Despite the rapidly increasing prevalence of obesity in the transplant population, the optimal management of obese liver transplant candidates remains undefined. Setting strict body mass index cutoffs for transplant candidacy remains controversial, with limited data to guide this practice. Body mass index is an imperfect measure of surgical risk in this population, partly due to volume overload and variable visceral adiposity. Weight loss before transplantation may be beneficial, but it remains important to avoid protein calorie malnutrition and sarcopenia. Intensive lifestyle modifications appear to be successful in achieving weight loss, though the durability of these interventions is not known. Pretransplant and intraoperative bariatric surgeries have been performed, but large randomized controlled trials are lacking. Traditional cardiovascular comorbidities are more prevalent in obese individuals and remain the basis for pretransplant cardiovascular evaluation and risk stratification. The recent US liver transplant experience demonstrates comparable patient and graft survival between obese and nonobese liver transplant recipients, but obesity presents important medical and surgical challenges during and after transplant. Specifically, obesity is associated with an increased incidence of wound infections, wound dehiscence, biliary complications and overall infection, and confers a higher risk of posttransplant obesity and metabolic syndrome-related complications. In this review, we examine current practices in the obese liver transplant population, offer recommendations based on the currently available data, and highlight areas where additional research is needed.

Background Low tacrolimus concentrations have been associated with higher risk of acute rejection, particularly within African-American (AA) kidney transplant recipients; little is known about intrapatient tacrolimus variabilities impact on racial disparities. Methods Ten year, single-center, longitudinal cohort study of kidney recipients. Intrapatient tacrolimus variability was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) measured between 1 month posttransplant and the clinical event, with a comparable period assessed in those without events. Pediatrics, nontacrolimus/mycophenolate regimens and nonrenal transplants were excluded. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to analyze data. Results 1411 recipients were included (54.4% AA) with 39 521 concentrations utilized to assess intrapatient tacrolimus CV. Overall, intrapatient tacrolimus CV was higher in AAs vs non-AAs (39.9±19.8 % vs. 34.8±15.8% p<0.001). Tacrolimus variability was a significant risk factor for deleterious clinical outcomes. A 10% increase in tacrolimus CV augmented the risk of acute rejection by 20% (aHR 1.20, 1.13–1.28; p<0.001) and the risk of graft loss by 30% (aHR 1.30, 1.23–1.37; p<0.001), with significant effect modification by race for acute rejection, but not graft loss. High tacrolimus variability (CV >40%) was a significant explanatory variable for disparities in AAs; the crude relative risk of acute rejection in AAs was reduced by 46% when including tacrolimus variability in modeling and reduced by 40% for graft loss. Conclusions These data demonstrate that intrapatient tacrolimus variability is strongly associated with acute rejection in AAs and graft loss in all patients. Tacrolimus variability is a significant explanatory variable for disparities in AA recipients.

Despite being in existence for >40 years, the application of telemedicine has lagged significantly in comparison to its generated interest. Detractors include the immobile design of most historic telemedicine interventions and the relative lack of smartphones among the general populace. Recently, the exponential increase in smartphone ownership and familiarity have provided the potential for the development of mobile health (mHealth) interventions that can be mirrored realistically in clinical applications. Existing studies have demonstrated some potential clinical benefits of mHealth in the various phases of solid organ transplantation (SOT). Furthermore, studies in nontransplant chronic diseases may be used to guide future studies in SOT. Nevertheless, substantially more must be accomplished before mHealth becomes mainstream. Further evidence of clinical benefits and a critical need for cost-effectiveness analysis must prove its utility to patients, clinicians, hospitals, insurers, and the federal government. The SOT population is an ideal one in which to demonstrate the benefits of mHealth. In this review, the current evidence and status of mHealth in SOT is discussed, and a general path forward is presented that will allow buy-in from the health care community, insurers, and the federal government to move mHealth from research to standard care.

Low-dose and high-dose valganciclovir regimens provide similar efficacy in preventing CMV disease in high-risk RTR, with a reduced incidence of leukopenia associated with the low-dose regimen and no difference in resistant CMV. Low-dose valganciclovir may provide a significant cost avoidance benefit.

Background: Non-adherence to medication is a well-studied and known cause of late allograft loss, but it is difficult to measure and prospectively monitor. The aim of this study was to assess if appointment non-adherence was correlated with medication non-adherence and a predictor of graft outcomes. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study that used the National United States Renal Data System and veterans affairs health records data with time-to-event analyses conducted to assess the impact on graft and patient survival. Results: The number of transplants that were included in the analysis was 4,646 (3,656 with complete records); 14.6% of patients had an appointment no show rate of ≥12% (non-adherence). Appointment and medication non-adherence were highly correlated and both were significant independent predictors of outcomes. Those with appointment non-adherence had 1.5 times the risk of acute rejection (22.0 vs. 14.7%, p < 0.0001) and a 65% higher risk of graft loss (adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.38-1.97, p < 0.0001). There was a significant interaction between appointment and medication non-adherence; those with appointment and medication non-adherence were at very high risk of graft loss (aHR 4.18, 95% CI 3.39-5.15, p < 0.0001), compared to those with only appointment non-adherence (aHR 1.39, 95% CI 0.97-2.01, p = 0.0766) or only medication non-adherence (aHR 2.44, 95% CI 2.11-2.81, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: These results demonstrate that non-adherence to health care appointments is a significant and independent risk factor for graft loss.

A lack of research exploring post-transplant process optimization to reduce readmissions and increasing readmission rates at our center from 2009 to 2013 led to this study, aimed at assessing the effect of patient and process factors on 30-d readmission rates after kidney transplantation. This was a retrospective case-control study in adult kidney transplant recipients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were utilized to assess patient and process determinants of 30-d readmissions. 384 patients were included; 30-d readmissions were significantly associated with graft loss and death (p = 0.001). Diabetes (p = 0.049), pharmacist identification of poor understanding or adherence, and prolonged time on hemodialysis prior to transplant were associated with an increased risk of 30-d readmissions. After controlling for risk factors, readmission rates were only independently predicted by pharmacist identification of patient lack of understanding or adherence regarding post-transplant medications and dialysis exposure for more than three yr (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.10-4.71, p = 0.026 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.22, 3.70, respectively), both of which were significantly modified by history of diabetes. Thirty-d readmissions are attributable to both patient and process-level factors. These data suggest that a lack of post-transplant medication knowledge in high-risk patients drives early hospital readmission.

Opioid use after kidney transplant has been shown to be a risk factor for chronic opioid use, which leads to an increased risk of mortality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early impact of a multimodal pain regimen and education quality improvement program on opioid use after kidney transplant 2 months after implementation. This was a retrospective, single‐center analysis of post‐operative opioid use, comparing the average daily Morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of the patients who received education on opioids and a multimodal pain regimen (preoperative TAP/QL block, scheduled APAP and gabapentin) compared to a historical control group. Despite having no differences in pre‐transplant opioid exposure, daily and overall inpatient opioid utilization was significantly reduced in the multimodal pain protocol cohort (38.6 vs 8.0 MME/day; P < .001); 5% of patients in the multimodal pain protocol cohort were discharged with an opioid prescription, compared to 96% of controls (P < .001). Our early results demonstrate that a multimodal pain protocol can effectively and dramatically reduce short‐term opioid utilization in kidney transplant recipients.

Background and objectives Modern immunosuppressant regimens have significantly decreased acute rejection rates, but may have increased the risk of graft loss driven by adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors (MEs). The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence and risk factors for MEs and ADRs and determine the association between transplant outcomes and these events.Design, setting, participants, & measurements This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized trial that included patients aged.18 years that received a solitary renal transplant at an academic medical center recruited between March 2009 and July 2011. Patients were divided into groups based on developing a clinical significant ME (CSME), defined as a significant ME that contributed to a hospital admission.Results The mean study follow-up was 2.560.7 years. There were a total of 233 MEs and 327 ADRs in the 200 patients included in the analysis, with 64% of the cohort experiencing at least one ME and 87% experiencing an ADR; 23 patients (12%) .5]; P,0.01) after the CSME event. CSME patients were also more likely to experience graft failure (22% versus 10%; P=0.05).Conclusions Significant MEs commonly occur in renal transplant recipients and are associated with an increased risk of deleterious clinical outcomes, including subsequent hospital days, costs, and graft loss.