BACKGROUND: The availability of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy might have impacted use of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected (HCV+) deceased donor kidneys for transplantation. METHODS: We used 2005 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 18 936 candidates willing to accept HCV+ kidneys and 3348 HCV+ recipients of HCV+ kidneys. We compared willingness to accept, utilization, discard, and posttransplant outcomes associated with HCV+ kidneys between 2 treatment eras (interferon [IFN] era, January 1, 2005 to December 5, 2013 vs DAA era, December 6, 2013 to August 2, 2018). Models were adjusted for candidate, recipient, and donor factors where appropriate. RESULTS: In the DAA era, candidates were 2.2 times more likely to list as willing to accept HCV+ kidneys (adjusted odds ratio, 2.072.232.41; P < 0.001), and HCV+ recipients were 1.95 times more likely to have received an HCV+ kidney (adjusted odds ratio, 1.761.952.16; P < 0.001). Median Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV+ kidneys decreased from 77 (interquartile range [IQR], 59-90) in 2005 to 53 (IQR, 40-67) in 2017. Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV- kidneys remained unchanged from 45 (IQR, 21-74) to 47 (IQR, 24-73). After adjustment, HCV+ kidneys were 3.7 times more likely to be discarded than HCV- kidneys in the DAA era (adjusted relative rate, 3.363.674.02; P < 0.001); an increase from the IFN era (adjusted relative rate, 2.783.023.27; P < 0.001). HCV+ kidney use was concentrated within a subset of centers; 22.5% of centers performed 75% of all HCV+ kidney transplants in the DAA era. Mortality risk associated with HCV+ kidneys remained unchanged (aHR, 1.071.191.32 in both eras). CONCLUSIONS: Given the elevated risk of death on dialysis facing HCV+ candidates, improving quality of HCV+ kidneys, and DAA availability, broader utilization of HCV+ kidneys is warranted to improve access in this era of organ shortage.
BACKGROUND: The availability of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy might have impacted use of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected (HCV+) deceased donor kidneys for transplantation. METHODS: We used 2005 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 18 936 candidates willing to accept HCV+ kidneys and 3348 HCV+ recipients of HCV+ kidneys. We compared willingness to accept, utilization, discard, and posttransplant outcomes associated with HCV+ kidneys between 2 treatment eras (interferon [IFN] era, January 1, 2005 to December 5, 2013 vs DAA era, December 6, 2013 to August 2, 2018). Models were adjusted for candidate, recipient, and donor factors where appropriate. RESULTS: In the DAA era, candidates were 2.2 times more likely to list as willing to accept HCV+ kidneys (adjusted odds ratio, 2.072.232.41; P < 0.001), and HCV+ recipients were 1.95 times more likely to have received an HCV+ kidney (adjusted odds ratio, 1.761.952.16; P < 0.001). Median Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV+ kidneys decreased from 77 (interquartile range [IQR], 59-90) in 2005 to 53 (IQR, 40-67) in 2017. Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV- kidneys remained unchanged from 45 (IQR, 21-74) to 47 (IQR, 24-73). After adjustment, HCV+ kidneys were 3.7 times more likely to be discarded than HCV- kidneys in the DAA era (adjusted relative rate, 3.363.674.02; P < 0.001); an increase from the IFN era (adjusted relative rate, 2.783.023.27; P < 0.001). HCV+ kidney use was concentrated within a subset of centers; 22.5% of centers performed 75% of all HCV+ kidney transplants in the DAA era. Mortality risk associated with HCV+ kidneys remained unchanged (aHR, 1.071.191.32 in both eras). CONCLUSIONS: Given the elevated risk of death on dialysis facing HCV+ candidates, improving quality of HCV+ kidneys, and DAA availability, broader utilization of HCV+ kidneys is warranted to improve access in this era of organ shortage.
Authors: Wesley J Marrero; Abhijit S Naik; John J Friedewald; Yongcai Xu; David W Hutton; Mariel S Lavieri; Neehar D Parikh Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Patrick B Trotter; Dominic M Summers; Ines Ushiro-Lumb; Matthew Robb; J Andrew Bradley; James Powell; Christopher J E Watson; James Neuberger Journal: Transplantation Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Rachel B Fissell; Jennifer L Bragg-Gresham; John D Woods; Michel Jadoul; Brenda Gillespie; Sara A Hedderwick; Hugh C Rayner; Roger N Greenwood; Takashi Akiba; Eric W Young Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Vishnu S Potluri; David S Goldberg; Sumit Mohan; Roy D Bloom; Deirdre Sawinski; Peter L Abt; Emily A Blumberg; Chirag R Parikh; James Sharpe; K Rajender Reddy; Miklos Z Molnar; Meghan Sise; Peter P Reese Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Mary G Bowring; Ashton A Shaffer; Allan B Massie; Andrew Cameron; Niraj Desai; Mark Sulkowski; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Dorry L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Robert M Cannon; Jayme E Locke; Babak J Orandi; Douglas J Anderson; Eric G Davis; Lina Mackelaite; Hitarth Dave; Mary Eng; Christopher M Jones Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 5.385
Authors: Zoe A Stewart; Jeffrey Stern; Nicole M Ali; Harmit S Kalia; Karen Khalil; Srijana Jonchhe; Elaina P Weldon; Rebecca A Dieter; Tyler C Lewis; Nur Funches; Sudara Crosby; Monique Seow; Jonathan C Berger; Nabil N Dagher; Bruce E Gelb; Anthony C Watkins; Nader Moazami; Deane E Smith; Zachary N Kon; Stephanie H Chang; Alex Reyentovich; Luis F Angel; Robert A Montgomery; Bonnie E Lonze Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-09-07
Authors: Susan Cuvelier; Paul Van Caeseele; Matthew Kadatz; Kathryn Peterson; Siyao Sun; Nancy Dodd; Kim Werestiuk; Joshua Koulack; Peter Nickerson; Julie Ho Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2021-07-26