Abimereki D Muzaale1, Allan B Massie2, Fawaz Al Ammary3, Macey L Henderson4, Tanjala S Purnell2, Courtenay M Holscher5, Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang5, Jayme E Locke6, Jon J Snyder7, Krista L Lentine8, Dorry L Segev9. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: amuzaal1@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Acute and Chronic Care, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD. 5. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 7. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN. 8. Saint Louis University Center for Abdominal Transplantation, St. Louis, MO. 9. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017. EXPOSURE: Biological relationship of donor and recipient. OUTCOME: ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used. RESULTS: Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6). LIMITATIONS: Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017. EXPOSURE: Biological relationship of donor and recipient. OUTCOME: ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used. RESULTS: Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6). LIMITATIONS: Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.
Authors: Hassan N Ibrahim; Robert N Foley; Scott A Reule; Richard Spong; Aleksandra Kukla; Naim Issa; Danielle M Berglund; Gretchen K Sieger; Arthur J Matas Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Arlene B Chapman; Olivier Devuyst; Kai-Uwe Eckardt; Ron T Gansevoort; Tess Harris; Shigeo Horie; Bertram L Kasiske; Dwight Odland; York Pei; Ronald D Perrone; Yves Pirson; Robert W Schrier; Roser Torra; Vicente E Torres; Terry Watnick; David C Wheeler Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Roslyn J Simms; Debbie L Travis; Miranda Durkie; Gill Wilson; Ann Dalton; Albert C M Ong Journal: Transplantation Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Rakhi P Naik; Marguerite R Irvin; Suzanne Judd; Orlando M Gutiérrez; Neil A Zakai; Vimal K Derebail; Carmen Peralta; Michael R Lewis; Degui Zhi; Donna Arnett; William McClellan; James G Wilson; Alexander P Reiner; Jeffrey B Kopp; Cheryl A Winkler; Mary Cushman Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Abimereki D Muzaale; Allan B Massie; Mei-Cheng Wang; Robert A Montgomery; Maureen A McBride; Jennifer L Wainright; Dorry L Segev Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C P Thomas; M A Mansilla; R Sompallae; S O Mason; C J Nishimura; M J Kimble; C A Campbell; A E Kwitek; B W Darbro; Z A Stewart; R J H Smith Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Flor Alvarado; Carmen Elena Cervantes; Deidra C Crews; Jamie Blanck; Fawaz Al Ammary; Derek K Ng; Tanjala S Purnell Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Fawaz Al Ammary; Yifan Yu; Alexander Ferzola; Jennifer D Motter; Allan B Massie; Sile Yu; Alvin G Thomas; Deidra C Crews; Dorry L Segev; Abimereki D Muzaale; Macey L Henderson Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 8.086