Presentation and Outcomes of C4d-Negative Antibody-Mediated Rejection After Kidney Transplantation.

The updated Banff classification allows for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in the absence of peritubular capillary C4d staining. Our objective was to quantify allograft loss risk in patients with consistently C4d-negative AMR (n = 51) compared with C4d-positive AMR patients (n = 156) and matched control subjects without AMR. All first-year posttransplant biopsy results from January 2004 through June 2014 were reviewed and correlated with the presence of donor-specific antibody (DSA). C4d-negative AMR patients were not different from C4d-positive AMR patients on any baseline characteristics, including immunologic risk factors (panel reactive antibody, prior transplant, HLA mismatch, donor type, DSA class, and anti-HLA/ABO-incompatibility). C4d-positive AMR patients were significantly more likely to have a clinical presentation (85.3% vs. 54.9%, p < 0.001), and those patients presented substantially earlier posttransplantation (median 14 [interquartile range 8-32] days vs. 46 [interquartile range 20-191], p < 0.001) and were three times more common (7.8% vs 2.5%). One- and 2-year post-AMR-defining biopsy graft survival in C4d-negative AMR patients was 93.4% and 90.2% versus 86.8% and 82.6% in C4d-positive AMR patients, respectively (p = 0.4). C4d-negative AMR was associated with a 2.56-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.05, p = 0.033) increased risk of graft loss compared with AMR-free matched controls. No clinical characteristics were identified that reliably distinguished C4d-negative from C4d-positive AMR. However, both phenotypes are associated with increased graft loss and thus warrant consideration for intervention.

Quantifying renal allograft loss following early antibody-mediated rejection.

Unlike antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) with clinical features, it remains unclear whether subclinical AMR should be treated, as its effect on allograft loss is unknown. It is also uncertain if AMR's effect is homogeneous across donor (deceased/live) and (HLA/ABO) antibody types. We compared 219 patients with AMR (77 subclinical, 142 clinical) to controls matched on HLA/ABO-compatibility, donor type, prior transplant, panel reactive antibody (PRA), age and year. One and 5-year graft survival in subclinical AMR was 95.9% and 75.7%, compared to 96.8% and 88.4% in matched controls (p = 0.0097). Subclinical AMR was independently associated with a 2.15-fold increased risk of graft loss (95% CI: 1.19-3.91; p = 0.012) compared to matched controls, but not different from clinical AMR (p = 0.13). Fifty three point two percent of subclinical AMR patients were treated with plasmapheresis within 3 days of their AMR-defining biopsy. Treated subclinical AMR patients had no difference in graft loss compared to matched controls (HR 1.73; 95% CI: 0.73-4.05; p = 0.21), but untreated subclinical AMR patients did (HR 3.34; 95% CI: 1.37-8.11; p = 0.008). AMR's effect on graft loss was heterogeneous when stratified by compatible deceased donor (HR = 4.73; 95% CI: 1.57-14.26; p = 0.006), HLA-incompatible deceased donor (HR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.10-5.19; p = 0.028), compatible live donor (no AMR patients experienced graft loss), ABO-incompatible live donor (HR = 6.13; 95% CI: 0.55-67.70; p = 0.14) and HLA-incompatible live donor (HR = 6.29; 95% CI: 3.81-10.39; p < 0.001) transplant. Subclinical AMR substantially increases graft loss, and treatment seems warranted.

Loss of pediatric kidney grafts during the "high-risk age window": insights from pediatric liver and simultaneous liver-kidney recipients.

Pediatric kidney transplant recipients experience a high-risk age window of increased graft loss during late adolescence and early adulthood that has been attributed primarily to sociobehavioral mechanisms such as nonadherence. An examination of how this age window affects recipients of other organs may inform the extent to which sociobehavioral mechanisms are to blame or whether kidney-specific biologic mechanisms may also exist. Graft loss risk across current recipient age was compared between pediatric kidney (n = 17,446), liver (n = 12,161) and simultaneous liver-kidney (n = 224) transplants using piecewise-constant hazard rate models. Kidney graft loss during late adolescence and early adulthood (ages 17-24 years) was significantly greater than during ages <17 (aHR = 1.79, 95%CI = 1.69-1.90, p < 0.001) and ages >24 (aHR = 1.11, 95%CI = 1.03-1.20, p = 0.005). In contrast, liver graft loss during ages 17-24 was no different than during ages <17 (aHR = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.92-1.16, p = 0.6) or ages >24 (aHR = 1.18, 95%CI = 0.98-1.42, p = 0.1). In simultaneous liver-kidney recipients, a trend towards increased kidney compared to liver graft loss was observed during ages 17-24 years. Late adolescence and early adulthood are less detrimental to pediatric liver grafts compared to kidney grafts, suggesting that sociobehavioral mechanisms alone may be insufficient to create the high-risk age window and that additional biologic mechanisms may also be required.

Experiences obtaining insurance after live kidney donation.

The impact of kidney donation on the ability to change or initiate health or life insurance following donation is unknown. To quantify this risk, we surveyed 1046 individuals who donated a kidney at our center between 1970 and 2011. Participants were asked whether they changed or initiated health or life insurance after donation, and if they had any difficulty doing so. Among 395 donors who changed or initiated health insurance after donation, 27 (7%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 15 were denied altogether, 12 were charged a higher premium and 8 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. Among 186 donors who changed or initiated life insurance after donation, 46 (25%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 23 were denied altogether, 27 were charged a higher premium and 17 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. In this single-center study, a high proportion of kidney donors reported difficulty changing or initiating insurance, particularly life insurance. These practices by insurers create unnecessary burden and stress for those choosing to donate and could negatively impact the likelihood of live kidney donation among those considering donation.

Quantifying the risk of incompatible kidney transplantation: a multicenter study.

Incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) offers a survival advantage over dialysis to patients with anti-HLA donor-specific antibody (DSA). Program-specific reports (PSRs) fail to account for ILDKT, placing this practice at regulatory risk. We collected DSA data, categorized as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF) (n = 185), positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC) (n = 536) or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC) (n = 304), from 22 centers. We tested associations between DSA, graft loss and mortality after adjusting for PSR model factors, using 9669 compatible patients as a comparison. PLNF patients had similar graft loss; however, PFNC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-2.23, p = 0.007) and PCC (aHR = 5.01, 95% CI: 3.71-6.77, p < 0.001) were associated with increased graft loss in the first year. PLNF patients had similar mortality; however, PFNC (aHR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.28-3.26; p = 0.003) and PCC (aHR = 4.59; 95% CI: 2.98-7.07; p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality. We simulated Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services flagging to examine ILDKT's effect on the risk of being flagged. Compared to equal-quality centers performing no ILDKT, centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PFNC had a 1.19-, 1.33- and 1.73-fold higher odds of being flagged. Centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PCC had a 2.22-, 4.09- and 10.72-fold higher odds. Failure to account for ILDKT's increased risk places centers providing this life-saving treatment in jeopardy of regulatory intervention.