A2 to B Kidney Transplantation in the Post-Kidney Allocation System Era: A 3-year Experience with Anti-A Titers, Outcomes, and Cost.

Background: The new kidney allocation systems (KAS) instituted December 2014 permitted A2 to B deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKTx) to improve access and reduce disparities in wait time for minorities. A recent United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) analysis, however, indicated only 4.5% of B candidates were registered for A2 kidneys. Cited barriers to A2 to B DDKTx include titer thresholds, patient eligibility, and increased costs. There are little published data on post-transplantation anti-A titers or outcomes of A2 to B DDKTx since this allocation change.

Study Design: We conducted a retrospective, single center, cohort analysis of 29 consecutive A2 to B and 50 B to B DDKTx from December 2014 to December 2017. Pre- and postoperative anti-A titers were monitored prospectively. Outcomes included post-transplant anti-A titers, patient and graft survival, renal function, and hospital costs.

Results: African Americans comprised 72% of the A2 to B and 60% of the B to B group. There was no difference in mean wait time (58.8 vs 70.8 months). Paired tests indicated that anti-A IgG titers in A2 to B DDKTx were increased at discharge (p = 0.001) and at 4 weeks (p = 0.037). There were no significant differences in patient or graft survival, serum creatinine (SCr), or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), but the trajectories of SCr and eGFR differed between groups over the follow-up period. A2 to B had significantly higher mean transplant total hospital costs ($114,638 vs $91,697, p < 0.001) and hospital costs net organ acquisition costs ($42,356 vs $20,983, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Initial experience under KAS shows comparable outcomes for A2 to B vs B to B DDKTx. Anti-A titers increased significantly post-transplantation, but did not adversely affect outcomes. Hospital costs were significantly higher with A2 to B DDKTx. Transplant programs, regulators, and payors will need to weigh improved access for minorities with increased costs.