Impact of the Presence and Duration of Donor-Specific Antibodies on Renal Function

Usefulness of Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) to predict graft survival in a South Brazilian Cohort

Introduction:

Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) has been incorporated in the United States to improve the kidney transplant allocation system.

Objectives:

To evaluate deceased kidney donors’ profile using KDPI and compare to the previous United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) definition of expanded criteria donors (ECD) and assess the KDPI applicability to predict five-year graft survival and renal function in our sample.

Methods:

Retrospective cohort of 589 kidney transplants from deceased donors performed from January 2009 to May 2013 with follow-up until May 2018.

Results:

In 589 kidney transplants, 36.6% of donors were classified as ECD and 28.8% had KDPI ≥ 85%. Mean KDPI was 63.1 (95%CI: 60.8-65.3). There was an overlap of standard and ECD in KDPI between 60 and 95 and a significantly lower death-censored graft survival in KDPI ≥ 85% (78.6%); KDPI 0-20: 89.8%, KDPI 21-59: 91.6%, and KDPI 60-84: 83.0%; p = 0.006. The AUC-ROC was 0.577 (95%CI: 0.514-0.641; p = 0.027). Renal function at 5 years was significantly lower according to the incremental KDPI (p < 0.002). KDPI (HR 1.011; 95%CI 1.001-1.020; p = 0.008), donor-specific antibodies (HR 2.77; 95%CI 1.69-4.54; p < 0.001), acute rejection episode (HR 1.73; 95%CI 1.04-2.86; p = 0.034) were independent and significant risk factors for death-censored graft loss at 5 years.

Conclusion:

In our study, 36.6% were classified as ECD and 28.8% had KDPI ≥ 85%. KDPI score showed a moderate power to predict graft survival at 5 years. Renal function was significantly lower in patients with higher KDPI.

The detrimental impact of persistent vs an isolated occurrence of de novo donor-specific antibodies on intermediate-term renal transplant outcomes

BACKGROUND

De novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) after renal transplant are associated with acute rejection (AR) and graft loss, yet most recipients with dnDSA have stable function and no AR. We assessed whether the persistence of dnDSA increased the risk of a detrimental outcome.

METHODS

A single-center review of renal transplant recipients monitored for dnDSA at multiple time points post-transplant. An Isolated dnDSA was defined as one positive dnDSA and no additional positive tests, whereas ≥2 positive dnDSA was defined as persistent dnDSA.

RESULTS

Of 708 recipients, 22% developed dnDSA, of whom 64% had persistent dnDSA. At median follow-up of 35 (range 12-74) months, there were fewer episodes of AR in the isolated dnDSA vs the persistent dnDSA group (2% vs 22%; P<.001,) and fewer graft losses with isolated dnDSA vs persistent dnDSA (0% vs 10%; P=.03). Within the persistent dnDSA group, recipients with dnDSA ≥60% of time points, had more AR (32% vs 16%, P=.10) and more graft losses (21% vs 2%; P=.003) than those with dnDSA<60%.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistence of dnDSA resulted in more AR and graft failure than a single positive value. Recipients with longer duration of dnDSA persistence had an additional increased risk of AR and graft failure.