End-stage kidney disease patients in the United States may have family members or friends who are not US citizens or residents but are willing to serve as their living kidney donor in the United States (international donors). In July 2017, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) convened a multidisciplinary workgroup of experts in living donation care, including coordinators, social workers, donor advocates, administrators, and physicians, to evaluate educational gaps related to the evaluation and care of international donors. The evaluation of international living donor candidates is a resource-intensive process that raises key considerations for assessing risk of exploitation/inducement and addressing communication barriers, logistics barriers, and access to care in their home country. Through consensus-building discussions, we developed recommendations related to: (a) establishing program guidelines for international donor candidate evaluation and selection; (b) initial screening; (c) logistics planning; (d) comprehensive evaluation; and (e) postdonation care and follow-up. These recommendations are not intended to direct formal policy, but rather as guidance to help programs more efficiently and effectively structure and execute evaluations and care coordination. We also offer recommendations for research and advocacy to optimize the care of this unique group of living donors.

The first sustained increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years was observed from 2017 to 2019. To help sustain this surge, we studied 35 900 donors (70.3% white, 14.5% Hispanic, 9.3% black, 4.4% Asian) to understand the increase in 2017-2019 vs 2014-2016 using Poisson regression. Among biologically related donors aged <35, 35-49, and ≥50 years, the number of donors did not change across race/ethnicity but increased by 38% and 29% for Hispanic and black ≥50. Among unrelated donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 18%, 14%, and 27%; Hispanic donors <35 did not change but increased by 22% and 35% for 35-49 and ≥50; black donors <35 declined by 23% and did not change for 35-49 and ≥50; Asian donors did not change. Among kidney paired donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 42%, 50%, and 68%; Hispanic donors <35 and 35-49 increased by 36% and 55% and did not change for ≥50; black donors did not change; Asian donors <35 did not change but increased by 107% and 82% for 35-49 and ≥50. The increase in donation was driven predominantly by unrelated and paired white donors. Donation among unrelated black individuals should be promoted.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017. EXPOSURE: Biological relationship of donor and recipient. OUTCOME: ESKD. Donors records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used. RESULTS: Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6). LIMITATIONS: Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.

Development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors is associated with increased graft loss in the recipients of their kidneys. Our goal was to investigate if this relationship was reflected at an earlier stage postdonation, possibly early enough for recipient risk prediction based on donor response to nephrectomy. Using national registry data, we studied 29 464 recipients and their donors from 2008-2016 to determine the association between donor 6-month postnephrectomy estimated GFR (eGFR) and recipient death-censored graft failure (DCGF). We explored donor BMI as an effect modifier, given the association between obesity and hyperfiltration. On average, risk of DCGF increased with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.10, P = .007). The association was attenuated with higher donor BMI (interaction P = .049): recipients from donors with BMI = 20 (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.19, P = .002) and BMI = 25 (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12, P = .001) had a higher risk of DCGF with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR, whereas recipients from donors with BMI = 30 and BMI = 35 did not have a higher risk. The relationship between postdonation eGFR, donor BMI, and recipient graft loss can inform counseling and management of living donor kidney transplant recipients.

UNLABELLED: The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood). METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 56 living kidney donors regarding benefits experienced from donation. Using a qualitative descriptive and constant comparative approach, themes were derived inductively from interview transcripts by 2 independent coders; differences in coding were reconciled by consensus. RESULTS: Of 56 participants, 30 were in interdependent relationships with their recipients (shared household and/or significant caregiving responsibilities). Tangible benefits identified by participants fell into 3 major categories: health and wellness benefits, time and financial benefits, and interpersonal benefits. Participants described motivations to donate a kidney based on a more nuanced understanding of the benefits of donation than accounted for by the current acceptable risk paradigm. DISCUSSION: Tangible benefits for interdependent donors may shift the acceptable risk paradigm (where no benefit is assumed) of kidney donor evaluation to a risk/benefit paradigm more consistent with other surgical decision-making.

A recent study reported that kidney transplant recipients of offspring living donors had higher graft loss and mortality. This seemed counterintuitive, given the excellent HLA matching and younger age of offspring donors; we were concerned about residual confounding and other study design issues. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2001-2016 to evaluate death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality for recipients of offspring versus nonoffspring living donor kidneys, using Cox regression models with interaction terms. Recipients of offspring kidneys had lower DCGF than recipients of nonoffspring kidneys (15-year cumulative incidence 21.2% vs 26.1%, P < .001). This association remained after adjustment for recipient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.73 0.770.82 , P < .001), and was attenuated among African American donors (aHR 0.77 0.850.95 ; interaction: P = .01) and female recipients (aHR 0.77 0.840.91 , P < .001). Although offspring kidney recipients had higher mortality (15-year mortality 56.4% vs 37.2%, P < .001), this largely disappeared with adjustment for recipient age alone (aHR = 1.02 1.061.10 , P = .002) and was nonsignificant after further adjustment for other recipient characteristics (aHR = 0.93 0.971.01 , P = .1). Kidneys from offspring donors provided lower graft failure and comparable mortality. An otherwise eligible donor should not be dismissed because they are the offspring of the recipient, and we encourage continued individualized counseling for potential donors.

In the United States, kidney donation from international (noncitizen/nonresident) living kidney donors (LKDs) is permitted; however, given the heterogeneity of healthcare systems, concerns remain regarding the international LKD practice and recipient outcomes. We studied a US cohort of 102 315 LKD transplants from 2000-2016, including 2088 international LKDs, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. International LKDs were more tightly clustered among a small number of centers than domestic LKDs (Gini coefficient 0.76 vs 0.58, P < .001). Compared with domestic LKDs, international LKDs were more often young, male, Hispanic or Asian, and biologically related to their recipient (P < .001). Policy-compliant donor follow-up was substantially lower for international LKDs at 6, 12, and 24 months postnephrectomy (2015 cohort: 45%, 33%, 36% vs 76%, 71%, 70% for domestic LKDs, P < .001). Among international LKDs, Hispanic (aOR = 0.23 0.360.56 , P < .001) and biologically related (aOR = 0.39 0.590.89 , P < .01) donors were more compliant in donor follow-up than white and unrelated donors. Recipients of international living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) had similar graft failure (aHR = 0.78 0.891.02 , P = .1) but lower mortality (aHR = 0.53 0.620.72 , P < .001) compared with the recipients of domestic LDKT after adjusting for recipient, transplant, and donor factors. International LKDs may provide an alternative opportunity for living donation. However, efforts to improve international LKD follow-up and engagement are warranted.

Simple (Bosniak I) renal cysts are considered acceptable in living kidney donor selection in terms of cancer risk. However, they tend to increase in number and size over time and might compromise renal function in donors. To clarify their implications for long-term renal function, we characterized the prevalence of renal cysts in 454 individuals who donated at our center from 2000 to 2007. We estimated the association between the presence of cysts in the kidney remaining after nephrectomy (ie, retained cysts) and postdonation eGFR trajectory using mixed-effects linear regression. Donors with retained cysts (N = 86) were older (P < .001) and had slightly lower predonation eGFR (median 94 vs 98 mL/min/1.73 m2 , P < .01) than those without cysts. Over a median 7.8 years, donors with retained cysts had lower baseline eGFR (-8.7 -5.6 -2.3  mL/min/1.73 m2 , P < .01) but similar yearly change in eGFR (-0.4 0.02 0.4  mL/min/1.73 m2 , P = .2) compared to those without retained cysts. Adjusting for predonation characteristics, there was no difference in baseline eGFR (P = .6) or yearly change in eGFR (P > .9). There continued to be no evidence of an association when we considered retained cyst(s) ≥10 mm or multiple retained cysts (all P > .05). These findings reaffirm current practices of accepting candidates with simple renal cysts for donor nephrectomy.

The practice of kidney paired donation (KPD) is expanding annually, offering the opportunity for live donor kidney transplant to more patients. We sought to identify if voluntary KPD networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) were selecting or attracting a narrower group of donors or recipients compared with national registries. For this purpose, we merged data from the NKR database with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, from February 14, 2008, to February 14, 2017, encompassing the first 9 years of the NKR. Compared with all United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) live donor transplant patients (49 610), all UNOS living unrelated transplant patients (23 319), and all other KPD transplant patients (4236), the demographic and clinical characteristics of NKR transplant patients (2037) appear similar to contemporary national trends. In particular, among the NKR patients, there were a significantly (P < .001) greater number of retransplants (25.6% vs 11.5%), hyperimmunized recipients (22.7% vs 4.3% were cPRA >80%), female recipients (45.9% vs 37.6%), black recipients (18.2% vs 13%), and those on public insurance (49.7% vs 41.8%) compared with controls. These results support the need for greater sharing and larger pool sizes, perhaps enhanced by the entry of compatible pairs and even chains initiated by deceased donors, to unlock more opportunities for those harder-to-match pairs.

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) persist but the most effective target to eliminate these disparities remains unknown. One potential target could be delays during completion of the live donor evaluation process. We studied racial differences in progression through the evaluation process for 247 African American (AA) and 664 non-AA living donor candidates at our center between January 2011 and March 2015. AA candidates were more likely to be obese (38% vs 22%: P < .001), biologically related (66% vs 44%: P < .001), and live ≤50 miles from the center (64% vs 37%: P < .001) than non-AAs. Even after adjusting for these differences, AAs were less likely to progress from referral to donation (aHR for AA vs non-AA: 0.26 0.47 0.83; P = .01). We then assessed racial differences in completion of each step of the evaluation process and found disparities in progression from medical screening to in-person evaluation (aHR: 0.41 0.620.94; P = .02) and from clearance to donation (aHR: 0.28 0.510.91; P = .02), compared with from referral to medical screening (aHR: 0.78 1.021.33; P = .95) and from in-person evaluation to clearance (aHR: 0.59 0.931.44; P = .54). Delays may be a manifestation of the transplant candidates social network, thus, targeted efforts to optimize networks for identification of donor candidates may help address LDKT disparities.