Robert A. Metzger

Report of a National Conference on Donation after cardiac death.

A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end‐of‐life care.

Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation.

TransLife-Florida Hospital Medical Center, Orlando, FL Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR)/ University Renal Research and Education Association (URREA), Ann Arbor, MI Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA SRTR/University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI *Corresponding author: Friedrich K. Port, fport@urrea.org

Report of the Crystal City Meeting to Maximize the Use of Organs Recovered from the Cadaver Donor

A consensus meeting to develop guidelines that would improve the recovery and transplantation of organs from the cadaver donor was held on 28–29 March 2001, in Crystal City, Virginia, sponsored by the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation. The crisis in organ supply persists and the continuing shortage presents a compelling responsibility for the transplant community to maximize the use of organs procured from cadaver donors.

Randomized Trial Of Tacrolimus (prograf) In Combination With Azathioprine Or Mychophenolate Mofetil Versus Cyclosporine (neoral) With Mycophenolate Mofetil After Cadaveric Kidney Transplantation1, 2

BACKGROUND Our clinical trial was designed to investigate the optimal combination of immunosuppressants for renal transplantation. METHODS A randomized three-arm, parallel group, open label, prospective study was performed at 15 North American centers to compare three immunosuppressive regimens: tacrolimus + azathioprine (AZA) versus cyclosporine (Neoral) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus tacrolimus + MMF. All patients were first cadaveric kidney transplants receiving the same maintenance corticosteroid regimen. Only patients with delayed graft function (32%) received antilymphocyte induction. A total of 223 patients were randomized, transplanted, and followed for 1 year. RESULTS There were no significant differences in baseline demography between the three treatment groups. At 1 year the results are as follows: acute rejection 17% (95% confidence interval 9%, 26%) in tacrolimus + AZA; 20% (confidence interval 11%, 29%) in cyclosporine + MMF; and 15% (confidence interval 7%, 24%) in tacrolimus + MMF. The incidence of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy was 12% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 11% in the cyclosporine + MMF group, and 4% in the tacrolimus + MMF group. There were no significant differences in overall patient or graft survival. Tacrolimus-treated patients had a lower incidence of hyperlipidemia through 6 months posttransplant. The incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus requiring insulin was 14% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 7% in the cyclosporine + MMF and 7% in the tacrolimus + MMF groups. CONCLUSIONS All regimens yielded similar acute rejection rates and graft survival, but the tacrolimus + MMF regimen was associated with the lowest rate of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy.

The Report of a National Conference on the Wait List for Kidney Transplantation

In March, 2002, over 100 members of the transplant community assembled in Philadelphia for a meeting designed to address problems associated with the growing number of patients seeking kidney transplantation and added to the waiting list each year. The meeting included representatives of nine US organizations with interests in these issues. Participants divided into work groups addressing access to the waiting list, assigning priority on the list, list management, and identifying appropriate candidates for expanded criteria donor kidneys. Each work group outlined problems and potential remedies within each area. This report summarized the issues and recommendations regarding the waiting list for kidney transplantation addressed in the Philadelphia meeting.

Randomized trial of tacrolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine versus cyclosporine oral solution (modified) plus mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation: results at 2 years.

Background. A previous report described the 1-year results of a prospective, randomized trial designed to investigate the optimal combination of immunosuppressants in kidney transplantation. Recipients of first cadaveric kidney allografts were treated with tacrolimus+mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclosporine oral solution (modified) (CsA)+MMF, or tacrolimus+azathioprine (AZA). Results at 1 year revealed that optimal efficacy and safety were achieved with a regimen containing tacrolimus+MMF. The present report describes results at 2 years. Methods. Two hundred twenty-three recipients of first cadaveric kidney allografts were randomized to receive tacrolimus+MMF, CsA+MMF, or tacrolimus+AZA. All regimens contained corticosteroids, and antibody induction was used only in patients who experienced delayed graft function. Patients were followed up for 2 years. Results. The results at 2 years corroborate and extend the findings of the previous report. Patients randomized to either treatment arm containing tacrolimus experienced improved kidney function. New-onset insulin dependence remained in four, three, and four patients in the tacrolimus+MMF, CsA+MMF, and tacrolimus+AZA treatment arms, respectively. Furthermore, patients with delayed graft function/acute tubular necrosis who were treated with tacrolimus+MMF experienced a 23% increase in allograft survival compared with patients receiving CsA+MMF (P =0.06). Patients randomized to tacrolimus+MMF received significantly lower doses of MMF compared with those administered CsA+MMF. Conclusions. All three immunosuppressive regi-mens provided excellent safety and efficacy. How-ever, the best results overall were achieved with tacrolimus+MMF. The combination may provide particular benefit to kidney allograft recipients who develop delayed graft function/acute tubular necrosis. Renal function at 2 years was better in the tacrolimus treatment groups compared with the CsA group.

Randomized trial of tacrolimus + mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine versus cyclosporine + mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation : Results at three years

Methods. Two hundred twenty-three recipients of first cadaveric kidney allografts were randomized to receive tacrolimus (TAC) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), TAC + azathioprine (AZA), or cyclosporine (Neoral; CsA) + MMF. All regimens contained corticosteroids, and antibody induction was used only in patients who experienced delayed graft function (DGF). Patients were followed-up for 3 years. Results. The results at 3 years corroborate and extend the findings of the 2-year results. Patients with DGF treated with TAC+MMF experienced an increase in 3-year allograft survival compared with patients receiving CsA+MMF (84.1% vs. 49.9%, P =0.02). Patients randomized to either treatment arm containing TAC exhibited numerically superior kidney function when compared with CsA. During the 3 years, new-onset insulin dependence occurred in 6, 3, and 11 patients in the TAC+MMF, CsA+MMF, and TAC+AZA treatment arms, respectively. Furthermore, patients randomized to TAC+MMF received significantly lower doses of MMF as compared with those who received CsA+MMF. Conclusion. All three immunosuppressive regimens provided excellent safety and efficacy. However, the best results overall were achieved with TAC+MMF. The combination may provide particular benefit to kidney allograft recipients with DGF. In patients who experienced DGF, graft survival was better at 3 years in those patients receiving TAC in combination with either MMF or AZA as compared with the patients receiving CsA with MMF.

The nondirected live-kidney donor: ethical considerations and practice guidelines: A National Conference Report.

Background. The success of kidney transplantation from a genetically unrelated living spouse or friend has influenced transplant physicians to consider the requests of individuals wishing to volunteer to be a kidney donor who have no intended recipient specified. Representatives of the transplant community gathered in Boston, MA, on May 31, 2001, to deliberate on the experience of live kidney donation from such volunteers, currently termed nondirected donors (NDD). Objective of Conference Participants. The objective of the conference was to recommend ethical and practice guidelines for health care professionals considering the transplantation of a kidney from a live NDD. Conference Participants. This conference was convened under the sponsorship of The National Kidney Foundation, with representation from The American Society of Transplantation and The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, The American Society of Nephrology, The United Resource Networks, The United Network for Organ Sharing, The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, The National Institutes of Health, and The Division of Transplantation of the Health Resources and Services Administration (see Appendix). Conference Report. The suggested content of screening interviews, which provide information regarding the donation process, elicits pertinent medical and psychosocial history, and assesses NDD motivation are presented in this report. Approaches to identifying the center that would evaluate the suitability of the NDD, to performing the kidney recovery, and to selecting the NDD recipient are also proposed. Other ethical issues such as the use of prisoners as an NDD, compensation for the NDD, media involvement, and communication between the NDD and recipient are discussed. Conclusion. The willingness of health care professionals to consider NDD volunteers is driven by the compelling need to provide organs for an ever-expanding list of patients awaiting a kidney transplant. However, the psychological impact and emotional reward of donation has yet to be determined for NDD who may not have any relationship to the recipient or knowledge of the recipient’s outcome. Transplant centers that accept NDD should document an informed consent process that details donor risks, assures donor safety, and determines that the goals and expectations of the NDD and the recipient can be realized.

Organ donation and utilization in the USA.

The processes leading to donor identification, consent, organ procurement, and allocation continue to dominate debates and efforts in the field of transplantation. A considerable shortage of donors remains while the number of patients needing organ transplantation increases.

Impact of the expanded criteria donor allocation system on candidates for and recipients of expanded criteria donor kidneys.

Background. A national policy to allocate kidneys from expanded criteria donors (ECD) took effect October 31, 2002. Methods. To assess its impact, we analyzed data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for ECD kidney candidates and recipients between November 1999 and October 2005. Results. The likelihood of being listed for ECD transplant, of receiving any transplant, and of receiving an ECD transplant were assessed using logistic regression models. As of October 31, 2005, 42.6% of candidates were listed with an ECD designation (range by donation service area [DSA], 1.9% to 94.9%). ECD-listed candidates were likely to be older, diabetic, and sensitized. By October 31, 2005, candidates listed for ECD as of November 1, 2002 were 41% more likely to receive any kidney transplant than those not ECD-listed. Among ECD-listed recipients, 30.1% received an ECD transplant and 69.9% a non-ECD transplant. Recipients more likely to receive an ECD transplant were significantly older and in DSAs where a high percentage of ECD transplants were performed and/or a low percentage of candidates were ECD-listed. Conclusions. A large, regionally variable fraction of candidates are opting to receive ECD offers. Listing with an ECD designation increases the likelihood of transplantation in selected populations. Selective listing of ECD candidates is associated with a higher likelihood of receiving an ECD transplant.