Volume 33, Issue 12 pp. 1732-1744
Original article

Donor hepatitis C antibody positivity misclassifies kidney donor profile index in non-hepatitis C-infected donors: time to revise the kidney donor profile index – a retrospective cohort study

Masahiko Yazawa

Masahiko Yazawa

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Divison of Nephrology and Hypertension, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

These authors contributed equally.

Search for more papers by this author
Vasanthi Balaraman

Vasanthi Balaraman

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

These authors contributed equally.

Search for more papers by this author
Makoto Tsujita

Makoto Tsujita

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ambreen Azhar

Ambreen Azhar

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Manish Talwar

Manish Talwar

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Anshul Bhalla

Anshul Bhalla

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Praveen K. Potukuchi

Praveen K. Potukuchi

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

IHOP, College of Graduate Health Sciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Search for more papers by this author
James D. Eason

James D. Eason

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Csaba P. Kovesdy

Csaba P. Kovesdy

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Nephrology Section, Memphis VA Medical Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Miklos Z. Molnar

Corresponding Author

Miklos Z. Molnar

James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

Department of Transplantation and Surgery, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary

Correspondence

Miklos Z. Molnar MD, PhD, FEBTM, FERA, FASN, James D. Eason Transplant Institute, Methodist University Hospital, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 1211 Union Ave, Memphis, TN 38104, USA.

e-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 September 2020
Citations: 3

Summary

The kidney donor profile index (KDPI) defines an hepatitis C (HCV) positive donor based on HCV antibody (Ab) and/or nucleic acid amplification test (NAT) positivity, with donors who are not actively infected (Ab+/NAT−) also classified as HCV positive. From Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients dataset, we identified HCV-negative recipients, who received a kidney transplant from HCV Ab+/NAT− (n = 116) and HCV Ab−/NAT− (n = 25 574) donor kidneys. We then compared recipients’ estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 6 months in matched cohorts, using combined exact matching (based on KDPI) and propensity score matching. We created two separate matched cohorts: for the first cohort, we used the allocation KDPI, while for the second cohort we used an optimal KDPI, where the HCV component of KDPI was considered negative in Ab+/NAT− patients. The mean ± SD age of the allocation KDPI-matched cohort at baseline was 59 ± 10 years, 69% were male, 61% were white. Recipients’ eGFR at 6 months after transplantation was significantly higher in the HCV Ab+/NAT− group compared to the HCV Ab−/NAT− group (61.1 ± 17.9 vs. 55.6 ± 18.8 ml/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.011) in the allocation KDPI-matched cohort, while it was similar (61.8 ± 19.5 vs. 62.1 ± 20.1 ml/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.9) in the optimal KDPI-matched cohort. Recipients who received HCV Ab positive, but NAT-negative donor kidneys did not experience worse 6-month eGFR than correctly matched HCV Ab−/NAT− recipients.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.