Burden of excess mortality after implementation of the new kidney allocation system may be borne disproportionately by middle-aged recipients

Impact of the Kidney Allocation Revision on Access to Kidney Transplantation and Outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

The 2014 Kidney Allocation System (KAS) revision aimed to enhance equity in organ allocation and improve patient outcomes. This study assesses the impacts of the KAS revision on renal transplantation demographics and outcomes in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study utilizing the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (OPTN/SRTR) database from 1998 to 2022. We compared recipient and donor characteristics, and outcomes (graft failure and recipient survival) pre- and post-KAS revision.

RESULTS

Post-KAS, recipients were significantly older (53 vs 48, P < .001) with an increase in Medicaid beneficiaries (7.3% vs 5.5%, P < .001). Despite increased graft survival, HR = .91 (95% CI 0.80-.92, P < .001), overall recipient survival decreased, HR = 1.06 (95% CI 1.04-1.09, P < .001). KAS revision led to greater racial diversity among recipients and donors, enhancing equity in organ allocation. However, disparities persist in graft failure rates and recipient survival across racial groups.

DISCUSSION

The 2014 Kidney Allocation System revision has led to important changes in the renal transplantation landscape. While progress has been made towards increasing racial equity in organ allocation, further refinements are needed to address ongoing disparities. Recognizing the changing patient profiles and socio-economic factors will be crucial in shaping future policy modifications.

Trends in the survival benefit of repeat kidney transplantation over the past 3 decades

Repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) is the preferred treatment for patients with graft failure. Changing allocation policies, widening the risk profile of recipients, and improving dialysis care may have altered the survival benefit of a re-KT. We characterized trends in re-KT survival benefit over 3 decades and tested whether it differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, and panel reactive assay (PRA). By using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we identified 25 419 patients who underwent a re-KT from 1990 to 2019 and 25 419 waitlisted counterfactuals from the same year with the same waitlisted time following graft failure. In the adjusted analysis, a re-KT was associated with a lower risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.65). By using the 1990-1994 era as a reference (aHR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85), incremental improvements in the survival benefit were noted (1995-1999: aHR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78: 2000-2004: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.55-0.63: 2005-2009: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: 2010-2014: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62: 2015-2019: aHR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.73). The survival benefit of a re-KT was noted in both younger (age = 18-64 years: aHR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65) and older patients (age ≥65 years: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74; Pinteraction = .45). Patients of all races/ethnicities demonstrated similar benefits with a re-KT. However, it varied by the sex of the recipient (female patients: aHR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: male patients: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68; Pinteraction = .004) and PRA (0-20: aHR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74: 21-80: aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.57-0.66; Pinteraction = .02; >80: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61; Pinteraction< .001). Our findings support the continued practice of a re-KT and efforts to overcome the medical, immunologic, and surgical challenges of a re-KT.

The New UK National Kidney Allocation Scheme With Maximized "R4-D4" Kidney Transplants: Better Patient-to-Graft Longevity Matching May Be at the Cost of More Resources

OBJECTIVES

A new kidney matching scheme for allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation was introduced in the United Kingdom in September 2019. Donors and recipients are stratified into quartiles derived from demographic and retrieval indices associated with risk of adverse outcome. We present data on 2 years of transplants, with the aim of understanding the potential impacts ofthe scheme on patient/transplant outcomes, hospitalization, and resource utilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All deceased donortransplants from 2015 and 2016 were reclassified using the risk quartiles (D1-D4 for donor and R1-R4 for recipient, where 4 is highestrisk). Inpatientlength of stay, kidney function defined by estimated glomerular rate at 1 year, and patient survival data were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 195 deceased donor transplants analyzed, 144 recipients (73.4%) were in the highest risk R4 category, including 55 with R4-D4 combination (28.1%). Recipients in the R4 category had longer index admissions (mean of 12.4 vs 8.1 days for R1-R3; P = .002) and higher subsequent admission rates 90 days posttransplant(185.7 vs 122.7/1000 patient days for R1-R3; P < .001). Kidney transplant function at 1 year was lower for grafts categorized as D4 (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 35.7 vs 54.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 for D1-D3; P < .001). However, survival for R4 recipients with D4 kidneys was not significantly differentfrom R4 recipients with D1 to D3 kidneys (4-year patient survival rate with R4-D4 combination was 90.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The principles ofthe allocation scheme in matching graft and patient survival were already largely being observed (matching higher risk deceased donor kidneys to higher risk recipients). However, an increase in D4 proportions in the R4 group may be associated with longer hospitalization posttransplant. Consideration should be given to mitigation strategies to address this. Despite poorer graft function, patient survival appears satisfactory.

Kidney transplant outcomes in minority populations: can we close the gap?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Health disparity in minority populations has been increasingly recognized over the last decade. The COVID-19 pandemic sheds a bright light on this very issue impressing upon the need for more research regarding healthcare in disparate populations. Although kidney transplantation remains the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease management and longevity of life, access to transplantation remains a critical barrier in minority populations. The literature on disparity in access abounds but remains limited with regards to posttransplantation outcomes. The purpose of this review is to draw attention to existing research and literature in posttransplant outcomes and highlight the overall knowledge gap that persists in postkidney transplant care among disparate populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current review focuses on important paradigm shifts in the determinants of outcomes in posttransplantation care in minority populations. It emphasizes a departure from immune mediated causes to more salient health inequities and socioeconomic factors contributing to patient and graft survival which require further investigation.

SUMMARY

Despite increased awareness of health disparity in minority populations, outcomes data postkidney transplantation remains sparse. Critical to the future of kidney transplantation and improved healthcare coordination in minority populations will be a deeper understanding of contributing socio-economic variables in disparate outcomes.

Expanded Criteria Donor Kidneys With Kidney Donor Profile Index ≤ 85%: Are We Doing Enough to Counsel Our Patients?

BACKGROUND

Kidneys at higher risk for allograft failure are defined by the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) > 85% in the current kidney allocation system (KAS), replacing the historical concept of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys in the previous KAS. Discrepancies exist in the classification of "high-risk kidneys" between the 2 KAS. In the current KAS, only recipients of KDPI > 85% kidneys are counseled about the high risk of allograft failure and are required to sign a consent. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes and allocation of kidneys with discordant classification.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, kidneys transplanted between 01/2002 and 09/2016 were classified according to the old (standard criteria donor [SCD]/ECD) and current (KDPI) KAS. We then grouped them as concordant (KDPI ≤ 85% + SCD or KDPI > 85% + ECD) and discordant (KDPI ≤ 85% + ECD or KDPI > 85% + SCD) kidneys.

RESULTS

Approximately 11% of transplanted kidneys were discordant in classification. Among kidneys with KDPI ≤ 85%, ECD status conferred a 64% (95% CI: 56%-73%) higher risk of allograft failure compared to SCD status. However, SCD/ECD status was not associated with differential outcomes in KDPI > 85% kidneys. These ECD kidneys have KDPIs > 50% and have been transplanted across all estimated post-transplant survival (EPTS) deciles.

CONCLUSION

Adequate counseling about the risk and benefit of accepting ECD kidneys with KDPI ≤ 85% versus waiting on dialysis should be explored with the patients, especially those with lower EPTS.

Results and reflections from the PROfiling Consortium on Antibody Repertoire and Effector functions in kidney transplantation: A mini-review

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD). The waiting time for a deceased donor kidney in the Netherlands is approximately 3 years. Mortality among patients on the waiting list is high. The aim of the PROCARE consortium (PROfiling Consortium on Antibody Repertoire and Effector functions) was to decrease the waiting time by providing a matching algorithm yielding a prolonged graft survival and less HLA‐immunization compared with the currently used Eurotransplant Kidney allocation system. In this study, 6097 kidney transplants carried out between January 1995 and December 2005 were re‐examined with modern laboratory techniques and insights that were not available during that time period. In this way, we could identify potential new parameters that can be used to improve the matching algorithm and prolong graft survival. All eight University Medical Centers in the Netherlands participated in this multicenter study. To improve the matching algorithm, we used as central hypothesis that the combined presence of class‐I and ‐II single‐antigen bead (SAB)‐defined donor‐specific HLA antibodies (DSA) prior to transplantation, non‐HLA antibodies, the number of B‐ and/or T‐cell epitopes recognized on donor HLA, and specific polymorphisms in effector mechanisms of IgG were associated with an increased risk for graft failure. The purpose of this article is to relate the results obtained from the PROCARE consortium study to other studies published in recent years. The clinical relevance of SAB‐defined DSA, complement‐fixing DSA, non‐HLA antibodies, and the effector functions of (non)‐HLA‐antibodies will be discussed.