Kidney recipients with allograft failure, transition of kidney care (KRAFT): A survey of contemporary practices of transplant providers

Clinical relevance of HLA-DQ eplet mismatch and maintenance immunosuppression with risk of allosensitization after kidney transplant failure

The optimal immunosuppression management in patients with a failed kidney transplant remains uncertain. This study analyzed the association of class II HLA eplet mismatches and maintenance immunosuppression with allosensitization after graft failure in a well characterized cohort of 21 patients who failed a first kidney transplant. A clinically meaningful increase in cPRA in this study was defined as the cPRA that resulted in 50% reduction in the compatible donor pool measured from the time of transplant failure until the time of repeat transplantation, death, or end of study. The median cPRA at the time of failure was 12.13% (interquartile ranges = 0.00%, 83.72%) which increased to 62.76% (IQR = 4.34%, 99.18%) during the median follow-up of 27 (IQR = 18, 39) months. High HLA-DQ eplet mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing a clinically meaningful increase in cPRA (p = 0.02) and de novo DQ donor-specific antibody against the failed allograft (p = 0.02). We did not observe these associations in patients with high HLA-DR eplet mismatches. Most of the patients (88%) with a clinically meaningful increase in cPRA had both a high DQ eplet mismatch and a reduction in their immunosuppression, suggesting the association is modified by immunosuppression. The findings suggest HLA-DQ eplet mismatch analysis may serve as a useful tool to guide future clinical studies and trials which assess the management of immunosuppression in transplant failure patients who are repeat transplant candidates.

Evolution of HLA-sensitization according to immunosuppressive therapy management among kidney transplant patients returning to dialysis between 2008 and 2019: A French retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of immunosuppressive therapy (IT) after kidney allograft failure (KAF) remains controversial. Although maintaining IT may reduce HLA-sensitization and improve access to retransplantation, it may also increase the rate of immunosuppression-related complications. The overall impact on patient mortality is unknown. The main objective of this study was to compare the evolution of HLA-sensitization 6 months after KAF according to IT management.

METHODS

Individual clinical and health care data were extracted from the French national end-stage kidney disease registry (Renal Epidemiology and Information Network [REIN]) and the French National Health Data system (SNDS), respectively. Patients aged > 18 years returning to dialysis after KAF between January 2008 and December 2019 in Lorraine were included. Patients were classified into two groups, IT continuation or IT discontinuation. HLA-sensitization was defined as an increase in incompatible graft rate (IGR) between KAF and 6 months post-KAF (change to a higher predefined category (0%-5%), (5%-20%), (20%-50%), (50%-85%), (85%-95%), (95%-98%), (98%-100%)). Secondary outcome was patient survival according to IT management.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients were included, 35 (29%) of whom continued IT. HLA-sensitization after KAF tended to be higher in the "IT discontinuation" group (57% vs. 38% in the "IT continuation" group, p = .07). In multivariate analysis, IT continuation was associated with a lower increase in IGR (OR .37, 95% CI [.14; .93]). IT management was not associated with patient mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation of IT after KAF was associated with less change in IGR and was not associated with excess mortality.

Medical and Surgical Management of the Failed Pancreas Transplant

Despite the continued improvements in pancreas transplant outcomes in recent decades, a subset of recipients experience graft failure and can experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Here, we summarize what is known about the failed pancreas allograft and what factors are important for consideration of retransplantation. The current definition of pancreas allograft failure and its challenges for the transplant community are explored. The impacts of a failed pancreas allograft are presented, including patient survival and resultant morbidities. The signs, symptoms, and medical and surgical management of a failed pancreas allograft are described, whereas the options and consequences of immunosuppression withdrawal are reviewed. Medical and surgical factors necessary for successful retransplant candidacy are detailed with emphasis on how well-selected patients may achieve excellent retransplant outcomes. To achieve substantial medical mitigation and even pancreas retransplantation, patients with a failed pancreas allograft warrant special attention to their residual renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary function. Future studies of the failed pancreas allograft will require improved reporting of graft failure from transplant centers and continued investigation from experienced centers.

Challenges in the management of the kidney allograft: from decline to failure: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

In March 2022, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a virtual Controversies Conference to address the important but rarely examined phase during which the kidney transplant is failing or has failed. In addition to discussing the definition of a failing allograft, 4 broad areas were considered in the context of a declining functioning graft: prognosis and kidney failure trajectory; immunosuppression strategies; management of medical and psychological complications, and patient factors; and choice of kidney replacement therapy or supportive care following graft loss. Identifying and paying special attention to individuals with failing allografts was felt to be important in order to prepare patients psychologically, manage immunosuppression, address complications, prepare for dialysis and/or retransplantation, and transition to supportive care. Accurate prognostication tools, although not yet widely available, were embraced as necessary to define allograft survival trajectories and the likelihood of allograft failure. The decision of whether to withdraw or continue immunosuppression after allograft failure was deemed to be based most appropriately on risk-benefit analysis and likelihood of retransplantation within a few months. Psychological preparation and support was identified as a critical factor in patient adjustment to graft failure, as was early communication. Several models of care were noted that enabled a medically supportive transition back to dialysis or retransplantation. Emphasis was placed on the importance of dialysis-access readiness before initiation of dialysis, in order to avoid use of central venous catheters. The centrality of the patient to all management decisions and discussions was deemed to be paramount. Patient "activation," which can be defined as engaged agency, was seen as the most effective way to achieve success. Unresolved controversies, gaps in knowledge, and areas for research were also stressed in the conference deliberations.

The Role of Allograft Nephrectomy in the Failing Kidney Transplant

Patients with failed renal allografts have associated increased morbidity and mortality. The individualization of immunosuppression taper is the key element in managing these patients to avoid graft intolerance and sensitization while balancing the risk of continued immunosuppression. Most patients with uncomplicated chronic allograft failure do not require allograft nephrectomy (AN), and there is no clear evidence that it improves outcomes. The AN procedure is associated with variable morbidity and mortality. It is reserved mainly for early technical graft failure or in symptomatic cases associated with allograft infection, malignancy, or graft intolerance syndrome. It may also be considered in those who cannot tolerate immunosuppression and are at high risk for graft intolerance. AN has been associated with an increased risk of sensitization due to inflammatory response from surgery, immunosuppression withdrawal with allograft failure, and retained endovascular tissue. Although it is presumed that for-cause AN after transplant failure is associated with sensitization, it remains unclear whether elective AN in patients who remain on immunotherapy may prevent sensitization. The current practice of immunosuppression taper has not been shown to prevent sensitization or increase infection risk, but current literature is limited by selection bias and the absence of medication adherence data. We discuss the management of failed allografts based on retransplant candidacy, wait times, risk of graft intolerance syndrome, and immunosuppression side effects. Many unanswered questions remain, and future prospective randomized trials are needed to help guide evidence-based management.

Impact of Calcineurin Inhibitor-Based Immunosuppression Maintenance During the Dialysis Period After Kidney Transplant Failure on the Next Kidney Graft Outcome: A Retrospective Multicenter Study With Propensity Score Analysis

The impact of immunosuppressive therapy (IS) strategies after kidney transplant failure (KTF) on potential future new grafts is poorly established. We assessed the potential benefit of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based IS maintenance throughout the dialysis period on the outcome of the second kidney transplant (KT). We identified 407 patients who underwent a second KT between January 2008 and December 2018 at four French KT centers. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for potential confounding. We included 205 patients with similar baseline characteristics at KTF: a total of 53 received at least CNIs on the retransplant day (G-CNI), and 152 did not receive any IS (G-STOP). On the retransplant date, G-STOP patients experienced a longer pretransplant dialysis time, were more often hyperimmunized, and underwent more expanded-criteria donor KTs than G-CNI patients. During the second KT follow-up period, rejection episodes were similar in both groups. The 10-year survival rates without death and dialysis were 98.7% and 59.5% in G-CNI and G-STOP patients, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, CNI-based IS maintenance was associated with better survival (hazard ratio: 0.08; 95% confidence interval: 0.01-0.58, p = 0.01). CNI-based IS maintenance throughout the dialysis period after KTF may improve retransplantation outcomes.

The Perspectives of General Nephrologists Toward Transitions of Care and Management of Failing Kidney Transplants

The management of failing kidney allograft and transition of care to general nephrologists (GN) remain a complex process. The Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice (KPCOP) Failing Allograft Workgroup designed and distributed a survey to GN between May and September 2021. Participants were invited via mail and email invitations. There were 103 respondents with primarily adult nephrology practices, of whom 41% had an academic affiliation. More than 60% reported listing for a second kidney as the most important concern in caring for patients with a failing allograft, followed by immunosuppression management (46%) and risk of mortality (38%), while resistant anemia was considered less of a concern. For the initial approach to immunosuppression reduction, 60% stop antimetabolites first, and 26% defer to the transplant nephrologist. Communicating with transplant centers about immunosuppression cessation was reported to occur always by 60%, and sometimes by 29%, while 12% reported making the decision independently. Nephrologists with academic appointments communicate with transplant providers more than private nephrologists (74% vs. 49%, p = 0.015). There are heterogeneous approaches to the care of patients with a failing allograft. Efforts to strengthen transitions of care and to develop practical practice guidelines are needed to improve the outcomes of this vulnerable population.

Continuation of immunosuppression vs. immunosuppression weaning in potential repeat kidney transplant candidates: a care management perspective

Management of immunosuppression in patients with a failing or failed kidney transplant requires a complete assessment of their clinical condition. One of the major considerations in determining immunosuppression is whether or not such an individual is considered a candidate for re-transplantation. Withdrawal of immunosuppression in a re-transplant candidate can result in allosensitization and markedly reduce the chances of a repeat transplant. In this review, we summarize the effects of immunosuppression reduction on HLA sensitization, discuss the impacts of allosensitization in these patients, and explore reduction protocols and future directions. Risks of chronic immunosuppression, medical management of the failing allograft, and the effect of nephrectomy are covered elsewhere in this issue.

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.

Conservative Kidney Management in Kidney Transplant Populations

Conservative kidney management (CKM) has been increasingly accepted as a therapeutic option for seriously ill patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. CKM is active medical management of advanced chronic kidney disease without dialysis, with a focus on delaying the worsening of kidney disease and minimizing symptom burden. CKM may be considered a suitable option for kidney transplant recipients with poorly functioning and declining allografts, defined as patients with low estimated glomerular filtration rate (<20 mL/min per 1.73 m2) who are approaching allograft failure. CKM may be a fitting option for transplant patients facing high morbidity and mortality with or without dialysis resumption, and it should be offered as a choice for this patient population. In this review, we describe clinical considerations in caring for patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts, especially the unique decision-making process around kidney replacement therapies. We discuss ways to incorporate CKM as an option for these patients. We also discuss financial and policy considerations in providing CKM for this population. Patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts should be supported throughout transitions of care by an interprofessional and multidisciplinary team attuned to their unique challenges. Further research on when, who, and how to integrate CKM into existing care structures for patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts is needed.

Transplant Onconephrology: An Update

Transplant onconephrology is a growing specialty focused on the health care of kidney transplant recipients with cancer. Given the complexities associated with the care of transplant patients, along with the advent of novel cancer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen-receptor T cells, there is a dire need for the subspecialty of transplant onconephrology. The management of cancer in the setting of kidney transplantation is best accomplished by a multidisciplinary team, including transplant nephrologists, oncologists, and patients. This review addresses the current state and future opportunities for transplant onconephrology, including the roles of the multidisciplinary team, and related scientific and clinical knowledge.

Challenges in the Management of the Patient with a Failing Kidney Graft: A Narrative Review

Patients with a failed kidney allograft have steadily increase in recent years and returning to dialysis after graft loss is one of the most difficult transitions for chronic kidney disease patients and their assistant physicians. The management of these patients is complex and encompasses the treatment of chronic kidney disease complications, dialysis restart and access planning, immunosuppression withdrawal, graft nephrectomy, and evaluation for a potential retransplant. In recent years, several groups have focused on the management of the patient with a failing renal graft and expert recommendations are arising. A review of Pubmed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library was performed focusing on the specific care of these patients, from the management of low clearance complications to concerns with a subsequent kidney transplant. Conclusion: There is a growing interest in the failing renal graft and new approaches to improve these patients’ outcomes are being defined including specific multidisciplinary programs, individualized immunosuppression withdrawal schemes, and strategies to prevent HLA sensitization and increase retransplant rates.

Strategies to Overcome HLA Sensitization and Improve Access to Retransplantation after Kidney Graft Loss

An increasing number of patients waitlisted for kidney transplantation have a previously failed graft. Retransplantation provides a significant improvement in morbidity, mortality, and quality of life when compared to dialysis. However, HLA sensitization is a major barrier to kidney retransplantation and the majority of the highly sensitized patients are waiting for a subsequent kidney transplant. A multidisciplinary team that includes immunogeneticists, transplant nephrologists and surgeons, and adequate allocation policies is fundamental to increase access to a kidney retransplant. A review of Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library was performed on the challenges of kidney retransplantation after graft loss, focusing on the HLA barrier and new strategies to overcome sensitization. Conclusion: Technical advances in immunogenetics, new desensitization protocols, and complex allocation programs have emerged in recent years to provide a new hope to kidney recipients with a previously failed graft.

Managing the Costs of Routine Follow-up Care After Living Kidney Donation: a Review and Survey of Contemporary Experience, Practices, and Challenges

Purpose of Review

While living organ donor follow-up is mandated for 2 years in the USA, formal guidance on recovering associated costs of follow-up care is lacking. In this review, we discuss current billing practices of transplant programs for living kidney donor follow-up, and propose future directions for managing follow-up costs and supporting cost neutrality in donor care.

Recent Findings

Living donors may incur costs and financial risks in the donation process, including travel, lost time from work, and dependent care. In addition, adherence to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) mandate for US transplant programs to submit 6-, 12-, and 24-month postdonation follow-up data to the national registry may incur out-of-pocket medical costs for donors. Notably, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has explicitly disallowed transplant programs to bill routine, mandated follow-up costs to the organ acquisition cost center or to the recipient’s Medicare insurance. We conducted a survey of transplant staff in the USA (distributed October 22, 2020–March 15, 2021), which identified that the mechanisms for recovering or covering the costs of mandated routine postdonation follow-up at responding programs commonly include billing recipients’ private insurance (40%), while 41% bill recipients’ Medicare insurance. Many programs reported utilizing institutional allowancing (up to 50%), and some programs billed the organ acquisition cost center (25%). A small percentage (11%) reported billing donors or donors’ insurance.

Summary

To maintain a high level of adherence to living donor follow-up without financially burdening donors, up-to-date resources are needed on handling routine donor follow-up costs in ways that are policy-compliant and effective for donors and programs. Development of a government-supported national living donor follow-up registry like the Living Donor Collective may provide solutions for aspects of postdonation follow-up, but requires transplant program commitment to register donors and donor candidates as well as donor engagement with follow-up outreach contacts after donation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00379-w.

Survey of current transplant center practices regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States

An electronic survey canvassing current policies of transplant centers regarding a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for transplant candidates and living donors was distributed to clinicians at US solid organ transplant centers performing transplants from October 14, 2021-November 15, 2021. Responses were received from staff at 141 unique transplant centers. These respondents represented 56.4% of US transplant centers, and responding centers performed 78.5% of kidney transplants and 82.4% of liver transplants in the year prior to survey administration. Only 35.7% of centers reported implementing a vaccine mandate, while 60.7% reported that vaccination was not required. A minority (42%) of responding centers with a vaccine mandate for transplant candidates also mandated vaccination for living organ donors. Centers with a vaccine mandate most frequently cited clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of pre-transplant vaccination (82%) and stewardship obligations to ensure organs were transplanted into the lowest risk patients (64%). Centers without a vaccine mandate cited a variety of reasons including administrative, equity, and legal considerations for their decision. Transplant centers in the United States exhibit significant heterogeneity in COVID-19 vaccination mandate policies for transplant candidates. While all centers encourage vaccination, most centers have not mandated COVID-19 vaccination for candidates and living donors, citing administrative opposition, legal prohibitions, and concern about equity in access to transplants.

Immunosuppressant Medication Use in Patients with Kidney Allograft Failure: A Prospective Multi-Center Canadian Cohort Study

Background: Patients with kidney transplant failure have a high risk of hospitalization and death due to infection. The optimal use of immunosuppressants after transplant failure remains uncertain and clinical practice varies widely. Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients within 21 days of starting dialysis after transplant failure in 16 Canadian centers. Immunosuppressant medication use, death, hospitalized infection, rejection of the failed allograft, and panel reactive anti-HLA antibodies (PRA) were determined at 1, 3, 6 , and 12 months and bi-annually until death, repeat transplantation, or loss to follow-up. Results: The 269 study patients were followed for a median of 558 days. There were 33 deaths, 143 patients hospitalized for infection, and 21 rejections. Most patients (65%) continued immunosuppressants, 20% continued prednisone only, while 15% discontinued all immunosuppressants. In multivariable models, patients who continued immunosuppressants had a lower risk of death (HR =0.40, 95% CI, 0.17-0.93) and were not at increased risk of hospitalized infection (HR 1.81; 95% CI 0.82 to 4.0) compared to patients who discontinued all immunosuppressants or continued prednisone only. The mean class I and class II PRA increased from 11% to 27% and 25% to 47%, respectively, but did not differ by immunosuppressant use. Continuation of immunosuppressants was not protective of rejection of the failed allograft (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.22-2.94). Conclusions: Prolonged use of immunosuppressants greater than one year after transplant failure was not associated with a higher risk of death or hospitalized infection but was insufficient to prevent higher anti-HLA antibodies or rejection of the failed allograft.

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

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Factors affecting sensitization following kidney allograft failure

Management of immunosuppression in a kidney transplant recipient with a failed allograft is complex; continuation carries infectious and metabolic risks, and discontinuation can lead to sensitization. We evaluated risk factors for sensitization in 89 kidney or simultaneous kidney-pancreas recipients, whose kidney transplant failed after 1/2013 and who were subsequently re-evaluated for kidney transplantation. Among recipients with pre graft failure cPRA <50%, calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) continuation (OR 0.11, p = 0.003) and steroid continuation (OR 0.17, p = 0.04) were associated with significantly lower odds of developing an absolute increase in cPRA of ≥50%. Each additional HLA mismatch was associated with OR of 2.16 (p = 0.02). CNI use was associated with OR of 0.09 (p = 0.001) for increase in cPRA to ≥80% if pre graft failure cPRA was <50%, and OR of 0.08 (p = 0.02) for increase in cPRA to ≥98% if pre graft cPRA was <80%. Anti-metabolites were continued more often among recipients who had a <50% increase (p = 0.006), however the association was lost on multivariate analyses. Weaning off immunosuppression and higher number of HLA mismatches are associated with greater likelihood of sensitization. While both CNI and steroid continuation conferred some protection against increase in cPRA, CNI continuation was the only factor protecting against becoming highly sensitized. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

A Roadmap for Innovation to Advance Transplant Access and Outcomes: A Position Statement From the National Kidney Foundation

Over the past 65 years, kidney transplantation has evolved into the optimal treatment for patients with kidney failure, dramatically reducing suffering through improved survival and quality of life. However, access to transplant is still limited by organ supply, opportunities for transplant are inequitably distributed, and lifelong transplant survival remains elusive. To address these persistent needs, the National Kidney Foundation convened an expert panel to define an agenda for future research. The key priorities identified by the panel center on the needs to develop and evaluate strategies to expand living donation, improve waitlist management and transplant readiness, maximize use of available deceased donor organs, and extend allograft longevity. Strategies targeting the critical goal of decreasing organ discard that warrant research investment include educating patients and clinicians about potential benefits of accepting nonstandard organs, use of novel organ assessment technologies and real-time decision support, and approaches to preserve and resuscitate allografts before implantation. The development of personalized strategies to reduce the burden of lifelong immunosuppression and support "one transplant for life" was also identified as a vital priority. The panel noted the specific goal of improving transplant access and graft survival for children with kidney failure. This ambitious agenda will focus research investment to promote greater equity and efficiency in access to transplantation, and help sustain long-term benefits of the gift of life for more patients in need.