A2 /A2 B to B Renal Transplantation: Past, Present, and Future Directions

Outcomes of A2/A2B to B Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Retrospective Study

Background A2/A2B to B kidney transplantation has the potential to increase transplant access for traditionally disadvantaged blood group B minority candidates. Despite prior reports of positive post-transplant safety and clinical success, A2/A2B to B kidney transplantation remains underutilized in the United States. This study aims to investigate the post-transplant outcomes of A2/A2B to B kidney transplants performed at our center. Methods A retrospective study of all A2/A2B to B deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKTs) at our center from 2017 through 2023 was performed. Recipient and donor demographics, recipient medical history, time to transplant from listing, and post-transplant clinical outcomes were assessed, including one-year graft and patient survival. Results Of the 54 A2/A2B to B DDKTs performed during this period, 36 recipients were male, and 18 were female. The mean recipient age was 53.2 years. There were 22 (40.7%) African American recipients, 12 (22.2%) Hispanic recipients, 11 (20.3%) Caucasian recipients, eight (14.8%) Asian recipients, and one (1.8%) recipient of "other" race. The mean estimated post-transplant survival score was 46.5%. The mean donor age was 40.2 years, and the mean kidney donor profile index score was 44%. The mean time from waitlisting to transplant was 216 days. Delayed graft function was observed in five (9.2%) patients. Three (5.5%) patients had biopsy-proven acute rejection in the first year after transplant. The mean serum creatinine at one-year post-transplant was 1.4 mg/dL. At one-year post-transplant, graft survival was 96.2%, and patient survival was 98.1%. Conclusions Our study demonstrated excellent one-year post-transplant graft and patient survival rates with A2/A2B to B DDKT, with minority candidates predominantly benefiting from this.

A2/A2B Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Using A2 Titers Improves Access to Kidney Transplantation: A Single-Center Study

Rationale & Objective

The option for A2/A2B deceased donor kidney transplantation was integrated into the kidney allocation system in 2014 to improve access for B blood group waitlist candidates. Despite excellent reported outcomes, center uptake has remained low across the United States. Here, we examined the effect of implementing an A2/A2B protocol using a cutoff titer of ≤1:8 for IgG and ≤1:16 for IgM on blood group B kidney transplant recipients at a single center.

Study Design

Retrospective observational study.

Setting & Participants

Blood group B recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants at a single center from January 1, 2019, to December 2022.

Exposure

Recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants were analyzed based on donor blood type with comparisons of A2/A2B versus blood group compatible.

Outcomes

One-year patient survival, death-censored allograft function, primary nonfunction, delayed graft function, allograft function as measured using serum creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year, biopsy-proven rejection, and need for plasmapheresis.

Analytical Approach

Comparison between the A2/A2B and compatible groups were performed using the Fisher test or the χ2 test for categorical variables and the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables.

Results

A total of 104 blood type B patients received a deceased donor kidney transplant at our center during the study period, 49 (47.1%) of whom received an A2/A2B transplant. Waiting time was lower in A2/A2B recipients compared with blood group compatible recipients (57.9 months vs 74.7 months, P = 0.01). A2/A2B recipients were more likely to receive a donor after cardiac death (24.5% vs 1.8%, P < 0.05) and experience delayed graft function (65.3% vs 41.8%). There were no observed differences in the average serum creatinine level or estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year post kidney transplantation, acute rejection, or primary nonfunction.

Limitations

Single-center study. Small cohort size limiting outcome analysis.

Conclusions

Implementation of an A2/A2B protocol increased transplant volumes of blood group B waitlisted patients by 83.6% and decreased the waiting time for transplantation by 22.5% with similar transplant outcomes.

A2/A2B to B kidney transplantation outcomes: A single center 7-year experience

INTRODUCTION

Data on long-term outcomes following A2/A2B to B kidney transplants since the 2014 kidney allocation system (KAS) changes are few. The primary aim of this study is to report our 7-year experience with A2/A2B to B kidney transplants and to compare post-transplant outcomes of A2/A2B to a concurrent group of B to B kidney transplants. Additionally, the study evaluates the impact of pre-transplant anti-A1 titers on survival outcomes in A2/A2B transplants.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center analysis included all adults who received A2/A2B to B deceased donor kidney transplants from December 2014 to June 2021 compared to B to B recipients. The effects of pre-transplant IgM/IgG titers, stratified as ≤1:8 and ≥1:16, on death-censored, rejection-free, and overall graft survival were tested.

RESULTS

Fifty-three A2/A2B and 114 B to B adults were included with a median follow-up time of 32 months. Overall graft survival, patient survival, and rejection-free graft survival did not differ between the two groups. There were no differences between the groups' overall kidney function values (p > .80) or their temporal trajectories (time by group interaction p > .11). Unadjusted death-censored graft survival was lower in A2/A2B to B compared to B recipients (p = .03), but the effect was not significant (p = .195) after adjusting for any readmissions (p = .96), rejection episodes (p < .001) or BK infection (p = .76). We did not detect an effect of pre-transplant titer group on death-censored (p = .59), rejection-free (p = .61), or overall graft survival (p = .26) CONCLUSIONS: A2/A2B to B kidney transplants have comparable overall patient and graft survival, rejection-free graft survival, and longitudinal renal function compared to B to B transplants at our center. Allograft survival outcomes were not significantly different between patients with low and high pre-transplant anti-A1 IgM/IgG titers.

Impact of sensitization and ABO blood types on the opportunity of deceased-donor kidney transplantation with prolonged waiting time

The waiting time to deceased-donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) is long in Asian countries. We investigated the impact of sensitization and ABO blood type (ABO) on DDKT opportunity using two Korean cohorts: a hospital cohort from two centers and a national database. The impact of panel reactive antibody (PRA) based on the maximal PRA% and ABO on DDKT accessibility was analyzed using a competing risks regression model. In the hospital cohort (n = 4722), 88.2%, 8.7%, and 3.1% of patients belonged to < 80%, 80-99%, and ≥ 99% PRA groups, respectively, and 61.1%, 11.6%, and 27.3% belonged to A or B, AB, and O blood types, respectively. When PRA and ABO were combined, PRA < 80%/A or B and 80 ≤ PRA < 99%/AB had fewer DDKT opportunities (median, 12 years; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.71) compared with PRA < 80%/AB (median, 11 years). Also, PRA < 80%/O, 80 ≤ PRA < 99%/A or B, and PRA ≥ 99%/AB had a much lower DDKT opportunity (median, 13 years; sHR, 0.49). Furthermore, 80 ≤ PRA < 99%/O and PRA ≥ 99%/non-AB had the lowest DDKT opportunity (sHR, 0.28). We found similar results in the national cohort (n = 18,974). In conclusion, an integrated priority system for PRA and ABO is needed to reduce the inequity in DDKT opportunities, particularly in areas with prolonged waiting times.

ABO-adjusted cPRA metric for kidney allocation in an Asian-predominant population

Recent studies showed that ABO-adjusted calculated panel reactive antibody (ABO-cPRA) may better reflect the histocompatibility level in a multi-ethnic population, but such data in Asians is not available. We developed an ABO-adjusted cPRA metric on a cohort of waitlist kidney transplant patients (n = 647, 99% Chinese) in Hong Kong, based on HLA alleles and ABO frequencies of local donors. The concordance between the web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and the impact on kidney allocation were evaluated. The blood group distribution for A, B, O and AB among waitlist kidney candidates were 26.2%, 27.5%, 40.1%, and 6.1%, and their chances of encountering incompatible blood group donors were 32.6%, 32.4%, 57.6%, and 0%, respectively. There is poor agreement between web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and our locally developed metrics. Over 90% of patients showed an increase in cPRA after ABO adjustment, most notably in those with cPRA between 70% and 79%. Blood group O patients had a much greater increase in cPRA scores after adjustment while patients of blood group A and B had similar increment. 10.6% of non-AB blood group waitlist patients had ABO-cPRA elevated to ≥80%. A local ABO-adjusted cPRA metric is required for Asian populations and may improve equity in kidney distribution for patients with disadvantageous blood groups. The result from the current study potentially helps other countries/localities in establishing their own unified ABO-cPRA metrics and predict the impact on kidney allocation.

The real unmet need: A multifactorial approach for identifying sensitized kidney candidates with low access to transplant

BACKGROUND

At the start of 2020, the kidney waiting list consisted of 2526 candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) of 99.9% or greater, a cohort demonstrated in published research to have meaningfully lower than average access to transplantation even under the revised kidney allocation system (KAS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of US kidney registrations using data from the OPTN [Reference (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/about-data/)]. The period-prevalent study cohort consisted of US kidney-alone registrations who waited at least 1 day between April 1, 2016, when HLA DQ-Alpha and DP-Beta unacceptable antigen data became available in OPTN data collection, to December 31, 2019. Poisson rate regression was used to model deceased donor kidney transplant rates per active year waiting and using an offset term to account for differential at-risk periods. Median time to transplant was estimated for each IRR group using the Kaplan-Meier method. Sensitivity analyses were included to address geographic variation in supply-to-demand ratios and differences in dialysis time or waiting time.

RESULTS

In this study, we found 1597 additional sensitized (CPRA 50-<99.9%) candidates with meaningfully lower than average access to transplant when simultaneously taking into account CPRA and other factors. In combination with CPRA, candidate blood type, Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score (EPTS), and presence of other antibody specificities beyond those in the current, 5-locus CPRA were found to influence the likelihood of transplant.

CONCLUSION

In total, this suggests approximately 4100 sensitized candidates are on the waiting list who represent a community of disadvantaged patients who may benefit from progressive therapies and interventions to facilitate incompatible transplantation. Though associated with higher risks, such interventions may nevertheless be more attractive than remaining on dialysis with the associated accumulation of mortality risk over time.

Blood Type A1 Mismatch Does Not Affect Heart Transplant Outcomes at One Year

There are subtypes within blood type A, termed non-A1, that have reduced expression of A antigen on cell surfaces. This can result in the development of anti-A1 antibodies. There is limited information regarding the impact of this in heart transplant (HTx) recipients. We conducted a single-center cohort study of 142 Type A HTx recipients in which we compared outcomes of a match group (an A1/O heart into an A1 recipient or a non-A1/O heart into a non-A1 recipient) with a mismatch group (an A1 heart into a non-A1 recipient or a non-A1 heart into an A1 recipient). At one year post-transplant, there were no differences between the groups in survival, freedom from non-fatal major adverse cardiovascular events, freedom from any treated rejection, or freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy. There was an increased hospital length of stay in the mismatch group (13.5 vs. 17.1 days, p = 0.04). Our study showed that A1 mismatch was not associated with worse outcomes at one year post-HTx.

ABO-adjusted calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA): A unified metric for immunologic compatibility in kidney transplantation

Implementation of the kidney allocation system in 2014 greatly reduced access disparity due to human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization. To address persistent disparity related to candidate ABO blood groups, herein we propose a novel metric termed "ABO-adjusted cPRA," which simultaneously considers the impact of candidate HLA and ABO sensitization on the same scale. An ethnic-weighted ABO-adjusted cPRA value was computed for 190 467 candidates on the kidney waitlist by combining candidate's conventional HLA cPRA with the remaining fraction of HLA-compatible donors that are ABO-incompatible. Consideration of ABO sensitization resulted in higher ABO-adjusted cPRA relative to conventional cPRA by HLA alone, except for AB candidates since they are not ABO-sensitized. Within cPRA Point Group = 99%, 43% of the candidates moved up to ABO-adjusted cPRA Point Group = 100%, though this proportion varied substantially by candidate blood group. Nearly all O and most B candidates would have elevated ABO-adjusted cPRA values above this policy threshold for allocation priority, but relatively few A candidates displayed this shift. Overall, ABO-adjusted cPRA more accurately measures the proportion of immune-compatible donors compared with conventional HLA cPRA, especially for highly sensitized candidates. Implementation of this novel metric could enable the development of allocation policies permitting more ABO-compatible transplants without compromising equity.

Kidney Organ Allocation System: How to Be Fair

Transplantation is a life-saving medical intervention that unfortunately is constrained by scarcity of available organs. An ideal system for allocating organs should seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It also must be fair and not disadvantage certain populations. However, policies aimed at reducing disparities also must be balanced with considerations of utility (graft outcomes), cost, efficiency, and any adverse effects on organ utilization. Here, we discuss the ethical challenges of creating a fair and equitable organ allocation system, focusing on the principles governing deceased donor kidney transplant waitlists around the world. The kidney organ allocation systems in the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong are used as illustrations.

Discrepant subtyping of blood type A2 living kidney donors: Missed opportunities in kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Despite the institution of a new Kidney Allocation System in 2014, A2/A2B to B transplantation has not increased as expected. The current Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy requires subtyping on two separate occasions, and in the setting of discrepant results, defaulting to the A1 subtype. However, there is significant inherent variability in the serologic assays used for blood group subtyping and genotyping is rarely done.

METHODS

The National Kidney Registry, a kidney paired donation (KPD) program, performs serological typing on all A/AB donors, and in cases of non-A1/non-A1B donors, confirmatory genotyping is performed.

RESULTS

Between 2/18/2018 and 9/15/2020, 13.0% (145) of 1,111 type A donors registered with the NKR were ultimately subtyped as A2 via genotyping. Notably, 49.6% (72) of these were subtyped as A1 at their donor center, and in accordance with OPTN policy, ineligible for allocation as A2.

CONCLUSION

Inaccurate A2 subtyping represents a significant lost opportunity in transplantation, especially in KPD where A2 donors can not only facilitate living donor transplantation for O and highly sensitized candidates, but can also facilitate additional living donor transplants. This study highlights the need for improved accuracy of subtyping technique, and the need for policy changes encouraging optimal utilization of A2 donor kidneys.

Impact of the 2014 kidney allocation system changes on trends in A2/A2B into B kidney transplantation and organ procurement organization reporting of donor subtyping

The current kidney allocation system (KAS) preferentially allocates kidneys from blood type A2 or A2B (A/A2B) donors to blood type B candidates. We used national data to evaluate center-level performance of A2/A2B to B transplants, and organ procurement organization (OPO) reporting of type A or AB donor subtyping, in 5-year time periods prior to (2009-2014) and following (2015-2019) KAS implementation. The number of centers performing A2/A2B to B transplants increased from 17 pre-KAS to 76 post-KAS, though this still represents only a minority of centers (7.3% pre-KAS and 32.6% post-KAS). For high-performing centers, the median net increase in A2/A2B to B transplants was 19 cases (range -2-72) per center in the 5 years post-KAS. The median net increase in total B recipient transplants was 21 cases (range -17-119) per center. Despite requirements for performance of subtyping, in 2019 subtyping was reported on only 56.4% of A/AB donors. This translates into potential missed opportunities for B recipients, and even post-KAS up to 2322 A2/A2B donor kidneys may have been allocated for transplantation as A/AB. Further progress must be made both at center and OPO levels to broaden implementation of A2/A2B to B transplants for the benefit of underserved recipients.

The Advantage of Multiple Listing Continues in the Kidney Allocation System Era

BACKGROUND

Transplant candidates can be listed at multiple transplant centers to increase the probability of receiving an organ. We evaluated the association between multilisting (ML) status and access to a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) to determine if ML provides a long-term advantage regarding wait-list mortality and recipient outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Candidates between January 2010 and October 2017 were identified as either singly or multiply listed using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data and cohorts before and after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). Cross-sectional logistic regression was used to assess relationships between candidate factors and ML prevalence (5.4%).

RESULTS

Factors associated with ML pre-KAS included having blood type B (reference, type O; odds ratio [OR], 1.20; P < .001), having private insurance (OR, 1.5; P < .001), wait time (OR, 1.28; P < .001), and increasing calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) (reference, cPRA 0-100; OR for cPRA 80-98, 2.83; OR for cPRA 99, 3.47; OR for cPRA 100, 5.18; P < .001). Transplant rates were double for multilisted vs singly listed recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.16; P < .001). Extra-donor service area ML candidates received transplants 2.5 years quicker than single-listing (SL) candidates, conferring a 42% wait-list advantage. Recipient death (aHR, 0.94; P = .122) and graft failure (aHR, 0.91; P = .006) rates were also lower for ML recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

In the KAS era, ML continues to increase the likelihood of receiving a DDKT and lower the incidence of wait-list mortality, and it confers a survival advantages over SL.

A Safe Anti-A2 Titer for a Successful A2 Incompatible Kidney Transplantation: A Single-center Experience and Review of the Literature

Background.

Kidney allocation system allows blood type B candidates accept kidneys from A2/A2B donors. There is no mandate by UNOS on which the anti-A2 level is acceptable. We aimed to investigate the safety of kidney transplant in blood group B patients with anti-A2 titers ≤16.

Methods.

We performed 41 A2-incompatible kidney transplants in blood group B recipients between May 2015 and September 2019. Clinical outcomes were compared with a control group of 75 blood group B recipients who received blood group compatible kidney transplantation at the same period.

Results.

Of the 41 recipients, 85% were male, 48% African American, with a median age of 53 (20–73) y. Thirty-eight (93%) were deceased-donor and 3 (7%) were living-donor kidney transplant recipients. Pretransplant anti-A2 IgG titers were 2 in 16, 4 in 9, 8 in 6, and 16 in 5 and too weak to titer in 5 recipients. Eight patients had pretransplant donor-specific antibodies. During a median follow-up of 32.6 mo (6–57.3) patient and graft survival were 100% and 92% in the A2-incompatible kidney transplant group, and 91% and 92% in the blood group compatible group, respectively. Twelve A2-incompatible recipients underwent a 21 clinically indicated kidney biopsies at a median 28 d (6–390) after transplantation. None of the patients developed acute antibody-mediated rejection and 2 patients (5%) had acute T-cell–mediated rejection. Interestingly, peritubular capillary C4d positivity was seen in 7 biopsies which did not have any findings of acute rejection or microvascular inflammation but not in any of the rejection-free biopsies in the control group. C4d positivity was persistent in 5 of those patients who had follow-up biopsies.

Conclusions.

A2-incompatible transplantation is safe in patients with anti-A2 titers ≤16 with excellent short-term kidney allograft outcomes. C4d positivity is frequent in allograft biopsies without acute rejection.

Temporal Change in Blood Group after Bone Marrow Transplant: A Case of Successful ABO-Incompatible Deceased Donor Transplant

ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation has been successfully utilised in a deceased donor and living donor kidney transplantation to improve organ utilisation and decrease waiting times. We describe a case of a successful, unanticipated ABO-incompatible donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidney transplant in a patient who had a previous ABOi haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and had reverted to his original blood group B, after matching as a blood group A recipient with a blood group A donor. The recipient was unsensitized with a cPRA which was 0% and no donor-specific antibodies and zero HLA mismatch. An urgent anti-A titre was 1 : 2. Given the low antibody titres, we proceeded to transplantation. The patient developed delayed graft function and required dialysis on postoperative day 1 and day 2. The creatinine fell spontaneously on day 5, with progressively increased urine output and stable graft function on discharge at day 6. Anti-A titres were 1 : 1 on serial postoperative measurements. There were no rejection episodes, and the patient has a functioning graft at 16 months posttransplant. We describe a rare case in which the blood group can change after stem cell transplant and should be checked. We also demonstrate that a DCD ABOi transplant in the context of low anti-A titres for a patient with previous ABOi stem cell transplant can be performed successfully with standard immunosuppression.

Trends in the Medical Complexity and Outcomes of Medicare-insured Patients Undergoing Kidney Transplant in the Years 1998-2014

BACKGROUND

Graft and patient survival following kidney transplant are improving. However, the drivers of this trend are unclear. To gain further insight, we set out to examine concurrent changes in pretransplant patient complexity, posttransplant survival, and cause-specific hospitalization.

METHODS

We identified 101 332 Medicare-insured patients who underwent their first kidney transplant in the United States between the years 1998 and 2014. We analyzed secular trends in (1) posttransplant patient and graft survival and (2) posttransplant hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, infection, and cancer using Cox models with year of kidney transplant as the primary exposure of interest.

RESULTS

Age, dialysis vintage, body mass index, and the prevalence of a number of baseline medical comorbidities increased during the study period. Despite these adverse changes in case mix, patient survival improved: the unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for death in 2014 (versus 1998) were 0.61 (confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.73) and 0.46 (CI, 0.39-0.55), respectively. For graft failure excluding death with a functioning graft, the unadjusted and multivariable adjusted subdistribution HRs in 2014 versus 1998 were 0.4 (CI, 0.25-0.55) and 0.45 (CI, 0.3-0.6), respectively. There was a marked decrease in hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease following transplant between 1998 and 2011, subdistribution HR 0.51 (CI, 0.43-0.6). Hospitalization for infection remained unchanged, while cancer hospitalization increased modestly.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare-insured patients undergoing kidney transplant became increasingly medically complex between 1998 and 2014. Despite this, both patient and graft survival improved during this period. A marked decrease in serious cardiovascular events likely contributed to this positive trend.

Successful A2 to B Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant after Desensitization for High-Strength Non-HLA Antibody Made Possible by Utilizing a Hepatitis C Positive Donor

Desensitization using plasma exchange can remove harmful antibodies prior to transplantation and mitigate risks for hyperacute and severe early acute antibody-mediated rejection. Traditionally, the use of plasma exchange requires a living donor so that the timing of treatments relative to transplant can be planned. Non-HLA antibody is increasingly recognized as capable of causing antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection and has been associated with decreased graft longevity. Our patient had high-strength non-HLA antibody deemed prohibitive to transplantation without desensitization, but no living donors. As the patient was eligible to receive an A2 ABO blood group organ and was willing to accept a hepatitis C positive donor kidney, this afforded a high probability of receiving an offer within a short enough time frame to attempt empiric desensitization in anticipation of a deceased donor transplant. Fifteen plasma exchange treatments were performed before the patient received an organ offer, and the patient was successfully transplanted. Hepatitis C infection was treated posttransplant. No episodes of rejection were observed. At one-year posttransplant, the patient maintains good graft function. In this case, willingness to consider nontraditional donor organs enabled us to mimic living donor desensitization using a deceased donor.

A2 to B Kidney Transplantation in the Post-Kidney Allocation System Era: A 3-year Experience with Anti-A Titers, Outcomes, and Cost

BACKGROUND

The new kidney allocation systems (KAS) instituted December 2014 permitted A2 to B deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKTx) to improve access and reduce disparities in wait time for minorities. A recent United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) analysis, however, indicated only 4.5% of B candidates were registered for A2 kidneys. Cited barriers to A2 to B DDKTx include titer thresholds, patient eligibility, and increased costs. There are little published data on post-transplantation anti-A titers or outcomes of A2 to B DDKTx since this allocation change.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective, single center, cohort analysis of 29 consecutive A2 to B and 50 B to B DDKTx from December 2014 to December 2017. Pre- and postoperative anti-A titers were monitored prospectively. Outcomes included post-transplant anti-A titers, patient and graft survival, renal function, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

African Americans comprised 72% of the A2 to B and 60% of the B to B group. There was no difference in mean wait time (58.8 vs 70.8 months). Paired tests indicated that anti-A IgG titers in A2 to B DDKTx were increased at discharge (p = 0.001) and at 4 weeks (p = 0.037). There were no significant differences in patient or graft survival, serum creatinine (SCr), or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), but the trajectories of SCr and eGFR differed between groups over the follow-up period. A2 to B had significantly higher mean transplant total hospital costs ($114,638 vs $91,697, p < 0.001) and hospital costs net organ acquisition costs ($42,356 vs $20,983, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial experience under KAS shows comparable outcomes for A2 to B vs B to B DDKTx. Anti-A titers increased significantly post-transplantation, but did not adversely affect outcomes. Hospital costs were significantly higher with A2 to B DDKTx. Transplant programs, regulators, and payors will need to weigh improved access for minorities with increased costs.

Repeat A2 Into B Kidney Transplantation After Failed Prior A2 Into B Transplant: A Case Report

Kidneys from donors with blood type A2 can be successfully transplanted into blood type B and O recipients without the need for desensitization if the recipient's starting anti-A hemagglutinin titer is within an acceptable range. National kidney allocation policy now offers priority for eligible B recipients to receive A2 or A2B deceased donor kidneys, and therefore, the frequency with which A2 or A2B to B transplants will occur is expected to increase. The precise mechanisms by which antibody-mediated rejection is averted in these cases despite the presence of both circulating anti-A antibody and expression of the A2 antigen on the graft endothelium are not known. Whether this process mirrors proposed mechanisms of accommodation, which can occur in recipients of ABO incompatible transplants, is also not known. Repeated exposure to mismatched antigens after retransplantation could elicit memory responses resulting in antibody rebound and accelerated antibody-mediated rejection. Whether this would occur in the setting of repeated A2 donor exposure was uncertain. Here we report the case of a patient with history of a prior A2 to B transplant which failed owing to nonimmunologic reasons; the patient successfully underwent a repeat A2 to B transplant. Neither rebound in anti-A2 antibody nor clinical evidence of antibody-mediated rejection were observed after the transplant. Current kidney allocation will likely enable more such transplants in the future, and this may provide a unique patient population in whom the molecular mechanisms of incompatible graft accommodation may be investigated.

Stability of anti-A blood group titers among blood group B renal transplant candidates

BACKGROUND

As deceased donor kidney allocation is based in part on blood type compatibility, group B candidates are disadvantaged due to their disproportionate representation on the wait list compared to the group B donor pool. To mitigate this discrepancy, group B candidates can receive group A₂ or A₂ B donor kidneys if their anti-A titers are below a predetermined cutoff. Currently, eligibility is reverified quarterly to UNet based on individual center protocols, which can vary due to a lack of set guidelines for monitoring ABO titers in these patients. Our goal was to assess the stability of anti-A titers in blood group B renal transplant candidates over time to provide data that could aid in the development of standardized ABO titer protocols.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Titers performed between January 2011 and December 2015 were assessed for 191 group B patients with two or more documented titers.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (26%) were ineligible, as the first titer exceeded the cutoff of 8. Of the remaining 141 patients, 19 (13%) became ineligible as the second titer exceeded 8. Thirty-nine patients (28%) had no change in titer between samples, while 71 (50%) had a titer change that never exceeded 8. Only 12 patients (8.5% of total) experienced a titer change that affected eligibility after the second test.

CONCLUSION

Although patients experience some variability in anti-A titers over time, in most cases, stability did not affect candidate eligibility. Our results indicate that regular testing beyond the second titer may be unnecessary and represent test overutilization.

Impact of the new kidney allocation system A2/A2B → B policy on access to transplantation among minority candidates

Blood group B candidates, many of whom represent ethnic minorities, have historically had diminished access to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). The new national kidney allocation system (KAS) preferentially allocates blood group A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys to B recipients to address this ethnic and blood group disparity. No study has yet examined the impact of KAS on A2 incompatible (A2i) DDKT for blood group B recipients overall or among minorities. A case-control study of adult blood group B DDKT recipients from 2013 to 2017 was performed, as reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Cases were defined as recipients of A2/A2B kidneys, whereas controls were all remaining recipients of non-A2/A2B kidneys. A2i DDKT trends were compared from the pre-KAS (1/1/2013-12/3/2014) to the post-KAS period (12/4/2014-2/28/2017) using multivariable logistic regression. Post-KAS, there was a 4.9-fold increase in the likelihood of A2i DDKT, compared to the pre-KAS period (odds ratio [OR] 4.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.67-6.60). However, compared to whites, there was no difference in the likelihood of A2i DDKT among minorities post-KAS. Although KAS resulted in increasing A2/A2B→B DDKT, the likelihood of A2i DDKT among minorities, relative to whites, was not improved. Further discussion regarding A2/A2B→B policy revisions aiming to improve DDKT access for minorities is warranted.

Accommodation in ABO-incompatible organ transplants

Accommodation refers to a condition in which a transplant (or any tissue) appears to resist immune-mediated injury and loss of function. Accommodation was discovered and has been explored most thoroughly in ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation. In this setting, kidney transplants bearing blood group A or B antigens often are found to function normally in recipients who lack and hence produce antibodies directed against the corresponding antigens. Whether accommodation is owed to changes in anti-blood group antibodies, changes in antigen or a change in the response of the transplant to antibody binding are critically reviewed and a new working model that allows for the kinetics of development of accommodation is put forth. Regardless of how accommodation develops, observations on the fate of ABO-incompatible transplants offer lessons applicable more broadly in transplantation and in other fields.

The New Kidney Donor Allocation System and Implications for Anesthesiologists

Given potential disparity and limited allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation, a new federal kidney allocation system was implemented in 2014. Donor organ function and estimated recipient survival in this system has implications for perioperative management of kidney transplant recipients. Early analysis suggests that many of the anticipated goals are being attained. For anesthesiologists, implications of increased dialysis duration and burdens of end-stage renal disease include increased cardiopulmonary disease, challenging fluid, hemodynamic management, and central vein access. With no recent evidence to guide anesthesia care within this new system, we describe the kidney allocation system, summarize initial data, and briefly review organ systems of interest to anesthesiologists. As additional invasive and echocardiographic monitoring may be indicated, one consideration may be development of a dedicated anesthesiology team experienced in management and monitoring of complex patients, in a similar manner as has been done for liver transplant recipients.

Changes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation One Year After KAS Implementation

After over a decade of discussion, analysis, and consensus-building, a new kidney allocation system (KAS) was implemented on December 4, 2014. Key goals included improving longevity matching between donor kidneys and recipients and broadening access for historically disadvantaged subpopulations, in particular highly sensitized patients and those with an extended duration on dialysis but delayed referral for transplantation. To evaluate the early impact of KAS, we compared Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data 1 year before versus after implementation. The distribution of transplants across many recipient characteristics has changed markedly and suggests that in many ways the new policy is achieving its goals. Transplants in which the donor and recipient age differed by more than 30 years declined by 23%. Initial, sharp increases in transplants were observed for Calculated Panel-Reactive Antibody 99-100% recipients and recipients with at least 10 years on dialysis, with a subsequent tapering of transplants to these groups suggesting bolus effects. Although KAS has arguably increased fairness in allocation, the potential costs of broadening access must be considered. Kidneys are more often being shipped over long distances, leading to increased cold ischemic times. Delayed graft function rates have increased, but 6-month graft survival rates have not changed significantly.