Barriers to kidney transplant evaluation in HIV‐positive patients with advanced kidney disease: A single‐center study. Issue 2 (12th February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boyle, Suzanne M.; Fehr, Kallie; Deering, Catylin; Raza, Abbas; Harhay, Meera N.; Malat, Gregory; Ranganna, Karthik; Lee, Dong Heun
• Is Part Of: Transplant infectious disease. Volume 22:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-02-12
• Subjects: disparity -- HIV -- kidney transplant -- kidney transplant evaluation; Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc -- Complications -- Periodicals; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Infection -- Periodicals; 617.01
• DOI: 10.1111/tid.13253
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1398-2273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: HIV‐positive kidney transplant (KT) recipients have similar outcomes to HIV‐negative recipients. However, HIV‐positive patients with advanced kidney disease might face additional barriers to initiating the KT evaluation process. We sought to characterize comorbidities, viral control and management, viral resistance, and KT evaluation appointment rates in a cohort of KT evaluation‐eligible HIV‐positive patients. Methods: We included patients seen between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015, at a primary care HIV clinic who met KT evaluation eligibility by an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤20 mL/min/1.73 meters 2 or dialysis dependence. The primary outcome was a documented appointment for KT evaluation. Results: Of 3735 patients evaluated at the HIV primary clinic during the study period, 42 (1.6%) were KT evaluation‐eligible patients. The median age was 47 years, 77% were male, and 95%, black. Median CD4 count was 328 cells/mm 3 (IQR 175‐461). Among the 63% percent with antiretroviral therapy (ART) prescription, 40% had viral loads >200 copies. Among patients with HIV resistance profiles (50%, n = 21), 52% had resistance to at least one class of ART. A majority (60%, n = 25) were scheduled for KT evaluation appointment, but of those, only 8% (n = 2) had evidence of appointments before dialysis dependence. Those without appointments had more schizophrenia (29% vs 4%, P = .02), resistance (78% vs 33%, P = .04), ART prescription (76% vs 48%, P = .04), and more kidney disease of unknown etiology (53% vs 8%, P = .02). Conclusion: Kidney transplant evaluation‐eligible HIV‐positive patients had a high rate of evaluation appointments, but a low rate of preemptive evaluation appointments. Schizophrenia and viral resistance disproportionally affected patients without evaluation appointments. These data precede the recommendation for universal ART for all HIV+ patients, regardless of CD4 count and viral load, and must be interpreted in the context of this limitation.