4.6 Article

Identifying Appropriate Recipients for CDC Infectious Risk Donor Kidneys

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages 1227-1234

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12206

Keywords

Donor; recipient matching; hepatitis C virus; HIV infection; infectious risk; kidney transplantation

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1 RR 025005]
  2. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
  3. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [R21DK089456]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over 10% of deceased donors in 2011 met PHS/CDC criteria for infectious risk donor (IRD), and discard rates are significantly higher for kidneys from these donors. We hypothesized that patient phenotypes exist for whom the survival benefit outweighs the infectious risk associated with IRDs. A patient-oriented Markov decision process model was developed and validated, based on SRTR data and meta-analyses of window period risks among persons with IRD behaviors. The Markov model allows patients to see, for their phenotype, their estimated survival after accepting versus declining an IRD offer, graphed over a 5-year horizon. Estimated 5-year survival differences associated with accepting IRDs ranged from 6.4% to +67.3% for a variety of patient phenotypes. Factors most predictive of the survival difference with IRD transplantation were age, PRA, previous transplant, and the expected time until the next non-IRD deceased donor offer. This study suggests that survival benefit derived from IRD kidneys varies widely by patient phenotype. Furthermore, within the inherent limitations of model-based prediction, this study demonstrates that it is possible to identify those predicted to benefit from IRD kidneys, and illustrates how estimated survival curves based on a clinical decision can be presented to better inform patient and provider decision-making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available