Robert A. Wolfe

Comparison of Mortality in All Patients on Dialysis, Patients on Dialysis Awaiting Transplantation, and Recipients of a First Cadaveric Transplant

BACKGROUND AND METHODS The extent to which renal allotransplantation - as compared with long-term dialysis - improves survival among patients with end-stage renal disease is controversial, because those selected for transplantation may have a lower base-line risk of death. In an attempt to distinguish the effects of patient selection from those of transplantation itself, we conducted a longitudinal study of mortality in 228,552 patients who were receiving long-term dialysis for end-stage renal disease. Of these patients, 46,164 were placed on a waiting list for transplantation, 23,275 of whom received a first cadaveric transplant between 1991 and 1997. The relative risk of death and survival were assessed with time-dependent nonproportional-hazards analysis, with adjustment for age, race, sex, cause of end-stage renal disease, geographic region, time from first treatment for end-stage renal disease to placement on the waiting list, and year of initial placement on the list. RESULTS Among the various subgroups, the standardized mortality ratio for the patients on dialysis who were awaiting transplantation (annual death rate, 6.3 per 100 patient-years) was 38 to 58 percent lower than that for all patients on dialysis (annual death rate, 16.1 per 100 patient-years). The relative risk of death during the first 2 weeks after transplantation was 2.8 times as high as that for patients on dialysis who had equal lengths of follow-up since placement on the waiting list, but at 18 months the risk was much lower (relative risk, 0.32; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.35; P<0.001). The likelihood of survival became equal in the two groups within 5 to 673 days after transplantation in all the subgroups of patients we examined. The long-term mortality rate was 48 to 82 percent lower among transplant recipients (annual death rate, 3.8 per 100 patient-years) than patients on the waiting list, with relatively larger benefits among patients who were 20 to 39 years old, white patients, and younger patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with end-stage renal disease, healthier patients are placed on the waiting list for transplantation, and long-term survival is better among those on the waiting list who eventually undergo transplantation.

Delayed graft function : Risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival

Delayed graft function (DGF) may be associated with diminished kidney allograft survival. We studied the risk factors that lead to nonimmediate function of a renal allograft and the consequences of DGF on short- and long-term renal transplant survival. Data from the U.S. Renal Data System were used to measure the relationships among cold ischemia time, delayed graft function, acute rejection, and graft survival in 37,216 primary cadaveric renal transplants (1985-1992). These relationships were investigated using the unconditional logistic and Cox multivariate regression methods. Cold ischemia time was strongly associated with DGF, with a 23% increase in the risk of DGF for every 6 hr of cold ischemia (P<0.001). Acute transplant rejection occurred more frequently in grafts with delayed function (37% vs. 20%; odds ratio=2.25, P=0.001). DGF was independently predictive of 5-year graft loss (relative risk=1.53, P<0.001). The presence of both early acute rejection and DGF portended a dismal 5-year graft survival rate of 35%. Zero-HLA mismatch conferred a 10-15% improvement in 1- and 5-year graft survival regardless of early functional status of the allograft. However, the 5-year graft survival rate in HLA-mismatched kidneys without DGF was significantly higher than that of zero-mismatched kidneys with DGF (63% vs. 51%; P<0.001). DGF independently portends a significant reduction in short- and long-term graft survival. Delayed function and early rejection episodes exerted an additive adverse effect on allograft survival. The deleterious impact of delayed function is comparatively more severe than that of poor HLA matching.

Spectrum of Cancer Risk Among US Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

CONTEXT Solid organ transplant recipients have elevated cancer risk due to immunosuppression and oncogenic viral infections. Because most prior research has concerned kidney recipients, large studies that include recipients of differing organs can inform cancer etiology. OBJECTIVE To describe the overall pattern of cancer following solid organ transplantation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cohort study using linked data on solid organ transplant recipients from the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (1987-2008) and 13 state and regional cancer registries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and excess absolute risks (EARs) assessing relative and absolute cancer risk in transplant recipients compared with the general population. RESULTS The registry linkages yielded data on 175,732 solid organ transplants (58.4% for kidney, 21.6% for liver, 10.0% for heart, and 4.0% for lung). The overall cancer risk was elevated with 10,656 cases and an incidence of 1375 per 100,000 person-years (SIR, 2.10 [95% CI, 2.06-2.14]; EAR, 719.3 [95% CI, 693.3-745.6] per 100,000 person-years). Risk was increased for 32 different malignancies, some related to known infections (eg, anal cancer, Kaposi sarcoma) and others unrelated (eg, melanoma, thyroid and lip cancers). The most common malignancies with elevated risk were non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 1504; incidence: 194.0 per 100,000 person-years; SIR, 7.54 [95% CI, 7.17-7.93]; EAR, 168.3 [95% CI, 158.6-178.4] per 100,000 person-years) and cancers of the lung (n = 1344; incidence: 173.4 per 100,000 person-years; SIR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.86-2.08]; EAR, 85.3 [95% CI, 76.2-94.8] per 100,000 person-years), liver (n = 930; incidence: 120.0 per 100,000 person-years; SIR, 11.56 [95% CI, 10.83-12.33]; EAR, 109.6 [95% CI, 102.0-117.6] per 100,000 person-years), and kidney (n = 752; incidence: 97.0 per 100,000 person-years; SIR, 4.65 [95% CI, 4.32-4.99]; EAR, 76.1 [95% CI, 69.3-83.3] per 100,000 person-years). Lung cancer risk was most elevated in lung recipients (SIR, 6.13 [95% CI, 5.18-7.21]) but also increased among other recipients (kidney: SIR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.34-1.59]; liver: SIR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.74-2.19]; and heart: SIR, 2.67 [95% CI, 2.40-2.95]). Liver cancer risk was elevated only among liver recipients (SIR, 43.83 [95% CI, 40.90-46.91]), who manifested exceptional risk in the first 6 months (SIR, 508.97 [95% CI, 474.16-545.66]) and a 2-fold excess risk for 10 to 15 years thereafter (SIR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.57-3.04]). Among kidney recipients, kidney cancer risk was elevated (SIR, 6.66 [95% CI, 6.12-7.23]) and bimodal in onset time. Kidney cancer risk also was increased in liver recipients (SIR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.40-2.29]) and heart recipients (SIR, 2.90 [95% CI, 2.32-3.59]). CONCLUSION Compared with the general population, recipients of a kidney, liver, heart, or lung transplant have an increased risk for diverse infection-related and unrelated cancers.

The Survival Benefit of Liver Transplantation

Demand for liver transplantation continues to exceed donor organ supply. Comparing recipient survival to that of comparable candidates without a transplant can improve understanding of transplant survival benefit. Waiting list and post‐transplant mortality was studied among a cohort of 12 996 adult patients placed on the waiting list between 2001 and 2003. Time‐dependent Cox regression models were fitted to determine relative mortality rates for candidates and recipients. Overall, deceased donor transplant recipients had a 79% lower mortality risk than candidates (HR = 0.21; p < 0.001). At Model for End‐stage Liver Disease (MELD) 18–20, mortality risk was 38% lower (p < 0.01) among recipients compared to candidates. Survival benefit increased with increasing MELD score; at the maximum score of 40, recipient mortality risk was 96% lower than that for candidates (p < 0.001). In contrast, at lower MELD scores, recipient mortality risk during the first post‐transplant year was much higher than for candidates (HR = 3.64 at MELD 6–11, HR = 2.35 at MELD 12–14; both p < 0.001). Liver transplant survival benefit at 1 year is concentrated among patients at higher risk of pre‐transplant death. Futile transplants among severely ill patients are not identified under current practice. With 1 year post‐transplant follow‐up, patients at lower risk of pre‐transplant death do not have a demonstrable survival benefit from liver transplant.

Association of Comorbid Conditions and Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS)

Mortality rates among hemodialysis patients vary greatly across regions. Representative databases containing extensive profiles of patient characteristics and outcomes are lacking. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) is a prospective, observational study of representative samples of hemodialysis patients in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US) that captures extensive data relating to patient characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory values, practice patterns, and outcomes. This report describes the case-mix features and mortality among 16,720 patients followed up to 5 yr. The crude 1-yr mortality rates were 6.6% in Japan, 15.6% in Europe, and 21.7% in the US. After adjusting for age, gender, race, and 25 comorbid conditions, the relative risk (RR) of mortality was 2.84 (P < 0.0001) for Europe compared with Japan (reference group) and was 3.78 (P < 0.0001) for the US compared with Japan. The adjusted RR of mortality for the US versus Europe was 1.33 (P < 0.0001). For most comorbid diseases, prevalence was highest in the US, where the mean age (60.5 +/- 15.5 yr) was also highest. Older age and comorbidities were associated with increased risk of death (except for hypertension, which carried a multivariate RR of mortality of 0.74 [P < 0.0001]). Variability in demographic and comorbid conditions (as identified by dialysis facilities) explains only part of the differences in mortality between dialysis centers, both for comparisons made across continents and within the US. Adjustments for the observed variability will allow study of association between practice patterns and outcomes.

Disparities in Incidence of Diabetic End-Stage Renal Disease According to Race and Type of Diabetes

The incidence of end-stage renal disease in patients with diabetes mellitus is reportedly higher among blacks than among whites. This finding may be explained by the greater prevalence of diabetes among blacks. The relation of the type of diabetes to the risk of diabetic end-stage renal disease is largely unstudied. We addressed these issues in a study of all the black and white diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease (470 blacks and 861 whites) reported to the Michigan Kidney Registry who began treatment during 1974 through 1983. We also reviewed the medical records of a subpopulation of such patients (284 blacks and 310 whites) who were less than 65 years of age at the start of treatment for end-stage renal disease to determine what type of diabetes they had. In this study, we made use of national data on the prevalence of diabetes. We found that the incidence of diabetic end-stage renal disease was 2.6-fold higher (P less than or equal to 0.0001) among blacks after we adjusted for the higher prevalence of diabetes among blacks, with the excess risk occurring predominantly among blacks with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Most black patients with diabetic end-stage renal disease had NIDDM (77 percent), whereas most white patients with diabetic end-stage renal disease had insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) (58 percent) (P less than or equal to 0.0005 for the difference between the races). For both races combined, the risk of diabetic end-stage renal disease during the 10-year period we studied was markedly greater for patients with IDDM (5.8 percent) than for those with NIDDM (0.5 percent). Our results indicate an increased risk of diabetic end-stage renal disease among blacks as compared with whites, particularly blacks with NIDDM. Although the risk of diabetic end-stage renal disease is higher in patients with IDDM, the majority of patients with diabetic end-stage renal disease in the population we studied had NIDDM.

Predialysis blood pressure and mortality risk in a national sample of maintenance hemodialysis patients

The role of predialysis blood pressure (BP) as a risk factor for the high mortality in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients has remained controversial. The objective of the current study was to further explore in a national random sample of 4,499 US hemodialysis patients any relationship of systolic or diastolic and predialysis or postdialysis BP with mortality, while considering subgroups of patients and controlling for other patient characteristics and comorbidities. The main finding of this study is the association of a low predialysis systolic BP with an elevated adjusted mortality risk (relative mortality risk [RR] = 1.86 for systolic BP < 110, P < 0.0001). No association with an elevated mortality risk could be observed for predialysis systolic hypertension (RR = 0.98 to 0.99, not significant [NS]), except for an elevated risk of cerebrovascular deaths. Postdialysis systolic BP was associated with an elevated mortality risk both for low and high BP levels as compared with midrange BP. Further evaluation of the elevated mortality risk associated with low predialysis systolic BP indicated similar patterns for both diabetic and nondiabetic subgroups and for patients with and without congestive heart failure (CHF) or coronary artery disease, although it was more pronounced among those with CHF. The level of predialysis fluid excess did not modify these results substantially. The findings from this historical prospective national study do not argue against the treatment of hypertension and suggest greater attention to postdialysis hypertension. The strikingly elevated mortality risk with low predialysis systolic BP suggests that low predialysis BP needs to be viewed with great concern and avoided where possible.

A comprehensive risk quantification score for deceased donor kidneys: the kidney donor risk index.

Background. We propose a continuous kidney donor risk index (KDRI) for deceased donor kidneys, combining donor and transplant variables to quantify graft failure risk. Methods. By using national data from 1995 to 2005, we analyzed 69,440 first-time, kidney-only, deceased donor adult transplants. Cox regression was used to model the risk of death or graft loss, based on donor and transplant factors, adjusting for recipient factors. The proposed KDRI includes 14 donor and transplant factors, each found to be independently associated with graft failure or death: donor age, race, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, serum creatinine, cerebrovascular cause of death, height, weight, donation after cardiac death, hepatitis C virus status, human leukocyte antigen-B and DR mismatch, cold ischemia time, and double or en bloc transplant. The KDRI reflects the rate of graft failure relative to that of a healthy 40-year-old donor. Results. Transplants of kidneys in the highest KDRI quintile (>1.45) had an adjusted 5-year graft survival of 63%, compared with 82% and 79% in the two lowest KDRI quintiles (<0.79 and 0.79–<0.96, respectively). There is a considerable overlap in the KDRI distribution by expanded and nonexpanded criteria donor classification. Conclusions. The graded impact of KDRI on graft outcome makes it a useful decision-making tool at the time of the deceased donor kidney offer.

MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL REDUCES LATE RENAL ALLOGRAFT LOSS INDEPENDENT OF ACUTE REJECTION

BACKGROUND Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF) has been shown to significantly decrease the number of acute rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients during the 1st year. A beneficial effect of MMF on long-term graft survival has been more difficult to demonstrate. This beneficial effect has not been detected, despite the impact of acute rejection on the development of chronic allograft nephropathy and experimental evidence that MMF may have a salutary effect on chronic allograft nephropathy independent of that of rejection. METHODS Data on 66,774 renal transplant recipients from the U.S. renal transplant scientific registry were analyzed. Patients who received a solitary renal transplant between October 1, 1988 and June 30, 1997 were studied. The Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate relevant risk factors. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for censored graft survival. RESULTS MMF decreased the relative risk for development of chronic allograft failure (CAF) by 27% (risk ratio [RR] 0.73, P<0.001). This effect was independent of its outcome on acute rejection. Censored graft survival using MMF versus azathioprine was significantly improved by Kaplan-Meier analysis at 4 years (85.61% v. 81.9%). The effect of an acute rejection episode on the risk of developing CAF seems to be increasing over time (RR=1.9, 1988-91; RR=2.9, 1992-94; RR=3.7, 1995-97). CONCLUSION MMF therapy decreases the risk of developing CAF. This improvement is only partly caused by the decrease in the incidence of acute rejection observed with MMF; but, is also caused by an effect independent of acute rejection.

The impact of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation on long-term patient survival.

Background. Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) ameliorates the progression of microvascular diabetic complications but the procedure is associated with excess initial morbidity and an uncertain effect on patient survival when compared with solitary cadaveric or living donor renal transplantation. We evaluated mortality risks associated with SPK, solitary renal transplantation, and dialysis treatment in a national cohort of type 1 diabetics with end-stage nephropathy. Methods. A total of 13,467 adult-type 1 diabetics enrolled on the renal and renal-pancreas transplant waiting list between 10/01/88 and 06/30/97 were followed until 06/30/98. Time-dependent mortality risks and life expectancy were calculated according to the treatment received subsequent to wait-list registration: SPK; cadaveric kidney only (CAD); living donor kidney only (LKD) transplantation; and dialysis [wait-listed, maintenance dialysis treatment (WLD)]. Results. Adjusted 10-year patient survival was 67% for SPK vs. 65% for LKD recipients (P =0.19) and 46% for CAD recipients (P <0.001). The excess initial mortality normally associated with renal transplantation and the risk of early infectious death was 2-fold higher in SPK recipients. The time to achieve equal proportion of survivors as the WLD patients was 170, 95, and 72 days for SPK, CAD, and LKD recipients, respectively (P <0.001). However, the adjusted 5-year morality risk (RR) using WLD as the reference and the expected remaining life years were 0.40, 0.45, and 0.75 and 23.4, 20.9, and 12.6 years for SPK, LKD, and CAD, respectively. There was no survival benefit in SPK recipients ≥50 years old (RR=1.38, P =0.81). Conclusions. Among patients with type 1 DM with end-stage nephropathy, SPK transplantation before the age of 50 years was associated with long-term improvement in survival compared to solitary cadaveric renal transplantation or dialysis.