Howard M Gebel1, Bertram L Kasiske2, Sally K Gustafson3, Joshua Pyke3, Eugene Shteyn3, Ajay K Israni4, Robert A Bray1, Jon J Snyder5, John J Friedewald6, Dorry L Segev7. 1. Department of Pathology, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia; 2. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 3. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 4. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; isran001@umn.edu. 5. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 6. Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; and. 7. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In December of 2014, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network implemented a new Kidney Allocation System (KAS) for deceased donor transplant, with increased priority for highly sensitized candidates (calculated panel-reactive antibody [cPRA] >99%). We used a modified version of the new KAS to address issues of access and equity for these candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a simulation, 10,988 deceased donor kidneys transplanted into waitlisted recipients in 2010 were instead allocated to candidates with cPRA≥80% (n=18,004). Each candidate's unacceptable donor HLA antigens had been entered into the allocation system by the transplant center. In simulated match runs, kidneys were allocated sequentially to adult ABO identical or permissible candidates with cPRA 100%, 99%, 98%, etc. to 80%. Allocations were restricted to donor/recipient pairs with negative virtual crossmatches. RESULTS: The simulation indicated that 2111 of 10,988 kidneys (19.2%) would have been allocated to patients with cPRA 100% versus 74 of 10,988 (0.7%) that were actually transplanted. Of cPRA 100% candidates, 74% were predicted to be compatible with an average of six deceased donors; the remaining 26% seemed to be incompatible with every deceased donor organ that entered the system. Of kidneys actually allocated to cPRA 100% candidates in 2010, 66% (49 of 74) were six-antigen HLA matched/zero-antigen mismatched (HLA-A, -B, and -DR) with their recipients versus only 11% (237 of 2111) in the simulation. The simulation predicted that 10,356 of 14,433 (72%) candidates with cPRA 90%-100% could be allocated an organ compared with 7.3% who actually underwent transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Data in this simulation are consistent with early results of the new KAS; specifically, nearly 20% of deceased donor kidneys were (virtually) compatible with cPRA 100% candidates. Although most of these candidates were predicted to be compatible with multiple donors, approximately one-quarter are unlikely to receive a single offer.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In December of 2014, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network implemented a new Kidney Allocation System (KAS) for deceased donor transplant, with increased priority for highly sensitized candidates (calculated panel-reactive antibody [cPRA] >99%). We used a modified version of the new KAS to address issues of access and equity for these candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a simulation, 10,988 deceased donor kidneys transplanted into waitlisted recipients in 2010 were instead allocated to candidates with cPRA≥80% (n=18,004). Each candidate's unacceptable donor HLA antigens had been entered into the allocation system by the transplant center. In simulated match runs, kidneys were allocated sequentially to adult ABO identical or permissible candidates with cPRA 100%, 99%, 98%, etc. to 80%. Allocations were restricted to donor/recipient pairs with negative virtual crossmatches. RESULTS: The simulation indicated that 2111 of 10,988 kidneys (19.2%) would have been allocated to patients with cPRA 100% versus 74 of 10,988 (0.7%) that were actually transplanted. Of cPRA 100% candidates, 74% were predicted to be compatible with an average of six deceased donors; the remaining 26% seemed to be incompatible with every deceased donor organ that entered the system. Of kidneys actually allocated to cPRA 100% candidates in 2010, 66% (49 of 74) were six-antigen HLA matched/zero-antigen mismatched (HLA-A, -B, and -DR) with their recipients versus only 11% (237 of 2111) in the simulation. The simulation predicted that 10,356 of 14,433 (72%) candidates with cPRA 90%-100% could be allocated an organ compared with 7.3% who actually underwent transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Data in this simulation are consistent with early results of the new KAS; specifically, nearly 20% of deceased donor kidneys were (virtually) compatible with cPRA 100% candidates. Although most of these candidates were predicted to be compatible with multiple donors, approximately one-quarter are unlikely to receive a single offer.
Authors: R A Bray; P Brannon; C Breitenbach; C Bryan; D-F Chen; J Lai; T McRacken; A Kirk; B Kaplan; T Pearson; H M Gebel Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Hariharan S Iyer; Annette M Jackson; Andrea A Zachary; Robert A Montgomery Journal: Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Robert A Montgomery; Bonnie E Lonze; Karen E King; Edward S Kraus; Lauren M Kucirka; Jayme E Locke; Daniel S Warren; Christopher E Simpkins; Nabil N Dagher; Andrew L Singer; Andrea A Zachary; Dorry L Segev Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J M Smith; S W Biggins; D G Haselby; W R Kim; J Wedd; K Lamb; B Thompson; D L Segev; S Gustafson; R Kandaswamy; P G Stock; A J Matas; C J Samana; E F Sleeman; D Stewart; A Harper; E Edwards; J J Snyder; B L Kasiske; A K Israni Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Ajay K Israni; Nicholas Salkowski; Sally Gustafson; Jon J Snyder; John J Friedewald; Richard N Formica; Xinyue Wang; Eugene Shteyn; Wida Cherikh; Darren Stewart; Ciara J Samana; Adrine Chung; Allyson Hart; Bertram L Kasiske Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Carrie A Schinstock; Andrew J Bentall; Byron H Smith; Lynn D Cornell; Matthew Everly; Manish J Gandhi; Mark D Stegall Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-12-15 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Ronald F Parsons; Arslan Zahid; Shalini Bumb; Hannah Decker; Harold C Sullivan; Frances Eun-Hyung Lee; Idelberto Raul Badell; Mandy L Ford; Christian P Larsen; Thomas C Pearson; Annette M Jackson; Dong-Feng Chen; Matthew Levine; Malek Kamoun; Robert A Bray; Howard M Gebel Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Dulat Bekbolsynov; Beata Mierzejewska; Jadwiga Borucka; Robert S Liwski; Anna L Greenshields; Joshua Breidenbach; Bradley Gehring; Shravan Leonard-Murali; Sadik A Khuder; Michael Rees; Robert C Green; Stanislaw M Stepkowski Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Audrey Uffing; Luis G Hidalgo; Ciaran McMullan; Jacqueline Perry; Edgar L Milford; Naoka Murakami; Melissa Y Yeung; Indira Guleria; Isabelle G Wood; Enver Akalin; Jamil Azzi; Anil K Chandraker; Leonardo V Riella Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2019-04-15