews the historical changes that have occurred in transplant along with current criteria for donors and recipients, and describes the newest outreach to increase the donor pool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Néphrologie & Thérapeutique is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background/Aims: Right lobar living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been controversial because of donor deaths and widely variable reports of recipient and donor morbidity. Our aims were to ensure full disclosure to donors and recipients of the risks and benefits of this procedure in a large University center and to help explain reporting inconsistencies. Methods: The Clavien 5-tier grading system was applied retrospectively in 121 consecutive adult right lobe recipients and their donors. The incidence was determined of potentially (Grade III), actually (Grade IV), or ultimately fatal (Grade V) complications during the first post-transplant year. When patients had more than one complication, only the seminal one was counted, or the most serious one if complications occurred contemporaneously. Results: One year recipient/graft survival was 91%/84%. Within the year, 80 (66%) of the 121 recipients had Grade III (n =54) Grade IV (n =16), or Grade V (n =10) complications. The complications involved the graft’s biliary tract (42% incidence), graft vasculature (15%), or non-graft locations (9%). Complications during the first year did not decline with increased team experience, and adversely affected survival out to 5 years. All 121 donors survive. However, 13 donors (10.7%) had Grade III (n =9) or IV (n =4) complications of which five were graft-related. Conclusions: Despite the satisfactory recipient and graft survival at our and selected other institutions, and although we have not had a donor mortality to date, the role of right lobar LDLT is not clear because of the recipient morbidity and risk to the donors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We examined a novel linkage of national US donor registry data with records from a pharmacy claims warehouse (2007-2016) to examine associations (adjusted hazard ratio, LCL aHR UCL ) of post-donation fills of antidiabetic medications (ADM, insulin or non-insulin agents) with body mass index (BMI) at donation and other demographic and clinical factors. In 28 515 living kidney donors (LKDs), incidence of ADM use at 9 years rose in a graded manner with higher baseline BMI: underweight, 0.9%; normal weight, 2.1%; overweight, 3.5%; obese, 8.5%. Obesity was associated with higher risk of ADM use compared with normal BMI (aHR, 3.36 4.59 6.27 ). Metformin was the most commonly used ADM and was filled more often by obese than by normal weight donors (9-year incidence, 6.87% vs 1.85%, aHR, 3.55 5.00 7.04 ). Insulin use was uncommon and did not differ significantly by BMI. Among a subgroup with BMI data at the 1-year post-donation anniversary (n = 19 528), compared with stable BMI, BMI increase >0.5 kg/m 2 by year 1 was associated with increased risk of subsequent ADM use (aHR, 1.03 1.48 2.14, P = .04). While this study did not assess the impact of donation on the development of obesity, these data support that among LKD, obesity is a strong correlate of ADM use., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Rationale & Objective: African American live kidney donors ("donors") have a greater risk for kidney failure than European American donors. Apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) variants in African Americans may be associated with this disparity., Study Design: Cross-sectional mixed-methods design., Setting & Participants: African American donors at 1 transplantation center., Analytical Approach: Semistructured interviews assessed attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing, willingness to undergo APOL1 testing, hypothetical decisions about donating with 2 APOL1 variants, and demographics. Surveys assessed perceptions of ethnic identity and genetics knowledge. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: 23 donors participated in semistructured interviews. Most (96%) reported that transplantation centers should routinely offer APOL1 genetic testing to all African American potential donors. Most (87%) would have been willing to undergo APOL1 testing before donating. Although study participants noted that APOL1 testing may deter African American potential donors from donating, most (61%) would have donated even if they had 2 high-risk APOL1 variants. Several themes emerged. Study participants believed that APOL1 testing was beneficial for providing information to help donors make informed donation decisions. Participants expressed concern about APOL1 variants placing donors at harm for kidney failure, and therefore valued taking preventive health measures. Participants believed that potential donors would experience psychological distress from learning that they have 2 gene variants and could harm their recipients. Participants were apprehensive about insurance coverage and costs of APOL1 testing and feared that APOL1 genetic test results could discriminate against African Americans., Limitations: Findings may not be generalizable to African American potential donors., Conclusions: Findings suggest that African American donors support APOL1 genetic testing yet fear that APOL1 variants and genetic testing could adversely affect donors' health and ethnic identity. Transplantation centers using APOL1 genetic testing should address African American donors' concerns about APOL1 genetic testing to optimize future donors' informed consent practices., (Copyright © 2018 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: 0.26 0.47 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: 0.41 0.62 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: 0.78 1.02 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., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)