Process of selecting and educating HCV-uninfected kidney waiting-list candidates for HCV-infected kidney transplantation.
ABSTRACT: Long waiting times for kidney transplant (KT) and the high risk of mortality on dialysis have prompted investigation into strategies to utilize hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected organs to decrease discard rates of potentially viable kidneys. Due the opioid epidemic, the number of HCV-infected donors has increased significantly. With the development of direct-acting antiviral therapies for HCV infection, now more than 95% of patients who received treatment are cured. Experimental trials have used direct-acting antiviral therapy to treat HCV infection in HCV-uninfected transplant recipients of kidneys from HCV-viremic donors. To date, HCV has been eradicated in all cases. Though these strategies will potentially increase the donor pool of available kidneys, shorten waitlist times, and ultimately decrease mortality in patients waiting for KT, identifying the ideal candidates and educating them about a protocol to utilize direct-acting antiviral therapy to cure HCV after it is transmitted is essential. We present our approach to patient selection and education for a clinical trial in transplantation of HCV viremic kidneys into uninfected recipients.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent pilot trials have demonstrated the safety of transplanting HCV-viremic kidneys into HCV-seronegative recipients. However, it remains unclear if allograft function is impacted by donor HCV-viremia or recipient HCV-serostatus. METHODS:We used national United States registry data to examine trends in HCV-viremic kidney use between 4/1/2015 and 3/31/2019. We applied advanced matching methods to compare eGFR for similar kidneys transplanted into highly similar recipients of kidney transplants. RESULTS:Over time, HCV-seronegative recipients received a rising proportion of HCV-viremic kidneys. During the first quarter of 2019, 200 HCV-viremic kidneys were transplanted into HCV-seronegative recipients, versus 69 into HCV-seropositive recipients, while 105 HCV-viremic kidneys were discarded. The probability of HCV-viremic kidney discard has declined over time. Kidney transplant candidates willing to accept a HCV-seropositive kidney increased from 2936 to 16,809 from during this time period. When transplanted into HCV-seronegative recipients, HCV-viremic kidneys matched to HCV-non-viremic kidneys on predictors of organ quality, except HCV, had similar 1-year eGFR (66.3 versus 67.1 ml/min per 1.73 m2, P=0.86). This was despite the much worse kidney donor profile index scores assigned to the HCV-viremic kidneys. Recipient HCV-serostatus was not associated with a clinically meaningful difference in 1-year eGFR (66.5 versus 71.1 ml/min per 1.73 m2, P=0.056) after transplantation of HCV-viremic kidneys. CONCLUSIONS:By 2019, HCV-seronegative patients received the majority of kidneys transplanted from HCV-viremic donors. Widely used organ quality scores underestimated the quality of HCV-viremic kidneys based on 1-year allograft function. Recipient HCV-serostatus was also not associated with worse short-term allograft function using HCV-viremic kidneys.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Kidneys from donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are traditionally considered to be at risk for poorer survival outcomes, as reflected in the kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Modern direct-acting antivirals may modify this risk. METHODS:Using United Network for Organ Sharing data, HCV-infected adult first-time kidney transplant recipients from 2014 to 2017 were examined. Graft and patient survival were compared in a propensity-matched cohort of recipients of HCV antibody (Ab)(+) kidneys versus Ab(-) kidneys. Subsequent analysis was performed in a propensity-matched cohort of recipients of HCV-viremic (RNA positive) versus HCV-naïve kidneys. RESULTS:There were 379 recipients each in the matched cohort of recipients of HCV Ab(+) versus HCV Ab(-) kidneys. Despite a higher KDPI (58.2% for HCV Ab[+] versus 38.8% for HCV Ab[-]), 1-year patient and graft survival were similar in the HCV(+) and HCV(-) groups (95.4% and 94.9% versus 97.9% and 96.0%, P = 0.543 and P = 0.834, respectively). There were 200 recipients each in the cohort of recipients of HCV-viremic versus HCV-naïve kidneys, with the KDPI again higher in the HCV-viremic group (56.8% versus 35.2%). Baseline hazard ratios (HRs) for graft failure (HR, 4.69; P = 0.009) and death (HR, 7.60; P = 0.003) were significantly elevated in the viremic group, but crossed 1 at 21 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In the modern direct-acting antiviral era, calculated likely KDPI overestimates risk kidneys from HCV (+) donors. Donor viremia conveys an early risk which appears to subside over time. These results suggest that it may be time to revise the kidney donor risk index.
Project description:In the context of organ shortage, the opioid epidemic, and effective direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV), more HCV-infected donor organs may be used for liver transplantation. Current data regarding outcomes after donor-derived HCV in previously non-viremic liver transplant recipients are limited. Clinical data for adult liver transplant recipients with donor-derived HCV infection from March 2017 to January 2018 at our institution were extracted from the medical record. Ten patients received livers from donors known to be infected with HCV based on positive nucleic acid testing. Seven had a prior diagnosis of HCV and were treated before liver transplantation. All recipients were non-viremic at the time of transplantation. All 10 recipients derived hepatitis C infection from their donor and achieved sustained virologic response at 12 weeks posttreatment with DAA-based regimens, with a median time from transplant to treatment initiation of 43 days (IQR 20-59). There have been no instances of graft loss or death, with median follow-up of 380 days (IQR 263-434) posttransplant. Transplantation of HCV-viremic livers into non-viremic recipients results in acceptable short-term outcomes. Such strategies may be used to expand the donor pool and increase access to liver transplantation.
Project description:The United States opioid use epidemic over the past decade has coincided with an increase in hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive donors. Using propensity score matching, and the Organ Procurement Transplant Network data files from January 2015 to June 2019, we analyzed the short-term outcomes of adult deceased donor kidney transplants of HCV uninfected recipients with two distinct groups of HCV positive donors (HCV seropositive, nonviremic n = 352 and viremic n = 196) compared to those performed using HCV uninfected donors (n = 36 934). Compared to the reference group, the transplants performed using HCV seropositive, nonviremic and viremic donors experienced a lower proportion of delayed graft function (35.2 vs 18.9%; P < .001 [HCV seropositive, nonviremic donors] and 36.2 vs 16.8% ; P < .001[HCV viremic donors]). The recipients of HCV viremic donors had better allograft function at 6 months posttransplant (eGFR [54.1 vs 68.3 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = .004]. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in the overall graft failure risk at 12 months posttransplant by propensity score matched multivariable Cox proportional analysis (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29 [HCV seropositive, nonviremic donors] and HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.96 [HCV viremic donors]). Further studies are required to determine the long-term outcomes of these transplants and address unanswered questions regarding the use of HCV viremic donors.
Project description:The prerequisite for an 'undetectable' HIV viral load has restricted access to transplantation for HIV-infected kidney recipients. However, HCV-infected recipients, owing to the historic limitations of HCV therapy in patients with renal disease, are commonly viremic at transplant and have universal access. To compare the effect of HIV, HCV, and HIV/HCV coinfection on kidney transplant patient and allograft outcomes, we performed a retrospective study of kidney recipients transplanted from January 1996 through December 2013. In multivariable analysis, patient (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.24) and allograft survival (0.60, 40-0.88) in 492 HIV patients did not differ significantly from the 117,791 patient-uninfected reference group. This was superior to outcomes in both the 5605 patient HCV group for death (1.44, 1.33-1.56) and graft loss (1.43, 1.31-1.56), as well as the 147 patient HIV/HCV coinfected group for death (2.26, 1.45-3.52) and graft loss (2.59, 1.60-4.19). HIV infection did not adversely affect recipient or allograft survival and was associated with superior outcomes compared with both HCV infection and HIV/HCV coinfection in this population. Thus, pretransplant viral eradication and/or immediate posttransplant eradication should be studied as potential strategies to improve posttransplant outcomes in HCV-infected kidney recipients.
Project description:Direct-acting antiviral medications (DAAs) have revolutionized care for hepatitis C positive (HCV+) liver (LT) and kidney (KT) transplant recipients. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients registry data were integrated with national pharmaceutical claims (2007-2016) to identify HCV treatments before January 2014 (pre-DAA) and after (post-DAA), stratified by donor (D) and recipient (R) serostatus and payer. Pre-DAA, 18% of HCV+ LT recipients were treated within 3 years and without differences by donor serostatus or payer. Post-DAA, only 6% of D-/R+ recipients, 19.8% of D+/R+ recipients with public insurance, and 11.3% with private insurance were treated within 3 years (P < .0001). LT recipients treated for HCV pre-DAA experienced higher rates of graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.34 1.852.10 , P < .0001) and death (aHR 1.47 1.681.91 , P < .0001). Post-DAA, HCV treatment was not associated with death (aHR 0.34 0.671.32 , P = .25) or graft failure (aHR 0.32 0.641.26 , P = .20) in D+R+ LT recipients. Treatment increased in D+R+ KT recipients (5.5% pre-DAA vs 12.9% post-DAA), but did not differ by payer status. DAAs reduced the risk of death after D+/R+ KT by 57% (0.19 0.430.95 , P = .04) and graft loss by 46% (0.27 0.541.07 , P = .08). HCV treatment with DAAs appears to improve HCV+ LT and KT outcomes; however, access to these medications appears limited in both LT and KT recipients.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Deceased-donor kidney transplantation (KT) from hepatitis C (HCV)-infected donors into HCV-uninfected recipients (HCV D+/R-) could become standard care in the near future. However, HCV viral replication by viral transmission might lead to a higher incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in these recipients. METHODS:A national-registry-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data set. We assessed the incidence of CMV infection in HCV antibody (Ab) negative recipients receiving kidneys from HCV Ab positive (HCVAb D+/R-) and negative (HCVAb D-/R-) donors. The risk of CMV infection was analyzed by Cox regression analysis in a propensity score (PS) matched-cohort of HCVAb D+/R- (n?=?950) versus HCVAb D-/R- (n?=?950). Sensitivity analysis was also conducted in the entire cohort (n?=?181 082). RESULTS:The mean age at baseline was 54?years, 75% were male, and 55% of the patients were African American in PS-matched cohort. Compared to the HCVAb D-/R?-?patients, recipients with HCVAb D+/R?-?showed identical probability for the incidence of CMV infection (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.00, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.82-1.22). In the sensitivity analysis, compared to the HCVAb D-/R?-?patients, the HCVAb D+/R?-?group had a significantly lower risk of CMV infection in the unadjusted analysis (HR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.65-0.85), while this risk difference disappeared after the adjusted analysis (HR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.87-1.14). CONCLUSION:The incidence of CMV infection was similar in recipients who received HCVAb D?+?and HCVAb D?-?KT. Further studies are needed to assess this association in KT from HCV nucleic acid positive donors.
Project description:Introduction:Long wait times for kidney transplants have prompted investigation into strategies to decrease the discarding of potentially viable organs. Recent reports suggest that kidneys from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected donors may be transplanted into HCV-naive donors followed by direct-acting antiviral therapy. Methods:This was a pilot clinical trial to transplant kidneys from HCV-infected donors into HCV-naive recipients with preemptive use of elbasvir and grazoprevir for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after completion of therapy. Secondary outcomes were safety, quality of life, and early viral kinetics. Results:A total of 33 patients were screened, and 8 underwent kidney transplantation from a HCV-viremic donors from August 2017 to March 2019. The median donor kidney donor profile index was 31% (range, 29%-65%), and patients who underwent transplantation waited a median of 6.5 months (range, 1-19 months). None had detectable HCV viremia beyond 2 weeks post-transplantation, and all achieved sustained virologic response 12 weeks after therapy (SVR12). There were no study-related severe adverse events. One patient experienced early graft loss due to venous thrombosis, whereas the remaining 7 patients had excellent allograft function at 6 months. Conclusion:Preemptive elbasvir and grazoprevir eliminated HCV infection in HCV-naive patients who received a kidney transplant from an HCV-infected donor.
Project description:Data outside of clinical trials with direct-acting antiviral regimens with or without ribavirin as treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus in solid organ transplant recipients are limited. Liver transplant (LT), kidney transplant (KT), and dual liver kidney (DLK) transplant recipients from the Hepatitis C Therapeutic Registry and Research Network database, a multicenter, longitudinal clinical care treatment cohort, treated with direct-acting antiviral regimens between January 1, 2014, and February 15, 2016, were included to assess safety and efficacy. Included were 443 posttransplant patients (KT = 60, LT = 347, DLK = 36); 42% had cirrhosis, and 54% had failed prior antiviral therapy. Most had genotype (GT) 1 (87% with 52% GT1a, 27% GT1b, and 8% GT1 no subtype) and were treated with sofosbuvir (SOF)/ledipasvir ± ribavirin (85%) followed by SOF + daclatasvir ± ribavirin (9%) and ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (6%). Rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) at 12 weeks were available on 412 patients, and 395 patients (95.9%) achieved SVR at 12 weeks: 96.6%, 94.5%, and 90.9% among LT, KT, and DLK transplant recipients, respectively. Ribavirin did not influence SVR rates and was more often used in those with higher BMI, higher estimated glomerular filtration rate and lower creatinine. Female gender, baseline albumin ?3.5 g/dL, baseline total bilirubin ?1.2 mg/dL, absence of cirrhosis, and hepatic decompensation predicted SVR at 12 weeks. Six episodes of acute rejection (n = 2 KT, 4 LT) occurred, during hepatitis C virus treatment in 4 and after cessation of treatment in 2. CONCLUSION:In a large prospective observational cohort study, direct-acting antiviral therapy with SOF/ledipasvir, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir, and SOF plus daclatasvir was efficacious and safe in LT, KT, and DLK transplant recipients; ribavirin did not influence SVR, and graft rejection was rare. (Hepatology 2017;66:1090-1101).
Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Guidelines do not recommend transplanting hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected livers into HCV-uninfected recipients. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) can be used to treat donor-derived HCV infection. However, the added cost of DAA therapy is a barrier. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of transplanting HCV-positive livers into HCV-negative patients with preemptive DAA therapy. METHODS:A previously validated Markov-based mathematical model was adapted to simulate a virtual trial of HCV-negative patients on the liver transplant waitlist. The model compared long-term clinical and economic outcomes in patients willing to accept only HCV-negative livers vs those willing to accept any liver (HCV negative or HCV positive). Recipients of HCV-positive livers received 12 weeks of preemptive DAA therapy. The model incorporated data from the United Network for Organ Sharing and published sources. RESULTS:For patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ? 22, accepting any liver vs waiting for only HCV-negative livers was cost effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $56,100 to $91,700/quality-adjusted life-year. For patients with a MELD score of 28 (the median MELD score of patients undergoing transplantation in the United States), accepting any liver was cost effective at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $62,600/quality-adjusted life year. In patients with low MELD scores, which may not accurately reflect disease severity, accepting any liver was cost effective, irrespective of MELD score. CONCLUSIONS:Using a Markov-based mathematical model, we found transplanting HCV-positive livers into HCV-negative patients with preemptive DAA therapy to be a cost-effective strategy that could improve health outcomes.