R. John Crew

Adult Minimal-Change Disease: Clinical Characteristics, Treatment, and Outcomes

Minimal-change disease (MCD) counts for 10 to 15% of cases of primary nephrotic syndrome in adults. Few series have examined this disease in adults. A retrospective review was performed of 95 adults who had MCD and were seen at a single referral center. Examined were presenting features, response to daily versus alternate-day steroids, response to second-line agents, relapse patterns, complications of the disease and therapy, presence of acute renal failure (ARF), and outcome data. Sixty-five patients received daily and 23 received alternate-day steroids initially. There were no differences in remissions, time to remission, relapse rate, or time to relapse between daily- and alternate-day-treated patients. More than one quarter of patients were steroid resistant. At least one relapse occurred in 73% of patients; 28% were frequently relapsing. A significant proportion of frequently relapsing patients became steroid dependent. Second-line agents were used for steroid dependence, steroid resistance, or frequent relapses. No single agent proved superior. There were more remissions with second-line agents in steroid-dependent patients compared with steroid-resistant patients, and remissions were more likely to be complete in steroid-dependent patients. ARF occurred in 24 patients; they tended to be older and hypertensive with lower serum albumin and more proteinuria than those without ARF. At follow up, patients with an episode of ARF had higher serum creatinine than those without ARF. Four patients progressed to ESRD. These patients were less likely to have responded to steroids and more likely to have FSGS on repeat renal biopsy. In this referral MCD population, response to daily and alternate-day steroids is similar. Second-line agents give greater response in patients who are steroid dependent. ARF occurs in a significant number of adult MCD patients and may leave residual renal dysfunction. Few patients progress to ESRD.

Donor-Specific Antibodies Adversely Affect Kidney Allograft Outcomes

The effect of low titers of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) detected only by sensitive solid-phase assays (SPAs) on renal transplant outcomes is unclear. We report the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of rejection rates and graft outcomes for renal transplant recipients with such preformed DSAs, defined by positive results on SPA but negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity and flow cytometry crossmatch results. Our search identified seven retrospective cohort studies comprising a total of 1119 patients, including 145 with isolated DSA-SPA. Together, these studies suggest that the presence of DSA-SPA, despite a negative flow cytometry crossmatch result, nearly doubles the risk for antibody-mediated rejection (relative risk [RR], 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.89; P<0.001) and increases the risk for graft failure by 76% (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.13-2.74; P=0.01). These results suggest that donor selection should consider the presence of antibodies in the recipient, identified by the SPA, even in the presence of a negative flow cytometry crossmatch result.

The weekend effect alters the procurement and discard rates of deceased donor kidneys in the United States

Factors contributing to the high rate of discard among deceased donor kidneys remain poorly understood and the influence of resource limitations of weekends on kidney transplantation is unknown. To quantify this we used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and assembled a retrospective cohort of 181,799 deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplantation from 2000-2013. We identified the impact of the day of the week on the procurement and subsequent utilization or discard of deceased donor kidneys in the United States, as well as report the geographic variation of the impact of weekends on transplantation. Compared with weekday kidneys, organs procured on weekends were significantly more likely to be discarded than transplanted (odds ratio: 1.16; 95% confidence interval: 1.13-1.19), even after adjusting for organ quality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.17). Weekend discards were of a significantly higher quality than weekday discards (Kidney Donor Profile Index: 76.5% vs. 77.3%). Considerable geographic variation was noted in the proportion of transplants that occurred over the weekend. Kidneys available for transplant over the weekend were significantly more likely to be used at larger transplant centers, be shared without payback, and experienced shorter cold ischemia times. Thus, factors other than kidney quality are contributing to the discard of deceased donor kidneys, particularly during weekends. Policy prescriptions, administrative or organizational solutions within transplant programs may potentially mitigate against the recent increase in kidney discards.

Overcoming immunologic incompatibility: transplanting the difficult to transplant patient.

Immunologic incompatibilities between donor and recipient have limited the access to renal transplantation for many patients. Previously the presence of donor‐specific alloantibodies directed against donor major histocompatibility complex (MHC) antigens or natural antibodies directed against donor ABO blood group antigens was considered an absolute contraindication to renal transplantation. However, with the current understanding of humoral immune responses, superior immunosuppressive agents, and improved diagnosis and treatment of antibody‐mediated rejection, renal transplantation can be safely performed with outstanding results despite the presence of donor‐specific antibody. In this review we discuss the biology of antibody‐mediated rejection and sensitization. We discuss the diagnostic tests necessary to characterize the type, affinity, and avidity of the donor‐directed antibodies. Current methods for performing renal transplants across ABO and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)‐sensitized barriers are covered, including the potential morbidities. The rest of the review focuses on advances in managing these antibodies to increase the likelihood of receiving a deceased donor kidney or allow transplantation from a living donor against whom one has a prohibitive antibody.

Preformed donor-specific antibodies and risk of antibody-mediated rejection in repeat renal transplantation

Background Allograft outcomes in patients undergoing repeat renal transplantation are inferior compared to first-time transplant recipient outcomes. Donor-specific antibodies detected by solid-phase assays (DSA-SPA) may contribute to the worse prognosis. The influence of DSA-SPA on repeat renal transplantation outcomes has not been previously studied in detail. Design This study reports the findings in 174 patients who underwent repeat renal transplantation between years 2007 and 2012. These included 62 patients with preformed DSA-SPA detected by Luminex at the time of transplantation. Patients received standard and consistent immunosuppression and were monitored closely for evidence of rejection. Recipients who underwent desensitization were excluded from this analysis. Endpoints included development of biopsy-proven acute rejection and analysis of graft survival and function. Results Patients in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups received similar immunosuppression, and a similar proportion of recipients had a peak panel reactive antibody greater than 20%; the two groups differed with respect to human leukocyte antigen mismatches (4.7±1.1 vs. 4.1±1.7, P=0.024). Recipients with preformed DSA-SPA had higher rejection rates (54.8% vs. 34.8%, P=0.01), including higher rates of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (32.3% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001). Recipients who were DSA-SPA-positive and flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM)-positive had a higher incidence of both AMR (OR 4.6, P=0.009) and of acute rejection (OR 3.57, P=0.02) as compared to those who were DSA-SPA-positive and FCXM-negative. Overall allograft survival was similar in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups (log-rank test=0.63, P=0.428). Differences in allograft function were detectable after 2 years (32.8±13.1 vs. 47±20.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, P=0.023) and may be reflective of more AMR among DSA-SPA-positive patients. Conclusions This analysis suggests that DSA-SPA increases the overall risk of acute rejection but does not appear to adversely impact allograft survival during the early follow-up period. Close monitoring of renal function and early biopsy for AMR detection appear to allow for satisfactory short-term allograft outcomes in repeat transplant recipients.BACKGROUND Allograft outcomes in patients undergoing repeat renal transplantation are inferior compared to first-time transplant recipient outcomes. Donor-specific antibodies detected by solid-phase assays (DSA-SPA) may contribute to the worse prognosis. The influence of DSA-SPA on repeat renal transplantation outcomes has not been previously studied in detail. DESIGN This study reports the findings in 174 patients who underwent repeat renal transplantation between years 2007 and 2012. These included 62 patients with preformed DSA-SPA detected by Luminex at the time of transplantation. Patients received standard and consistent immunosuppression and were monitored closely for evidence of rejection. Recipients who underwent desensitization were excluded from this analysis. Endpoints included development of biopsy-proven acute rejection and analysis of graft survival and function. RESULTS Patients in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups received similar immunosuppression, and a similar proportion of recipients had a peak panel reactive antibody greater than 20%; the two groups differed with respect to human leukocyte antigen mismatches (4.7 ± 1.1 vs. 4.1 ± 1.7, P=0.024). Recipients with preformed DSA-SPA had higher rejection rates (54.8% vs. 34.8%, P=0.01), including higher rates of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (32.3% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001). Recipients who were DSA-SPA-positive and flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM)-positive had a higher incidence of both AMR (OR 4.6, P=0.009) and of acute rejection (OR 3.57, P=0.02) as compared to those who were DSA-SPA-positive and FCXM-negative. Overall allograft survival was similar in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups (log-rank test=0.63, P=0.428). Differences in allograft function were detectable after 2 years (32.8 ± 13.1 vs. 47 ± 20.2 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P=0.023) and may be reflective of more AMR among DSA-SPA-positive patients. CONCLUSIONS This analysis suggests that DSA-SPA increases the overall risk of acute rejection but does not appear to adversely impact allograft survival during the early follow-up period. Close monitoring of renal function and early biopsy for AMR detection appear to allow for satisfactory short-term allograft outcomes in repeat transplant recipients.

Combined Heart-Kidney Transplantation: A Review of Recipient Selection and Patient Outcomes

Elevated serum creatinine is a common finding among patients awaiting heart transplantation because of reduced renal perfusion in the setting of severe heart failure as well as overlapping risk factors for chronic kidney disease and heart disease. Patients with significant renal dysfunction preoperatively have worse outcomes with heart transplantation alone compared with those with normal renal function or those with renal dysfunction who undergo combined heart-kidney transplantation. Optimizing organ distribution and patient outcomes after cardiac transplantation requires appropriate recipient selection, including deciding which patients will benefit from combined heart-kidney transplantation. This review focuses on the evaluation of patients with chronic kidney disease awaiting heart transplantation and the outcomes of combined heart-kidney transplantation.

Impact of small variations in the delivered dose of rabbit antithymocyte induction therapy in kidney transplantation with early corticosteroid withdrawal.

Background Optimal dosing of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induction therapy in kidney transplantation is not well defined. The impact of dosing from variations in dose rounding or single dose limits has not been studied. Methods This retrospective study of 242 adult renal transplant recipients receiving rATG induction and steroid-sparing maintenance therapy evaluates the effect of small changes in rATG induction dosing. The local protocol calls for four doses of rATG 1.5 mg/kg, approximated to the nearest 25 mg and limited to a max of 150 mg. Patients were stratified by total rATG dose received 5 to 6 mg/kg (n=151) and 6 mg/kg (n=91) or more. Incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, patient and graft survival, and allograft function were examined. Results Baseline and transplantation characteristics were similar between groups except for differences in mean weight (SD) (81 [17.3] vs. 76.3 [15.6]) and cumulative rATG dose received (451.8 [96.2] vs. 481.1 [93]) for patients in the 5- to 6-mg/kg group and 6-mg/kg or more group, respectively. Patients who received more rATG showed a significantly lower incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection at last follow-up 11% (32/151) vs. 21.2% (10/91) among those who received only 5 to 6 mg/kg (P<0.042). Renal function (mean serum creatinine level) was similar at both 90 days and time of last follow-up. Safety review of leukopenia or thrombocytopenia did not differ. Conclusion Small changes in total rATG induction administered seem to significantly impact the incidence of rejection. Adequate rATG dosing is associated with improved rejection-free graft survival and should be achieved for all patients; doses should be rounded up when appropriate or additional doses should be administered if necessary.

Association between Reperfusion Renal Allograft Biopsy Findings and Transplant Outcomes

Biopsy findings at the time of procurement of deceased donor kidneys remain the most common reason cited for kidney discard. To determine the value of renal allograft histology in predicting outcomes, we evaluated the significance of histologic findings, read by experienced renal pathologists, in 975 postreperfusion biopsy specimens collected from 2005 to 2009 after living donor (n=427) or deceased donor (n=548) renal transplant. We evaluated specimens for the degree of glomerulosclerosis, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, and vascular disease; specimens with a score of 0 or 1 (scale, 0-3) for each parameter were considered optimal. Overall, 66.3% of living donor kidneys and 50.7% of deceased donor kidneys received an optimal histology score (P<0.001). Irrespective of donor status, suboptimal kidneys came from older donors with a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity and a higher mean kidney donor risk index (all P<0.001). Death-censored outcomes after transplant differed significantly between optimal and suboptimal kidneys only in the deceased donor transplants (P=0.02). Regardless of histologic classification, outcomes with deceased donor kidneys were inferior to outcomes with living donor kidneys. However, 73.2% of deceased donor kidneys with suboptimal histology remained functional at 5 years. Our findings suggest that histologic findings on postreperfusion biopsy associate with outcomes after deceased donor but not living donor renal transplants, thus donor death and organ preservation-related factors may be of greater prognostic importance. Discarding donated kidneys on the basis of histologic factors may be inappropriate and merits further study.

The Case | An 80-year-old kidney transplant recipient with malaise and early allograft dysfunction.

Correspondence: Ibrahim Batal, Renal Pathology, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 630 W 168th Street, VC14-238, New York, New York 02115, USA. E-mail: ib2349@columbia.edu Kidney International (2016) 90, 455–456; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2016.01.035 Copyright a 2016, International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.