The overall outcomes of transplantation in elderly kidney transplant recipients ages ≥65 years are excellent, but the risk factors for mortality and graft failure are distinctly different than those observed in younger recipients.

Physical QOL is lower in elderly recipients but mental QOL is maintained and is higher than in younger recipients.

The number of patients reinitiating dialysis after a failed transplant increases over time and has more than doubled between the year 1988 and 2010 (an increase from 2463 to 5588). More importantly, patients returning to dialysis have been shown to have a greater than three-fold increase in the annual adjusted mortality rates compared with those with a functioning graft. Continuation of immunosuppression to preserve residual graft function has been implicated to be a contributing factor, seemingly due to immunosuppression-associated cardiovascular and infectious complications and malignancy risk, among others. Nonetheless, maintenance low-dose immunosuppression has been suggested to confer survival benefit in patients returning to peritoneal dialysis. Whether early vs late reinitiation of dialysis or whether transplantectomy has an impact on patient survival remains poorly defined. Consensus guidelines for the management of a failed allograft are lacking. In this article, we present a literature overview on the ideal timing of dialysis reinitiation after graft loss, the management of immunosuppression after graft failure, and the risks and benefits of transplantectomy. The authors' perspectives on the management of this special patient population are also discussed.

Kidney allograft failure and return to dialysis carry a high risk of morbidity. A practice survey was developed by the AST Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice workgroup and distributed electronically to the AST members. There were 104 respondents who represented 92 kidney transplant centers. Most survey respondents were transplant nephrologists at academic centers. The most common approach to immunosuppression management was to withdraw the antimetabolite first (73%), while only 12% responded they would withdraw calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) first. More than 60% reported that the availability of a living donor is the most important factor in their decision to taper immunosuppression, followed by risk of infection, risk of sensitization, frailty, and side effects of medications. More than half of respondents reported that | 3035 AJT ALHAMAD et AL.

BackgroundThe choice of vascular access type is an important aspect of care for incident hemodialysis patients. However, data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medical Evidence Report (form CMS-2728) identifying the first access for incident patients have not previously been validated. Medicare began requiring that vascular access type be reported on claims in July 2010. We aimed to determine the agreement between the reported vascular access at initiation from form CMS-2728 and from Medicare claims.MethodsThis retrospective study used a cohort of 9777 patients who initiated dialysis in the latter half of 2010 and were eligible for Medicare at the start of renal replacement therapy to compare the vascular access type reported on form CMS-2728 with the type reported on Medicare outpatient dialysis claims for the same patients. For each patient, the reported access from each data source was compiled; the percent agreement represented the percent of patients for whom the access was the same. Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to identify characteristics associated with the agreement of reported access.ResultsThe two data sources agreed for 94% of patients, with a Kappa statistic of 0.83, indicating an excellent level of agreement. Further, we found no evidence to suggest that agreement was associated with the patient characteristics of age, sex, race, or primary cause of renal failure.ConclusionThese results suggest that vascular access data as reported on form CMS-2728 are valid and reliable for use in research studies.

The return to dialysis after allograft failure is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This transition is made more complex by the rising numbers of patients who seek repeat transplantation and therefore may have indications for remaining on low levels of immunosuppression, despite the potential increased morbidity. Management strategies vary across providers, driven by limited data on how to transition off How to cite this article: Lubetzky M, Tantisattamo E, Molnar MZ, et al. The failing kidney allograft: A review and recommendations for the care and management of a complex group of patients.

Background The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of tacrolimus, an immunosuppressant commonly used to prevent transplant rejection, can differ in specific subpopulations. This analysis examined treatment outcomes and safety of immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac) and LCP-tacrolimus (LCPT) in stable Hispanic kidney transplant recipients. Material/Methods This was a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from Hispanic adult stable kidney transplant recipients randomized to remain on IR-Tac or convert from IR-Tac to a reduced dose of LCPT (NCT00817206). Composite treatment failure was evaluated at 12 months. Estimated glomerular filtration rate and tacrolimus trough concentrations were evaluated over 12 months. Results Fifty-five stable (LCPT n=26, IR-Tac n=29) kidney transplant recipients who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino were included in this analysis. Composite treatment failure occurred in 1 patient (4%) who converted to LCPT and 1 (3%) who remained on IR-Tac. The estimated glomerular filtration rate was stable over time and similar in the 2 treatment groups ( P =0.08). Tacrolimus trough levels for both groups were similar over time in the 2 treatment groups ( P =0.98). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in patients who converted to LCPT and in those who remained on IR-Tac. Conclusions Efficacy and safety were similar in Hispanic kidney transplant recipients who converted from IR-Tac to LCPT and in those remaining on IR-Tac.

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.