Explore the vast range of titles available.

Genetically modified xenografts are one of the most promising solutions to the discrepancy between the numbers of available human organs for transplantation and potential recipients. To date, a porcine heart has been implanted into only one human recipient. Here, using 10-gene-edited pigs, we transplanted porcine hearts into two brain-dead human recipients and monitored xenograft function, hemodynamics and systemic responses over the course of 66 hours. Although both xenografts demonstrated excellent cardiac function immediately after transplantation and continued to function for the duration of the study, cardiac function declined postoperatively in one case, attributed to a size mismatch between the donor pig and the recipient. For both hearts, we confirmed transgene expression and found no evidence of cellular or antibody-mediated rejection, as assessed using histology, flow cytometry and a cytotoxic crossmatch assay. Moreover, we found no evidence of zoonotic transmission from the donor pigs to the human recipients. While substantial additional work will be needed to advance this technology to human trials, these results indicate that pig-to-human heart xenotransplantation can be performed successfully without hyperacute rejection or zoonosis. In a short-term study in which hearts from gene-edited pigs were transplanted into two recently deceased human recipients, the hearts were able to function for the duration of the study without signs of rejection and without evidence of pig virus transmission, encouraging further clinical study of cardiac xenotransplantation.

This study examined risk associations calibrated to the U.S. population-level incidence of end-stage renal disease and death and projected long-term incidences of ESRD. Risk projections among nondonors were lower than 15-year observed risks after donation. Nearly 30,000 people worldwide become living kidney donors each year. 1 – 3 Traditionally, living donors have been selected on the basis of an absence of risk factors for poor outcomes after donation and without a comprehensive assessment of individualized long-term risk. Although kidney donation is considered to be safe in healthy, low-risk persons, donation has lifelong implications, and the most direct effect may be an increased long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). 4 – 7 A tool to predict a donor candidate’s long-term risk of ESRD that incorporates the combined effect of multiple demographic and health characteristics before donation could help make . . .

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, and the field of kidney transplantation (KT) is no exception. While much of the AI-related work has focused on deceased donor KT, there is a growing body of research applying AI tools to living kidney donation (LKD). This review explores AI’s current and potential roles in LKD, focusing on predictive and social applications of AI in LKD. Additionally, we discuss the challenges and limitations of implementing AI in clinical settings and highlight emerging research trends. This review consolidates existing research and provides a foundation for both transplant professionals and data scientists seeking to integrate AI responsibly into living donor programs.

Central body fat distribution affects kidney function. Abdominal fat measurements using computed tomography (CT) may prove superior in assessing body composition-related kidney risk in living kidney donors. This retrospective cohort study including 550 kidney donors aimed to determine the association between CT-measured abdominal fat areas and kidney function before and after donor nephrectomy. Donors underwent glomerular filtration rate measurements ( 125 I-Iothalamate, mGFR) before and 3 months after donation. Linear regression analyses with body surface area (BSA)-standardized and crude mGFR were performed to assess the association of height-indexed tomographic fat measurements with kidney function. In age-, and sex-adjusted analyses higher levels of total abdominal, visceral, subcutaneous, and intramuscular adipose tissue index were significantly associated with lower mGFR levels before donation (BSA-standardized mGFR: visceral adipose tissue index: Βeta=-0.11, p  < 0.001, subcutaneous: Βeta=-0.10, p  < 0.001, intramuscular: Βeta=-1.18, p  < 0.001, total abdominal: Βeta=-0.07, p  < 0.001). Higher tomographic abdominal fat is associated with lower BSA-standardized mGFR after donation and a greater decrease in mGFR between screening and 3 months post-donation. This study shows that CT-measured abdominal fat area is associated with kidney function before and after living kidney donation.

Rituximab has been used to increase the efficacy of desensitization protocols for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-incompatible kidney transplantation; however, controlled comparisons have not been reported. Here we examined 256 post-transplant HLA antibody levels in 25 recipients desensitized with and 25 without rituximab induction, to determine the impact of B-cell depletion. We found significantly less HLA antibody rebound in the rituximab-treated patients (7% of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) and 33% of non-DSAs) compared with a control cohort desensitized and transplanted without rituximab (32% DSAs and 55% non-DSAs). The magnitude of the increase was significantly larger among patients who did not receive rituximab. Interestingly, in rituximab-treated patients, of the 39 HLA antibodies that increased post transplant, 34 were specific for HLA mismatches present in previous allografts or pregnancies, implying limited efficacy in memory B-cell depletion. Compared with controls, rituximab-treated patients had a significantly greater mean reduction in DSA (-2505 vs. -292 mean fluorescence intensity), but a similar rate of DSA persistence (52% in rituximab treated-and 40% in non-treated recipients). Thus, rituximab induction in HLA-incompatible recipients reduced the incidence and magnitude of HLA antibody rebound, but did not affect DSA elimination, antibody-mediated rejection, or 5-year allograft survival when compared with recipients desensitized and transplanted without rituximab.

Background Patients undergoing hemodialysis are at high risk of falls, with subsequent complications including fractures, loss of independence, hospitalization, and institutionalization. Factors associated with falls are poorly understood in this population. We hypothesized that insights derived from studies of the elderly might apply to adults of all ages undergoing hemodialysis; we focused on frailty, a phenotype of physiological decline strongly associated with falls in the elderly. Methods In this prospective, longitudinal study of 95 patients undergoing hemodialysis (1/2009-3/2010), the association of frailty with future falls was explored using adjusted Poisson regression. Frailty was classified using the criteria established by Fried et al., as a combination of five components: shrinking, weakness, exhaustion, low activity, and slowed walking speed. Results Over a median 6.7-month period of longitudinal follow-up, 28.3% of study participants (25.9% of those under 65, 29.3% of those 65 and older) experienced a fall. After adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidity, disability, number of medications, marital status, and education, frailty independently predicted a 3.09-fold (95% CI: 1.38-6.90, P =0.006) higher number of falls. This relationship between frailty and falls did not differ for younger and older adults ( P =0.57). Conclusions Frailty, a validated construct in the elderly, was a strong and independent predictor of falls in adults undergoing hemodialysis, regardless of age. Our results may aid in identifying frail hemodialysis patients who could be targeted for multidimensional fall prevention strategies.

Background Frailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years). Methods In a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017–4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017–2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics. Results Assessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84–0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83–0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91–0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85–0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74–0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73–0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77–0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87–0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88–0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87–0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83–0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72–0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54–0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76–1.13). Conclusions Assessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.

Background Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) were excluded from the original SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine trials, which may influence vaccine hesitancy in this population. We prospectively characterized the safety and immunogenicity of two-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in 44 patients with MM, who underwent vaccination from 12/17/2020 to 3/18/2021. Results Rates adverse reactions were low and consistent with those documented in vaccine trials. Among those on MM therapy, 93% developed detectable anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies after dose 2, while 94% of patients not on MM therapy seroconverted. Conclusions Two-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination is mildly reactogenic and leads to high rates of seroconversion in patients with MM. These findings can provide reassurance to MM patients who are hesitant to receive SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines.

Background Frailty has been recognized as an important medical syndrome in older adults. Growing literature supports the clinical application of frailty but US older adults’ perceptions of frailty have not been explored. We aim to examine perceptions and informational needs about frailty among older adults. Methods This was a qualitative study involving focus groups of community-dwelling older adults with diverse age and frailty status. We explored participants’ beliefs and knowledge about frailty and informational needs about frailty as a medical syndrome. Results The participants’ mean age was 76.3. Of the 29 participants, 21 (72%) were female, and 21 (72%) were white. We identified three major themes: 1) Older adults’ perceptions of frailty differed from the definition used in medical literature; they often perceived a psychological component to being frailty and some were skeptical of the syndromic definition based on multiple symptoms. 2) Compared to participants who were non-frail or pre-frail, participants who were frail were more receptive to discussing their frailty status with clinicians; 3) Participants wanted know about how to treat or prevent frailty and the risks associated with being frail. Many participants felt that these information can be conveyed without necessarily using the specific term “frail”, which they perceived to have a negative connotation. Conclusions Older adults, especially those who are frail, may be interested to discuss frailty as a medical syndrome. However, negative perceptions are associated with the term “frail” and may be a barrier to clinical application of frailty. Further research is needed to understand acceptable ways for communicating about frailty in clinical practice.

Background Among adult kidney transplant (KT) candidates, 21% are frail and 55% have cognitive impairment, increasing the risk of pre- and post-KT mortality. Centers often assess frailty status and cognitive function during transplant evaluation to help identify appropriate candidate. Yet, there are no ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during this evaluation. We seek to develop a clinical consensus on balancing utility and justice in access to KT for frail and cognitively impaired patients. Methods Twenty-seven experts caring for ESRD patients completed a two-round Delphi panel designed to facilitate consensus (> 80% agreement). Results Experts believed that denying patients transplantation based solely on expected patient survival was inequitable to frail or cognitively impaired candidates; 100% agreed that frailty and cognitive impairment are important factors to consider during KT evaluation. There was consensus that health related quality of life and social support are important to consider before waitlisting frail or cognitively impaired patients. Experts identified important factors to consider before waitlisting frail (likely to benefit from KT, frailty reversibility, age, and medical contraindications) and cognitively impaired (degree of impairment and medication adherence) patients. Conclusions Clinical experts believed it was ethically unacceptable to allocate organs solely based on patients’ expected survival; frailty and cognitive impairment should be measured at evaluation when weighed against other clinical factors. Ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during KT evaluation ought to be developed.