There are no conflicts of interest to report.The use of living donors for kidney transplantation in the United States is common, and long-term studies have demonstrated the safety of donation by young, healthy individuals. However, transplant programs have little data to guide them in deciding which donors are unacceptable, and which characteristics are associated with kidney disease or poor psychosocial outcomes after donation. To document current practices in evaluating potential donors, we surveyed all US kidney transplant programs. Compared to a survey 12 years ago, medical criteria for donation are more inclusive in several areas. All responding programs now accept living unrelated donors. Most programs no longer have an upper age limit to be eligible. Programs are now more likely to accept donors with treated hypertension, or a history of kidney stones, provided that certain additional criteria are met. In contrast, medical criteria for donation are more restrictive in other areas, such as younger donor age and low creatinine clearance. Overall, significant variability remains among transplant programs in the criteria used to evaluate donors. These findings highlight the need for more data on long-term outcomes in various types of donors with potential morbidities related to donation.

Procedures to diagnose renal allograft rejection depend upon detection of graft dysfunction and the presence of a mononuclear leukocytic infiltrate; however, the presence of a modest cellular infiltrate is often not conclusive and can be detected in non-rejecting grafts. We have pursued a molecular approach utilizing reverse transcription (

Background Blacks receive live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) less often than patients of all other races. We evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions in removing barriers to LDKT for blacks. Methods Patients were randomized to three interventions in which health educator(s) delivered an intervention to (a) the patient and his/her guests in the patient’s home (House Calls, HC n=54), (b) clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (Group-Based, GB n=49), (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (Individual Counseling, IC n=49). Results At the 2-year endpoint, 15% (8), 8% (4), and 6% (3) of HC, GB, and IC patients, respectively, received LDKT (p=0.30). HC patients were more likely than GB and IC patients to have at least one donor inquiry (82% vs. 61% vs. 47%, p=0.001) and evaluation (65% vs. 39% vs. 27%, p<0.001). HC patients also were more likely to have higher knowledge, fewer concerns, and higher willingness to talk to others about donation 6 weeks post- intervention. Conclusions These findings underscore the importance of including the patient’s social network in LDKT education and the potential of the HC intervention to reduce racial disparity in LDKT rates.

We conducted a survey of 132 US kidney transplant programs to examine how they evaluate and select potential living kidney donors, focusing on donorrecipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. There is heterogeneity in donorrecipient relationships that are considered acceptable, although most programs (70%) will not consider publicly solicited donors. Most programs (75%) require a psychosocial evaluation for all potential living donors. Most programs agree that knowledge of financial reward (90%), active substance abuse (86%), and active mental health problems (76%) are absolute contraindications to donation. However, there is greater variability in how other psychosocial issues are considered in the selection process. Consent processes are highly variable across programs: donor and recipient consent for the donor evaluation is presumed in 57% and 76% of programs, respectively. The use of 13 different informed consent elements varied from 65% (alternative donation procedures) to 86% (description of evaluation, surgery and recuperative period) of programs. Forty-three percent use a 'cooling off' period. Findings demonstrate high variability in current practice regarding acceptable donor-recipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. Whether greater consensus should be reached on these donor evaluation practices, especially in the context of more expansive use of living donor kidney transplantation, is discussed.

The prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection is significantly higher in patients with end-stage renal disease compared to the general population and poses important clinical challenges in patients who undergo kidney transplantation. Historically, interferon-based treatment options have been limited by low rates of efficacy and significant side effects, including risk of precipitating rejection. Limited data exist on the use of all-oral, interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies in kidney transplant recipients. In this study, we performed a retrospective chart review with prospective clinical follow-up of post-kidney transplant patients treated with DAA therapies at three major hospitals in Boston, MA. A total of 24 kidney recipients with HCV infection received all-oral DAA therapy post-transplant. Patients were predominantly male (79%) with a median age of 60 years (range 34–70 years), median creatinine of 1.2 mg/dL (0.66–1.76), and 42% had advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. The majority had HCV genotype 1a infection (58%). All patients received full-dose sofosbuvir; it was paired with simeprevir (9 patients without and 3 patients with ribavirin), ledipasvir (7 patients without and 1 patient with ribavirin) or ribavirin alone (4 patients). The overall sustained virologic response (SVR12) was 91% (21 out of 23 patients). One patient achieved SVR4 but demised prior to SVR12 check point due to treatment unrelated cause. Two treatment failures were successfully retreated with alternative DAA regimens and achieved SVR. Both initials failures occurred in patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, with genotype 1a infection, and prior HCV treatment failure. Adverse events were reported in 11 patients (46%) and were managed clinically without discontinuation of therapy. Calcineurin inhibitor trough levels did not significantly change during therapy. In this multi-center series of patients, all-oral DAA therapy appears to be safe and effective in post-kidney transplant patients with chronic HCV infection.

Kidney transplantation from live donors achieves an excellent outcome regardless of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch. This development has expanded the opportunity of kidney transplantation from unrelated live donors. Nevertheless, the hazard of hyperacute rejection has usually precluded the transplantation of a kidney from a live donor to a potential recipient who is incompatible by ABO blood type or HLA antibody crossmatch reactivity. Region 1 of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has devised an alternative system of kidney transplantation that would enable either a simultaneous exchange between live donors (a paired exchange), or a live donor/deceased donor exchange to incompatible recipients who are waiting on the list (a live donor/list exchange). This Regional system of exchange has derived the benefit of live donation, avoided the risk of ABO or crossmatch incompatibility, and yielded an additional donor source for patients awaiting a deceased donor kidney. Despite the initial disadvantage to the list of patients awaiting an O blood type kidney, as every paired exchange transplant removes a patient from the waiting list, it also avoids the incompatible recipient from eventually having to go on the list. Thus, this approach also increases access to deceased donor kidneys for the remaining candidates on the list.

No abstract

No abstract