The kidney evaluation of living kidney donor candidates: US practices in 2017

APOL1 Kidney Risk Variants and Long-Term Kidney Function in Healthy Middle-Aged Black Individuals: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study

Rationale & Objective

The effect of apolipoprotein L1(APOL1) genotype on future risk of kidney disease among middle-aged individuals with good kidney function is not well established.

Study Design

Longitudinal cohort study.

Setting & Participants

In total, 5,886 healthy individuals (45-64 years old) enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study with creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 80 mL/min who would be suitable kidney donors.

Exposures

Race and APOL1 genotype.

Outcomes

Creatinine- and cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr-cys) using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) 2021 equation, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR), proportion with chronic kidney disease (CKD) 3a or worse, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and death.

Analytical Approach

Participants grouped based on race and APOL1 genotype. Compared eGFRcr-cys and UACR across groups. Multinomial logistic regression models were used compare odds of CKD. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created to compare rates of ESKD and death at last follow-up.

Results

There were 5,075 Whites (86%), 701 Blacks carrying the low-risk APOL1 genotype (12%), and 110 Blacks carrying the high-risk APOL1 genotype (2%). The mean age at baseline was 53 ± 6 years. At 10 years, White participants had lower eGFRcr-cys than low-risk and high-risk groups (89 ± 16 vs 91 ± 16 and 92 ± 15 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively; P < 0.001). At 25 years, White participants continued to have lower eGFRcr-cys than the low-risk group (70 ± 18 vs 72 ± 19 mL/min/1.73 m2; P < 0.001) but not compared with the high-risk APOL1 genotype (67±23 mL/min/1.73 m2). There was no difference in UACR among groups at 10 and 25 years (P = 0.87 and 0.91, respectively). The odds of developing CKD stage 3a or worse were not different between low-risk and high-risk APOL1 group in both unadjusted and adjusted models (P = 0.26 and P = 0.39, respectively). At last follow-up, <5% developed ESKD, and 45% of individuals either died or reached ESKD with no difference in outcomes between the groups.

Limitations

Low ascertainment because of death and long follow-up.

Conclusions

Among middle-aged individuals, APOL1 genotype does not appear to be a major driver of future risk of kidney disease.

How the websites of high-volume US centers address the risks of living kidney donation

BACKGROUND

The websites of US transplant centers may be a source of information about the renal risks of potential living kidney donors.

METHODS

To include only likely best practices, we surveyed websites of centers that performed at least 50 living donor kidney transplants per year. We tabulated how risks were conveyed regarding loss of eGFR at donation, the adequacy of long-term ESRD risk data, long-term donor mortality, minority donor ESRD risk, concerns about hyperfiltration injury versus the risk of end-stage kidney diseases, comparisons of ESRD risks in donors to population risks, the increased risks of younger donors, an effect of the donation itself to increase risk, quantifying risks over specific intervals, and a lengthening list of small post-donation medical risks and metabolic changes of uncertain significance.

RESULTS

While websites had no formal obligation to address donor risks, many offered abundant information. Some conveyed OPTN-mandated requirements for counseling individual donor candidates. While actual wording often varied, there was general agreement on many issues. We occasionally noted clear-cut differences among websites in risk characterization and other outliers.

CONCLUSIONS

The websites of the most active US centers offer insights into how transplant professionals view living kidney donor risk. Website content may merit further study.

Deceased donor vein extension grafts for right living donor kidney transplantation

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to maximize living donor kidney utilization, we describe the use of deceased donor vein extension grafts for right-sided living donor kidneys and report our single-center experience using this technique.

METHODS

A retrospective review of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) who received a right living donor kidney with deceased donor vein extension graft. Recipient demographics, postoperative graft function, and surgical complications were reviewed. Living donor nephrectomies were performed laparoscopically. Vein grafts were obtained from recent deceased donor procurements. End-to-end anastomosis of the graft to the renal vein was performed prior to implantation.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight KTR received a right kidney transplant with deceased donor extension grafts. The median recipient age and BMI were 53.0 years and 29.3 kg/m2 . Total 71% were male. Ninety-five percent of grafts displayed immediate graft function, with two recipients requiring temporary dialysis due to anaphylaxis from induction therapy. Median serum creatinine at two weeks was 1.6 mg/dL and at three months was 1.5 mg/dL. There were no graft thromboses.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of deceased donor extension grafts for short right renal veins is a simple technique that expands the donor pool for living donor renal transplantation. Our experience resulted in no technical complications and excellent early graft function.

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up.

METHODS

To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021.

RESULTS

We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Reclassification of CKD in living kidney donors with the refitted race-free eGFR formula

BACKGROUND

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR 2021 formula removed Black race from the 2009 equation. Unintended consequences may lead to reclassifying Black living kidney donors as having more advanced CKD, exacerbating racial disparities in living donation.

METHODS

We used national data to quantify CKD stage reclassification based on eGFR for Black living donors both pre- and post-donation.

RESULTS

Among 6365 Black living donors, 17.7% were reclassified as having a higher CKD stage pre-donation with the 2021 formula. Among 4149 Black living donors with at least 2 creatinine measurements post-donation, 25.5% were reclassified as having a higher CKD stage post-donation with the 2021 formula.

CONCLUSION

Eliminating race in the formula may inappropriately label Black potential donors with CKD. These data highlight the need for a validated eGFR formula for donors, use of measured and not eGFR, and education of non-transplant providers regarding interpretation of CKD staging in living donation.

Living kidney donor evaluation is associated with early identification of life-changing diagnoses in potentially healthy donor candidates

BACKGROUND

In order to ensure eligibility for living kidney donation, donor candidates undergo a thorough medical evaluation. This process might reveal hitherto undetected medical conditions, leading to refusal of the kidney donor candidate. Detection of such conditions may, however, also have a lifesaving effect. We report on 13 years of data from our living donor transplantation program on kidney donor candidates who were diagnosed with major medical conditions during evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of living kidney donor candidates who attended our transplant center between January, 2007 and December, 2019. The main focus was on newly diagnosed medical conditions that required immediate medical attention and their prognostic significance.

RESULTS

Of the 436 donor candidates who were evaluated for living kidney donation at our transplant center, 192 (44%) were accepted, while 244 (56%) were excluded from donation. Interestingly, 81 (33.1%) of the ineligible donor candidates were newly diagnosed as having a medical condition that required immediate attention. While 45 (18.5%) candidates were newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes, 12 (4.9%) candidates had hitherto undetected malignancies, 10 candidates (4.1%) cardiac disease, five (2.0%) hypertension with end-organ damage, and four (1.6%) suffered from kidney disease. The remaining four candidates (1.6%) were diagnosed with gastrointestinal diseases, and one candidate (.4%) had an endocrine disorder.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive evaluation process for living kidney donation facilitates the identification of life-changing diagnoses in a significant proportion of candidates and secures immediate medical attention.

Telemedicine services for living kidney donation: A US survey of multidisciplinary providers

Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers' practices and providers' attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation.

Apolipoprotein L1 Opinions of African American Living Kidney Donors, Kidney Transplant Patients, and Nonpatients

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Deceased Donor Procurement Biopsy Practices, Interpretation, and Histology-Based Decision Making: A Survey of U.S. Transplant Centers

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

JCV viruria associates with suboptimal recovery of kidney function three years after living kidney donation

ABSTRACT Introduction: Few studies have investigated pre-donation factors that could affect renal recovery after living kidney donation (LKD). We retrospectively investigated the role of John Cunningham virus (JCV) infection and other pre-donation factors on the magnitude of kidney function decline after LKD. Methods: Urine JCV viral loads, glomerular filtration rate, and blood pressure were evaluated in 60 consecutive LK donors before donation. Suboptimal compensatory hypertrophy was defined as an eGFR <60% of the pre-donation eGFR. Results: LKD (40% JCV infected) were followed for 3.2±1.6 years. No association was found between age, gender, and baseline hypertension with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years post-donation eGFR <60% of the pre-donation eGFR. Mean eGFR recovery at the 3rd year after donation was lower in JCV infected donors vs non-infected donors (61.8% vs 71.0%, p=0.006). Conclusion: We hypothesized that JCV could shift glomeruli into a hyperfiltration state before nephrectomy, modulating the magnitude of compensatory hypertrophy after donation. Conversely, JCV might curtail the ability of the remaining kidney to promote hyperfiltration. Longer follow up is needed to determine whether JCV viruria ultimately leads to lower eGFR over time or if it is a protective factor for the remaining kidney.

Is Compensation Prediction Score Valid for Contralateral Kidney After Living-Donor Nephrectomy in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Compensation after living donor nephrectomy is well known, and a compensation prediction score (CPS) was made in Japan previously. The aim of this study was to perform external validation of CPS in the United States.

METHODS

We studied retrospectively 78 living donor nephrectomies in our institution. We defined a favorable compensation as a postdonation estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1 year of >60% of the predonation eGFR. We analyzed the living donors' clinical characteristics and outcomes and validated CPS score.

RESULTS

The median (range) donor age was 43 (21-63) years, and median body mass index was 26.9 (18.3-35.9) kg/m². Forty-four percent of donors were White. The donor predonation eGFR was 105 (61-134) mL/min/1.73 m², and the postdonation eGFR at 1 year was 73.2 (0-115) mL/min/1.73 m². Eighty-three percent of donors had a favorable compensation. The CPS was 9.6 (1.6-15.6) and showed strong diagnostic accuracy for predicting favorable compensation (area under the curve, 0.788; 95% confidence interval, 0.652-0.924; P = .001). The CPS showed a significant positive correlation with the postdonation eGFR at 1 year (R = 0.54; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, the CPS would be a valid tool with which to predict a favorable compensation of remnant kidney function.

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

CT-measured Cortical Volume Ratio Is an Accurate Alternative to Nuclear Medicine Split Scan Ratio Among Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

The 125I-iothalamate clearance and 99mTc diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA) split scan nuclear medicine studies are used among living kidney donor candidates to determine measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) and split scan ratio (SSR). The computerized tomography-derived cortical volume ratio (CVR) is a novel measurement of split kidney function and can be combined with predonation estimated GFR (eGFR) or mGFR to predict postdonation kidney function. Whether predonation SSR predicts postdonation kidney function better than predonation CVR and whether predonation mGFR provides additional information beyond predonation eGFR are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 204 patients who underwent kidney donation between June 2015 and March 2019. The primary outcome was 1-y postdonation eGFR. Model bases were created from a measure of predonation kidney function (mGFR or eGFR) multiplied by the proportion that each nondonated kidney contributed to predonation kidney function (SSR or CVR). Multivariable elastic net regression with 1000 repetitions was used to determine the mean and 95% confidence interval of R2, root mean square error (RMSE), and proportion overprediction ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m2 between models.

RESULTS

In validation cohorts, eGFR-CVR models performed best (R2, 0.547; RMSE, 9.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, proportion overprediction 3.1%), whereas mGFR-SSR models performed worst (R2, 0.360; RMSE, 10.9 mL/min/1.73 m2, proportion overprediction 7.2%) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that predonation CVR may serve as an acceptable alternative to SSR during donor evaluation and furthermore, that a model based on CVR and predonation eGFR may be superior to other methods.

Age-adapted percentiles of measured glomerular filtration in healthy individuals: extrapolation to living kidney donors over 65 years

OBJECTIVES

Most data on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) originate from subjects <65 years old, complicating decision-making in elderly living kidney donors. In this retrospective multi-center study, we calculated percentiles of measured GFR (mGFR) in donors <65 years old and extrapolated these to donors ≥65 years old.

METHODS

mGFR percentiles were calculated from a development cohort of French/Belgian living kidney donors <65 years (n=1,983), using quantiles modeled as cubic splines (two linear parts joining at 40 years). Percentiles were extrapolated and validated in an internal cohort of donors ≥65 years (n=147, France) and external cohort of donors and healthy subjects ≥65 years (n=329, Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, The Netherlands) by calculating percentages within the extrapolated 5th-95th percentile (P5-P95).

RESULTS

Individuals in the development cohort had a higher mGFR (99.9 ± 16.4 vs. 86.4 ± 14 and 82.7 ± 15.5 mL/min/1.73 m²) compared to the individuals in the validation cohorts. In the internal validation cohort, none (0%) had mGFR below the extrapolated P5, 12 (8.2%) above P95 and 135 (91.8%) between P5-P95. In the external validation cohort, five subjects had mGFR below the extrapolated P5 (1.5%), 25 above P95 (7.6%) and 299 (90.9%) between P5-P95.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that extrapolation of mGFR from younger donors is possible and might aid with decision-making in elderly donors.

Transplant Clinician Opinions on Use of Race in the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Current race-based eGFR calculators assign a higher eGFR value to Black patients, which could affect the care of kidney transplant candidates and potential living donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a survey of staff at adult kidney transplant centers in the United States (December 17, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to assess opinions on use of race-based eGFR equations for waitlisting and living donor candidate evaluation, availability of serum cystatin C testing and measured GFR, and related practices.

RESULTS

Respondents represented 57% (124 of 218) of adult kidney transplant programs, and the responding centers conducted 70% of recent kidney transplant volume. Most (93%) programs use serum creatinine-based eGFR for listing candidates. However, only 6% of respondents felt that current race-based eGFR calculators are appropriate, with desire for change grounded in concerns for promotion of health care disparities by current equations and inaccuracies in reporting of race. Most respondents (70%) believed that elimination of race would allow more preemptive waitlisting for Black patients, but a majority (79%) also raised concerns that such an approach could incur harms. More than one third of the responding programs lacked or were unsure of availability of testing for cystatin C or measured GFR. At this time, 40% of represented centers did not plan to remove race from eGFR calculators, 46% were planning to remove, and 15% had already done so. There was substantial variability in eGFR reporting and listing of multiracial patients with some Black ancestry. There was no difference in GFR acceptance thresholds for Black versus non-Black living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

This national survey highlights a broad consensus that extant approaches to GFR estimation are unsatisfactory, but it also identified a range of current opinions.

Assessment of kidney function: clinical indications for measured GFR

In the vast majority of cases, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is estimated using serum creatinine, which is highly influenced by age, sex, muscle mass, body composition, severe chronic illness and many other factors. This often leads to misclassification of patients or potentially puts patients at risk for inappropriate clinical decisions. Possible solutions are the use of cystatin C as an alternative endogenous marker or performing direct measurement of GFR using an exogenous marker such as iohexol. The purpose of this review is to highlight clinical scenarios and conditions such as extreme body composition, Black race, disagreement between creatinine- and cystatin C-based estimated GFR (eGFR), drug dosing, liver cirrhosis, advanced chronic kidney disease and the transition to kidney replacement therapy, non-kidney solid organ transplant recipients and living kidney donors where creatinine-based GFR estimation may be invalid. In contrast to the majority of literature on measured GFR (mGFR), this review does not include aspects of mGFR for research or public health settings but aims to reach practicing clinicians and raise their understanding of the substantial limitations of creatinine. While including cystatin C as a renal biomarker in GFR estimating equations has been shown to increase the accuracy of the GFR estimate, there are also limitations to eGFR based on cystatin C alone or the combination of creatinine and cystatin C in the clinical scenarios described above that can be overcome by measuring GFR with an exogenous marker. We acknowledge that mGFR is not readily available in many centres but hope that this review will highlight and promote the expansion of kidney function diagnostics using standardized mGFR procedures as an important milestone towards more accurate and personalized medicine.

Pancreas transplantation perceptions and practice: Results from a national US survey

BACKGROUND

Due to a substantial decline in pancreas transplantation (PT) across the United States over the past 15 years, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices of US PT programs.

METHODS

Surveys were sent to members of the American Society of Transplantation Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation by email and professional society postings between August 2019 and November 2019.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty three responses were recorded from 56 unique programs. Program characteristics were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Respondents were transplant surgeons (71%), transplant nephrologists (17%), trainees (9%), and allied professionals (3%). Programs were defined according to annual volume as: low (<5 PT/year), intermediate (6-20), or high (>20). High-volume programs reported that these factors were most important for increased PT: expansion of recipient selection, more aggressive donor utilization, and hiring of PT program-specific personnel. At both the program and national level, the vast majority (82% and 79%, respectively) felt the number of PTs currently performed are not in balance with patients' needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, programs reported that the option of PT is not offered adequately to diabetic patients and that strategies to maintain higher PT volume are most evident at intermediate, and especially, high-volume programs.

The Evaluation of Kidney Function in Living Kidney Donor Candidates

Living kidney donors incur a small increased risk of ESKD, of which predonation GFR is an important determinant. As a result, kidney function assessment is central to the donor candidate evaluation and selection process. This article reviews the different methods of GFR assessment, including eGFR, creatinine clearance, and measured GFR, and the current guidelines on GFR thresholds for donor acceptance. eGFR obtained using the 2009 CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation that, although the best of estimating estimations, tends to underestimate levels and has limited accuracy, especially near-normal GFR values. In the United States, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy on living donation mandates either measured GFR or creatinine clearance as part of the evaluation. Measured GFR is considered the gold standard, although there is some variation in performance characteristics, depending on the marker and technique used. Major limitations of creatinine clearance are dependency on accuracy of timed collection, and overestimation as a result of distal tubular creatinine secretion. GFR declines with healthy aging, and most international guidelines recommend use of age-adapted selection criteria. The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Guideline for the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors diverges from other guidelines and recommends using absolute cutoff of <60 ml/min per 1.73m² for exclusion and ≥90 ml/min per 1.73m² for acceptance, and determination of candidacy with intermediate GFR on the basis of long-term ESKD risk. However, several concerns exist for this strategy, including inappropriate acceptance of younger candidates due to underestimation of risk, and exclusion of older candidates whose kidney function is in fact appropriate for age. The role of cystatin C and other newer biomarkers, and data on the effect of predonation GFR on not just ESKD risk, but also advanced CKD risk and cardiovascular outcomes are needed.

Diagnosis, Education, and Care of Patients with APOL1-Associated Nephropathy: A Delphi Consensus and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

APOL1 variants contribute to the markedly higher incidence of ESKD in Blacks compared with Whites. Genetic testing for these variants in patients with African ancestry who have nephropathy is uncommon, and no specific treatment or management protocol for APOL1-associated nephropathy currently exists.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, racially diverse group of 14 experts and patient advocates participated in a Delphi consensus process to establish practical guidance for clinicians caring for patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy. Consensus group members took part in three anonymous voting rounds to develop consensus statements relating to the following: (1) counseling, genotyping, and diagnosis; (2) disease awareness and education; and (3) a vision for management of APOL1-associated nephropathy in a future when treatment is available. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant evidence published from January 1, 2009 to July 14, 2020.

RESULTS

The consensus group agreed on 55 consensus statements covering such topics as demographic and clinical factors that suggest a patient has APOL1-associated nephropathy, as well as key considerations for counseling, testing, and diagnosis in current clinical practice. They achieved consensus on the need to increase awareness among key stakeholders of racial health disparities in kidney disease and of APOL1-associated nephropathy and on features of a successful education program to raise awareness among the patient community. The group also highlighted the unmet need for a specific treatment and agreed on best practice for management of these patients should a treatment become available.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary group of experts and patient advocates defined consensus-based guidance on the care of patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy.

Living kidney donor evaluation for all candidates with normal estimated GFR for age

Multiple days assessments are frequent for the evaluation of candidates to living kidney donation, combined with an early GFR estimation (eGFR). Living kidney donation is questionable when eGFR is <90 ml/min/1.73 m² (KDIGO guidelines) or 80 ml/min/1.73 m² (most US centres). However, age-related GFR decline results in a lower eGFR for older candidates. That may limit the number of older kidney donors. Yet, continuing the screening with a GFR measure increases the number of eligible donors. We hypothesized that in-depth screening should be proposed to all candidates with a normal eGFR for age. We compared the evolution of eGFR after donation between three groups of predonation eGFR: normal for age (S_age ) higher than 90 or 80 ml/min/1.73 m² (S₉₀ and S_80, respectively); across three age groups (<45, 45-55, >55 years) in a population of 1825 French living kidney donors with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. In donors younger than 45, postdonation eGFR, absolute- and relative-eGFR variation were not different between the three groups. For older donors, postdonation eGFR was higher in S₉₀ than in S₈₀ or S_age but other comparators were identical. Postdonation eGFR slope was comparable between all groups. Our results are in favour of in-depth screening for all candidates to donation with a normal eGFR for age.

Outcomes of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations in the Living Donor Collective Pilot Registry

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors.

Methods.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry.

Results.

Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%).

Conclusions.

These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.

Survey of US Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation Practices in the COVID-19 Era

INTRODUCTION

The scope of the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) practices is not well defined.

METHODS

We surveyed US transplant programs to assess practices, strategies, and barriers to living LDKT during the COVID-19 pandemic. After institutional review board approval, the survey was distributed from 9 May 2020 to 30 May 2020 by e-mail and postings to professional society list-servs. Responses were stratified based on state COVID-19 cumulative incidence levels.

RESULTS

Staff at 118 unique centers responded, representing 61% of US living donor recovery programs and 75% of LKDT volume in the prepandemic year. Overall, 66% reported that LDKT surgery was on hold (81% in "high" vs. 49% in "low" COVID-19 cumulative incidence states). A total of 36% reported that evaluation of new donor candidates had paused, 27% reported that evaluations were very much decreased (>0% to <25% typical), and 23% reported that evaluations were moderately decreased (25% to <50% typical). Barriers to LDKT surgery included program concerns for donor (85%) and recipient (75%) safety, patient concerns (56%), elective case restrictions (47%), and hospital administrative restrictions (48%). Programs with higher local COVID-19 cumulative incidence reported more barriers related to staff and resource diversion. Most centers continuing donor evaluations used remote strategies (video, 82%; telephone, 43%). As LDKT resumes, all programs will screen for COVID-19, although timeframe and modalities will vary. Recommendations for presurgical self-quarantine are also variable.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad impacts on LDKT practice. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to reduce barriers, to guide optimal practices, and to support safe restoration of LDKT across centers.