Impact of parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease on intestinal transplant waitlist dynamics

BACKGROUND: United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) reports indicate that waiting list mortality for intestinal transplant candidates greatly exceeds that for all other organ transplant candidates. But United Network for Organ Sharing outcomes reports have not routinely distinguished between the intestine candidate subgroups that are listed only for an intestine and those that are also listed for a liver. STUDY DESIGN: Data were obtained by request from the collaborative Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (United Network for Organ Sharing)/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (University Research and Education Association) database. Waiting list data for intestinal transplant recipients from 1995 to 2004 were divided into those candidates listed for only an intestine and those listed for both an intestine and a liver. Additional data concerning overall waiting list outcomes and posttransplant survival rates stratified into pediatric and adult subsets were also obtained and analyzed. RESULTS: The overall number of candidates on the intestinal transplant waiting list has increased steadily since 1995 and, consistently, the majority of candidates have also been listed for a liver. This subset was found to have both a higher relative risk of dying while awaiting transplantation and lower relative odds of receiving transplants. In addition, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease is a major problem across all age groups, as evidenced by the combined liver and intestine listings that compose the majority of both adult and pediatric waiting list populations. Posttransplant survival data were found to be superior for isolated intestine recipients compared with liver-intestine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: The preponderance of dual listings and their associated inferior outcomes, before and after transplantation, has skewed overall intestinal transplant outcomes. Because progression of parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease can be insidious, and recognition of irreversibility is often difficult, intestine-only transplants should be considered early for high-risk patients before parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease progression mandates inclusion of a liver graft also.     

Age, gender, race, and associations with kidney failure following living kidney donation

INTRODUCTION: Our previous reports suggested that African Americans (AA) are more likely to develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) following kidney donation when compared with white counterparts. We sought information on age, gender, and race of kidney donors to determine which groups were over-represented on the kidney transplant waiting list. METHODS: We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Organ Procurement Transplantation Network (OPTN) database for former donors who were subsequently placed on the kidney transplant waiting list. Information was retrieved on race, gender, age at donation, years between donation and listing, and diagnosis leading to ESRD. Comparisons were made to all kidney donors between 1988 and 2006 using chi-square testing. RESULTS: In this study, 126 individual kidney donors entered the kidney transplant waiting list. Fifty of the 126 (40%) were AA (P < .0001 compared with all donors, 13% AA). For both AA and whites, male donors and those who donated before age 35 made up a larger proportion of donors on the waiting list than would be expected by their proportion of overall donors. CONCLUSION: AA, males, and young donors may be at higher risk for kidney failure in the years following kidney donation. Mechanisms of increased risk are unclear but deserve further scrutiny. Our data are limited by the small number of patients developing kidney failure, the lack of complete follow-up on all living kidney donors, and the possibility that older donors with kidney failure were not listed because of death or other medical conditions. We believe that discussion of long-term risks may be different for various subgroups, especially for young AA kidney donors.     

Listing for Expanded Criteria Donor Kidneys in Older Adults and Those with Predicted Benefit

Certain patient groups are predicted to derive significant survival benefit from transplantation with expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys. An algorithm published in 2005 by Merion and colleagues characterizes this group: older adults, diabetics and registrants at centers with long waiting times. Our goal was to evaluate ECD listing practice patterns in the United States in terms of these characteristics. We reviewed 142 907 first‐time deceased donor kidney registrants reported to United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) between 2003 and 2008. Of registrants predicted to benefit from ECD transplantation according to the Merion algorithm ('ECD‐benefit'), 49.8% were listed for ECD offers ('ECD‐willing'), with proportions ranging from 0% to 100% by transplant center. In contrast, 67.6% of adults over the age of 65 years were ECD‐willing, also ranging from 0% to 100% by center. In multivariate models, neither diabetes nor center waiting time was significantly associated with ECD‐willingness in any subgroup. From the time of initial registration, irrespective of eventual transplantation, ECD‐willingness was associated with a significant adjusted survival advantage in the ECD‐benefit group (HR for death 0.88, p < 0.001) and in older adults (HR 0.89, p < 0.001), but an increased mortality in non‐ECD‐benefit registrants (HR 1.11, p < 0.001). In conclusion, ECD listing practices are widely varied and not consistent with published recommendations, a pattern that may disenfranchise certain transplant registrants.     

ABO blood group influences a candidate's likelihood of receiving an HLA zero antigen mismatch kidney

Abstract:  National sharing of HLA zero-mismatched kidneys has improved long-term graft survival. The distribution of those HLA-matched kidneys by ABO blood group, however, has not been examined.
Utilizing the UNOS/OPTN (United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network) database, we analysed 112 971 kidney waiting list registrations added during 6/3/95–31/12/00, and 8162 HLA zero-mismatched (0 mm) primary kidney transplants in the USA during 1/1/88–31/3/02. We also analyzed A isoagglutinin titer histories for 87 blood group B end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients for whom at least 1 yr of testing was done. Blood group A patients received 40.1% of the HLA-0 mm kidneys while having a 26.5% representation on the national waiting list. Blood group B patients comprised 17.4% of the waiting list, but received only 10.4% of the HLA-0 mm kidneys. Most (89.6%) blood group B patients awaiting kidney transplantation have low levels of A isoagglutinins, making them eligible to receive a blood group A₂ kidney transplant. The national HLA-0 mm kidney allocation sharing system's imbalance by ABO blood group could be partially resolved in the future by allocating HLA-0 mm blood group A₂ kidneys to B patients.     

Geographic Variability in Access to Primary Kidney Transplantation in the United States, 1996–2005

This article focuses on geographic variability in patient access to kidney transplantation in the United States. It examines geographic differences and trends in access rates to kidney transplantation, in the component rates of wait-listing, and of living and deceased donor transplantation. Using data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 700 000+ patients under 75, who began chronic dialysis treatment, received their first living donor kidney transplant, or were placed on the waiting list pre-emptively. Relative rates of wait-listing and transplantation by State were calculated using Cox regression models, adjusted for patient demographics. There were geographic differences in access to the kidney waiting list and to a kidney transplant. Adjusted wait-list rates ranged from 37% lower to 64% higher than the national average. The living donor rate ranged from 57% lower to 166% higher, while the deceased donor transplant rate ranged from 60% lower to 150% higher than the national average. In general, States with higher wait-listing rates tended to have lower transplantation rates and States with lower wait-listing rates had higher transplant rates. Six States demonstrated both high wait-listing and deceased donor transplantation rates while six others, plus D.C. and Puerto Rico, were below the national average for both parameters.     

The Impact of Transplantation with Deceased Donor Hepatitis C-Positive Kidneys on Survival in Wait-Listed Long-term Dialysis Patients

Whether transplantation of deceased donor kidney allografts from donors with antibodies against hepatitis C virus (HCV) confers a survival advantage compared with remaining on the kidney transplant waiting list is not yet known. We studied 38,270 USRDS Medicare beneficiaries awaiting kidney transplantation who presented with end-stage renal disease from April 1, 1995 to July 31, 2000. Cox regression was used to compare the adjusted hazard ratios for death among recipients of kidneys from deceased donors, and donors with antibodies against hepatitis C (DHCV+), controlling for demographics and comorbidities. In comparison to staying on the waiting list, transplantation from DHCV+ was associated with improved survival among all patients (adjusted hazard ratio for death 0.76, 95% CI 0.60, 0.96). Of patients receiving DHCV+ kidneys, 52% were themselves hepatitis C antibody positive (HCV+), so outcomes associated with use of these grafts may have particular implications for HCV+ transplant candidates. Recommendations for use of DHCV+ kidneys may require analysis of data not currently collected from either dialysis or transplant patients. However, transplantation of DHCV+ kidneys is associated with improved patient survival compared to remaining wait-listed and dialysis dependent.     

Living kidney donors requiring transplantation: focus on African Americans

Risks of kidney donation include a poorly characterized risk of late kidney failure. We hypothesized that African Americans (AA) kidney donors were at greater risk for kidney failure. The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network database was searched for patients who previously donated a kidney and were subsequently placed on the kidney transplant waiting list. We then compared the race of donors listed for kidney transplant to the race of all living donors during the same time period. Between 1993 and 2005, 8889 donors (14.3%) were AA and 42,419 (68.1%) were Caucasian. During this same time period, 102 previous kidney donors developed kidney failure and were listed for kidney transplantation. Although AAs comprised 14.3% of all living kidney donors, they constituted 44% of donors reaching the waiting list (P<0.001). These data provide indirect evidence that the risk of kidney failure may be exaggerated in AA donors.     

The expanded criteria donor dilemma in cadaveric renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney transplants are known to be superior to dialysis but inferior to transplant with a standard donor. Because of recent policy changes, ECD kidneys will be offered only to patients who have agreed to consider such an organ in advance. There is wide variation in opinion concerning the composition of ECD wait lists. However, the relative benefits of accepting an ECD versus waiting for a standard donor have not been quantified. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to determine when an individual patient should accept or reject an offer of an ECD kidney to optimize their personal expected quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Input variables were estimated from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) database using a sample of 35,030 recipients. RESULTS: Recipients of ECD kidneys waited 77 days longer for transplant than recipients of standard donors. The average patient could wait 3.2 years longer, in addition to the time they have already waited, for a standard donor than an ECD and expect equivalent QALYs. Selected subsets revealed differences in wait times that equated QALYs for ECD and standard donors: African American, 4.4 years; age under 30, 4.0 years; age over 60, 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Existing policy is likely to be in the best interests of only certain sets of patients awaiting cadaveric kidney transplantation unless ECDs dramatically reduce expected waiting for transplantation. This is most possible in elderly patients because of the short wait-time reduction required to make ECDs beneficial. Data reported here have been supplied by the USRDS. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US Government. The data and analyses reported in the 2001 Annual Report of the United States Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients have been supplied by the United Network for Organ Sharing and University Renal Research and Education Association under contract with Health and Human Services. The authors alone are responsible for reporting and interpreting of these data.     

Hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis as a significant mortality factor in intention-to-treat analysis in liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION: Liver transplantation represents the gold standard for the treatment of chronic liver disease. The whole transplantation process was assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis and considering patients from the time of their inclusion on the list and throughout lengthy follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1, 1999 to June 1, 2004, 373 adults joined the waiting list for liver transplantation at our institution. The main variables analyzed were: age, gender, etiology, Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, Child-Pugh class, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status. Global survival was evaluated using intention-to-treat analysis from the time of patient inclusion in the list to the end of their late follow-up. RESULTS: The median waiting time was 20 months (range 0.1 to 70.2). By univariate analysis, the variables significantly influencing survival when patients joined the waiting list were: encephalopathy; ascites, poor nutritional status, Child-Pugh class C, UNOS 2, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and bilirubin > 2 mg/dL. By multivariate analysis, only HCV-related cirrhosis emerged as having an independent prognostic value. By intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year survival rate was 67% and 79% for HCV-positive and HCV-negative patients, respectively (P = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: HCV-related cirrhosis is an independent prognostic factor for survival according to an intention-to-treat analysis. Different inclusion criteria or treatments while on the waiting list and after transplantation need to be considered in the future for HCV-positive patients.     

Direction of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and United Network for Organ Sharing Regarding the Oversight of Live Donor Transplantation and Solicitation for Organs

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) operated by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has taken recent steps to address public solicitation for organ donors and its oversight of live donor transplantation. This report provides the direction of the OPTN regarding deceased donor solicitation. The OPTN has authority under federal law to equitably allocate deceased donor organs within a single national network based upon medical criteria, not upon one's social or economic ability to utilize resources not available to all on the waiting list. The OPTN makes a distinction between solicitations for a live donor organ versus solicitations for directed donation of deceased organs. As to live donor solicitation, the OPTN cannot regulate or restrict ways relationships are developed in our society, nor does it seek to do so. OPTN members have a responsibility of helping protect potential recipients from hazards that can arise from public appeals for live donor organs. Oversight and support of the OPTN for live donor transplantation is now detailed by improving the reporting of live donor follow-up, by providing a mechanism for facilitating anonymous live kidney donation, and by providing information for potential live kidney donors via the UNOS Transplant Living website.     

Donor Kidney Exchanges

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.     

Predictors of graft survival in pediatric living-related kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: A successful kidney transplant from a living-related donor (LRD) remains the most effective renal replacement therapy for children with end-stage renal failure. The use of LRD kidneys results in decreased time on dialysis, increased graft survival, and better function compared with kidneys transplanted from cadaver donors. We retrospectively analyzed data from the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) Scientific Renal Transplant Registry to determine risk factors for graft loss in children who received an LRD kidney. METHODS: Data was obtained from the UNOS Scientific Renal Transplant Registry on 2418 children ranging in age from 0 to 18 years who underwent an LRD kidney transplantation between January 1988 and December 1994. Multivariate analysis of graft survival was performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. RESULTS: The effects of age, pretransplantation dialysis, early rejection, and race were found to significantly affect graft survival. Gender, peak panel-reactive antibody, and ABO blood type were not found to be significant risk factors. Infants <2 years of age initially had the worst graft survival; however, over time their results stabilized, and at 7 years estimated graft survival was good (71%). Adolescents ranging in age from 13-18 years had the best initial graft survival, but as time went on graft survival worsened (55%). Patients who underwent pretransplantation dialysis had a relative risk for graft loss of 1.77 (P<0.001), whereas those who had an early rejection had a relative risk for graft loss of 1.41 (P<0.002). African-Americans had a significantly higher relative risk for graft loss than either Caucasians (1.57, P<0.0005) or Hispanics (2.01, P<0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of graft survival for children who receive LRD kidney transplants include age at transplantation, pretransplantation dialysis, early rejection, and race. Over time, adolescents and African-Americans seem to have the lowest graft survival.     

Should stable UNOS Status 2 patients be transplanted?

BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes with contemporary medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure brings into question the survival advantage of transplantation for patients in stable United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Status 2. METHODS: Between January 1999 and June 2001, a total of 7,539 adult patients were listed for heart transplantation. Of those, 4,255 (56.4%) patients were listed as UNOS Status 2. Using a competing risk method, we computed probabilities of events while on the waiting list. Additionally, we used a time-dependent proportional hazards model to determine predictors of death before and after transplantation. RESULTS: Demographics included age >60 (72%), female sex (23%), ischemic causes for transplantation (49%), white race (85%), and median time on the waiting list (544 days). Laboratory and hemodynamic values included mean serum albumin of 3.9 g/dl, serum creatinine of 1.4 mg/dl, mean pulmonary artery pressure of 28 mm Hg, mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of 19 mm Hg, and mean cardiac output of 4.5 liter/min. Final outcomes on the waiting list for patients initially listed as UNOS Status 2 were transplantation (48%), removal from the list (11.5%), death (11.4%), and continued listing (29%). At 30 months after transplantation, survival was 81% for patients undergoing transplantation as Status 1A, 77% as Status 1B, and 83% as Status 2, and showed no difference among groups. At 365 days, survival analysis showed no difference for patients listed and undergoing transplantation as UNOS Status 2 compared with those still waiting as Status 2. CONCLUSION: In the current era of advances in medical and surgical therapies for heart failure, we found no survival benefit of cardiac transplantation at 1 year for patients initially listed as UNOS Status 2.     

Patients seeking alternatives to the long waiting list: a reality faced by transplant physicians

The need for deceased donor organs for kidney transplantation in the United States continues to increase. The increasing demand has fueled desperate attempts by patients to circumvent the long waiting list of the United Network for Organ Sharing. We report 4 patients with end-stage kidney disease who sought and obtained a live donor kidney transplant outside the United States. In each case, a nephrologist was following up with the patient regularly. Each patient experienced significant unexpected adverse events after the transplant surgery. Desperate attempts to obtain an organ are common and are likely to continue. Although patients with end-stage renal disease who obtain an organ transplant at an unregulated transplant center can have successful outcomes, transplant physicians should be aware of the common practice and should advise their patients of potential complications associated with acquisition of organs through means that circumvent standard oversight by the United Network for Organ Sharing and by institutions.     

Pancreas After Islet Transplantation: A First Report of the International Pancreas Transplant Registry

Pancreas after islet (PAI) transplantation is a treatment option for patients seeking insulin independence through a whole‐organ transplant after a failed cellular transplant. This report from the International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) studied PAI transplant outcomes over a 10‐year time period. Forty recipients of a failed alloislet transplant subsequently underwent pancreas transplant alone (50%), pancreas after previous kidney transplant (22.5%), or simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) transplant (27.5%). Graft and patient survival rates were not statistically significantly different compared with matched primary pancreas transplants. Regardless of the recipient category, overall 1‐ and 5‐year PAI patient survival rates for all 40 cases were 97% and 83%, respectively; graft survival rates were 84% and 65%, respectively. A failed previous islet transplant had no negative impact on kidney graft survival in the SPK category: It was the same as for primary SPK transplants. According to this IPTR/UNOS analysis, a PAI transplant is a safe procedure with low recipient mortality, high graft‐function rates in both the short and long term and excellent kidney graft outcomes. Patients with a failed islet transplant should know about this alternative in their quest for insulin independence through transplantation.     

Liver alone or simultaneous liver–kidney transplant? Pretransplant chronic kidney disease and post‐transplant outcome – a retrospective study

The new Organ Procurement and Transplant Network/United Organ Sharing Network (OPTN/UNOS) simultaneous liver–kidney transplant (SLK) policy has been implemented. The aim of this study was to review liver transplant outcomes utilizing the new SLK policy. Liver transplant alone (LTA) and SLK patients between 2009 and 2015 were reviewed. Graft survival and post‐transplant kidney function were investigated among LTA patients meeting the chronic kidney disease (CKD) criteria of the new policy (LTA‐CKD group). To validate our findings, we reviewed and applied our analysis to the OPTN/UNOS registry. A total of 535 patients were eligible from our series. The LTA‐CKD group (n = 27) showed worse 1‐year graft survival, compared with the SLK group (n = 44), but not significant (81% vs. 93%, P = 0.15). The LTA‐CKD group significantly increased a risk of post‐transplant dialysis (odds ratio = 5.59 [95% CI = 1.27–24.7], P = 0.02 [Ref. normal kidney function]). Post‐transplant dialysis was an independent risk factor for graft loss (hazard ratio = 7.25, 95% CI = 3.3–15.91, P < 0.001 [Ref. SLK]). In the validation analysis based on the OPTN/UNOS registry, the hazard of 1‐year‐graft loss in the LTA‐CKD group (n = 751) was 34.8% higher than the SLK group (n = 2856) (hazard ratio = 1.348, 95% CI = 1.157–1.572, P < 0.001). Indicating SLK for patients who meet the CKD criteria may significantly improve transplant outcomes.     

Mortality Assessment for Pancreas Transplants

We determined and compared the mortality of pancreas transplant recipients and of patients on the pancreas waiting lists by using United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR) data. From January 1, 1995, through May 31, 2003, a total of 12,478 patients were listed for a simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant; 2942 for a pancreas after (previous) kidney transplant (PAK); and 1207 for a pancreas transplant alone (PTA). In this retrospective observational cohort study, patients with multiple listings at different transplant centers and patients who changed transplant centers were counted only once. The Social Security Death Master File (SSDMF) and the UNOS kidney transplant database were used to update mortality information. By univariate analyses, 4-year patient survival rates on the waiting lists (vs. post-transplant), in the SPK category, were 58.7% (vs. 90.3%); in the PAK category, 81.7% (vs. 88.3%); and in the PTA category, 87.3% (vs. 90.5%). Up to one-third of recipient deaths after post-transplant day 90 were not related to the transplant procedure itself. Multivariate analyses showed that the overall mortality in all three categories was not increased after transplantation (for SPK recipients only, it was significantly decreased). In summary, the mortality for solitary pancreas transplant recipients is not higher than for wait-listed patients.     

Living unrelated donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Living unrelated donors remain an underutilized resource, despite their high graft survival rates. In this article, we updated the long-term results of more than 2500 living unrelated donor transplants performed in the United States. METHODS: Between 1987 and 1998, 1765 spouse, 986 living unrelated, 27,535 living related, and 86,953 cadaver donor grafts were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Kidney Registry. Kaplan-Meier curves compared graft survival rates in stratified analyses, and a log-linear analysis adjusted donor-specific outcomes for the effects of 24 other transplant factors. RESULTS: The long-term survival rates for both spouse and living unrelated transplants were essentially the same (5-year graft survivals of 75 and 72% and half-lives of 14 and 13 years, respectively). The results were similar to that for parent donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 74% and half-life = 12 years) and were significantly (P = 0.003) better than cadaver donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 62% and half-life = 9 years). After adjusting for the presence of transplant factors known to influence survival rates, recipients of living unrelated donor kidney transplants still had superior outcomes compared with cadaver transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Living unrelated kidney donors represent the fastest growing donor source in the United States and provide excellent long-term results. Encouraging spouses to donate could remove nearly 15% of the patients from the UNOS waiting list, effectively increasing the number of available cadaveric organs.     

Transplantation of kidneys from hepatitis C‐positive donors into hepatitis C virus‐infected recipients followed by early initiation of direct acting antiviral therapy: a single‐center retrospective study

The availability of direct acting antiviral agents (DAA) has transformed the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The current study is a case series that reports the outcomes from a cohort of twenty‐five HCV‐infected ESRD patients who received a kidney from an anti‐HCV‐positive deceased organ donor followed by treatment with DAAs in the early post‐transplant period. Time to transplantation and the efficacy of DAA therapy as measured by sustained viral response at 12 weeks were assessed. The median waiting time from original date of activation on the United Network Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list until transplantation was 427 days; however, the median time from entering the patient into UNet^sm for a HCV‐positive offer until transplantation was only 58 days. The 25 patients were started on antiviral treatment early post‐transplant (median 125 days) and 24 of 25 (96%) achieved a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks. Tacrolimus dose adjustments were required during antiviral treatment in 13 patients to maintain therapeutic levels. Accepting a kidney from an anti‐HCV‐positive deceased donor shortened the waiting time for HCV‐infected kidney transplant candidates. We recommend that kidneys from anti‐HCV‐positive donors should be considered for transplant into HCV‐infected recipients followed by early post‐transplant treatment with DAA agents.     

The impact of employment status on recipient and renal allograft survival

Abstract: Background:  With the improved median survival of kidney transplant recipients, there has been an increased focus on quality of life after transplantation. Employment is a widely recognized component of quality of life. To date, no study has demonstrated a link between post-transplant employment status and recipient and allograft survival after transplant.
Methods:  The records from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2002, were examined in this retrospective study. Two outcomes, allograft survival time (time between the transplantation and allograft failure or censor) and recipient survival time (time between the transplantation and recipient death or censor), were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for potential confounding factors.
Results:  Compared to patients working full time at the time of transplantation, those not working by choice have a greater risk to graft [hazard ratio (HR) 1.27, p < 0.001] but not to recipient survival. A similar trend was observed in patients not working at 12 months post-transplant (HR 1.30, p < 0.001 for graft survival but not for recipient survival). However, at five-yr post-transplant not working by choice was protective to the graft (HR 0.47, p < 0.01) as compared to working full time. Results of the analysis in the patient subgroups based on the comorbidities and the overall health status were similar.
Conclusion:  Employment status at the time of transplantation and in post-transplant period has a strong and independent association with the graft and recipient survival. Full time employment at the time of transplant and at one-yr post-transplant is associated with lower risk for graft failure and recipient mortality. However, working beyond the time covered by Medicare might be associated with potential risk for graft survival.