Obesity impacts many inter-related, and sometimes conflicting, considerations for transplant practice. In this article, we describe an approach for applying available data on the importance of body composition to the kidney transplant population that separates implications for candidate selection, risk stratification among selected candidates, and interventions to optimize health of the individual. Transplant recipients with obesity defined by elevated body mass index (BMI) have been shown in many (but not all) studies to experience an array of adverse outcomes more commonly than normal-weight transplant recipients, including wound infections, delayed graft function, graft failure, cardiac disease, and increased costs. However, current studies have not defined limits of body composition that preclude clinical benefit from transplantation compared with long-term dialysis in patients who have passed a transplant evaluation. Formal cost-effectiveness studies are needed to determine if payers and society should be compensating centers for clinical and financial risks of transplanting obese end-stage renal disease patients. Recent studies also demonstrate the limitations of BMI alone as a measure of adiposity, and further research should be pursued to define practical measures of body composition that refine accuracy for outcomes prediction. Regarding individual management, observational registry studies have not found beneficial associations of pretransplant weight loss with patient or graft survival. However, association studies cannot distinguish purposeful from unintentional weight loss as a result of illness and comorbidity. Prospective evaluations of the impact of targeted risk modification efforts in this population including dietary changes, monitored exercise programs, and bariatric surgery are urgently needed.

Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR‐T) are genetically modified T cells with a chimeric antigen receptor directed against a specific tumor‐associated antigen like CD19 in lymphoma. CAR‐T cells have shown encouraging activity against recurrent and refractory diffuse large B cell lymphomas (DLBCL). However concurrent use of immunosuppressive agents was prohibited in most CAR‐T trials effectively excluding patients with prior solid organ transplantation (SOT) and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD). We report the outcomes for three patients with PTLD refractory to immunochemotherapy 10‐20 years after SOT who received CAR‐T therapy between January 2018 and December 2019. One patient had an orthotopic heart transplant, the second had a deceased donor kidney transplant, and the third had a pancreas after kidney transplant (PAK). All patients developed complications of CAR‐T therapy such as cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in the two out of three patients. All patients expired after withdrawal of care due to lack of response to CAR‐T therapy. In addition, the PAK patient developed acute pancreatitis after CAR‐T therapy. This case series identifies the challenges of using CAR‐T therapy to manage refractory PTLD in SOT recipients and its possible complications.

Background. Checkpoint inhibitors are now frequently used for oncologic conditions. The impact of these therapies in solid organ transplant recipients was not assessed in clinical trials. Subsequent case reports highlight the major detrimental interactions of checkpoint inhibitors and the high risk of allograft rejection with their use. Patient outcomes have not been assessed in long-term follow-up. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of kidney transplant recipients with metastatic cancer who received checkpoint inhibitors at a single center between April 2015 and May 2018. Results. Six kidney transplant recipients with metastatic cancers that were not responding to first-line treatments met study criteria. These include 2 with squamous cell cancers, 2 with melanoma, 1 with renal cell cancer, and 1 with adenocarcinoma of the lung. Four patients received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) antibody and 2 received a combination of anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies. Three out of 6 patients developed acute kidney injury. Two were biopsy-proven acute rejections with subsequent graft failures. The third was attributed to rejection, but improved after discontinuing the checkpoint inhibitor. Five out of 6 patients had cancer progression and only 1 patient had remission. Conclusions. Providers and patients need to be aware of the high risk of rejection and the poor remission rate with the use of checkpoint inhibitors in kidney transplant patients. More research is warranted to assess the optimal maintenance immunosuppression during the use of checkpoint inhibitor therapy that would not diminish the chances of remission.

Background: Despite advances in immune suppression, kidney allograft rejection and other injuries remain a significant clinical concern, particularly with regards to long-term allograft survival. Evaluation of immune activity can provide information about rejection status and help guide interventions to extend allograft life. Here we describe the validation of a blood gene expression classifier developed to differentiate immune quiescence from both T cell mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). Methods: A five-gene classifier (DCAF12, MARCH8, FLT3, IL1R2, and PDCD1) was developed on 56 peripheral blood samples and validated on two sample sets independent of the training cohort. The primary validation set comprised 98 quiescence samples and 18 rejection samples: 7 TCMR, 10 ABMR, and 1 mixed rejection. The second validation set included 8 quiescence and 11 rejections: 7 TCMR, 2 ABMR, and 2 mixed. AlloSure donor derived cell-free DNA was also evaluated. Results: AlloMap Kidney classifier scores in the primary validation set differed significantly between quiescence (median 9.49, IQR 7.68-11.53) and rejection (median 13.09, IQR 11.25-15.28), p < 0.001. In the second validation set, the cohorts were statistically different (p = 0.028) and the medians were similar to the primary validation set. The AUC for discriminating rejection from quiescence was 0.786 for the primary validation and 0.800 for the second validation. AlloMap Kidney results were not significantly correlated with AlloSure, although both were elevated in rejection. The ability to discriminate rejection from quiescence was improved when AlloSure and AlloMap Kidney were used together (AUC 0.894). Conclusion: Validation of AlloMap Kidney demonstrated the ability to differentiate between rejection and immune quiescence using a range of scores. The diagnostic performance suggests that assessment of the mechanisms of immunological activity is complementary to allograft injury information derived from AlloSure dd-cfDNA. Together, these biomarkers offer a more comprehensive assessment of allograft health and immune quiescence.

De novo thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) after renal transplant is rare. Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-related posttransplant TMA has only been reported in 6 cases. We report an unusual case of a 75-year old woman who developed de novo TMA in association with CMV viremia. The recurrence of TMA with CMV viremia, resolution with treatment for CMV and the lack of correlation with a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) in our case supports CMV as the cause of the TMA. What is unique is that the use of eculizumab without plasmapheresis led to prompt improvement in renal function. After a failure to identify a genetic cause for TMA and the clear association with CMV, eculizumab was discontinued. This case provides insight into the pathogenesis and novel treatment of de novo TMA, highlights the beneficial effects of complement inhibitors in this disease and shows that they can be safely discontinued once the inciting etiology is addressed.