Deceased donor procurement biopsy practices, interpretation, and histology-based decision-making: A survey of US kidney transplant centers

INTRODUCTION: The utility of kidney procurement biopsies is controversial. Understanding the current landscape of how clinicians obtain and use biopsies in organ evaluation may help inform consensus-building efforts. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to clinicians at US kidney transplant programs (April 22, 2021-June 30, 2021) to evaluate donor biopsy indications, frequency, processing and interpretation, and impact of findings on practices. RESULTS: Responses from staff involved in organ acceptance (73% surgeons, 20% nephrologists, 6% coordinators) at 95 transplant centers were analyzed, representing 40% of US transplant centers and 50% of recent deceased donor kidney transplant volume. More than a third of centers (35%) reported obtaining procurement biopsies on most-to-all kidneys. Most clinicians decided when to biopsy jointly with the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) (82%) based on formal criteria for the decision (72%), although 41% reported having requested a biopsy outside of the criteria. Most respondents used a semiquantitative scoring system for interpretation (57%). Many respondents reported rarely or never having access to renal specialty pathologists (37%) or to telepathology (59%). Most respondents reported that a favorable biopsy result would encourage them to accept a marginal donor kidney (72%); nearly half (46%) indicated that an unfavorable biopsy result would lead to decline of a standard criteria kidney. CONCLUSION: Procurement biopsies are commonly used in organ acceptance decisions despite inconsistent access to experienced renal pathologists and heterogeneous approaches to criteria, scoring, and interpretation. Ongoing study and consensus building are needed to direct procurement biopsy practice toward increasing organ utilization and reducing allocation inefficiency

The Demise of Islet Allotransplantation in the US: A Call for an Urgent Regulatory Update The ISLETS FOR US Collaborative

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and more than minimally manipulated human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). Across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as minimally manipulated tissue which has led to islet transplantation becoming a standard-of-care procedure for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and problematic hypoglycemia. As a result of the outdated US regulations, only eleven patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2011-2016 and all in the setting of a clinical trial. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both, better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States

Targeting cancer metabolism: a therapeutic window opens

Genetic events in cancer activate signalling pathways that alter cell metabolism. Clinical evidence has linked cell metabolism with cancer outcomes. Together, these observations have raised interest in targeting metabolic enzymes for cancer therapy, but they have also raised concerns that these therapies would have unacceptable effects on normal cells. However, some of the first cancer therapies that were developed target the specific metabolic needs of cancer cells and remain effective agents in the clinic today. Research into how changes in cell metabolism promote tumour growth has accelerated in recent years. This has refocused efforts to target metabolic dependencies of cancer cells as a selective anticancer strategy.Burroughs Wellcome FundSmith Family FoundationStarr Cancer ConsortiumDamon Runyon Cancer Research FoundationNational Institutes of Health (U.S.

The demise of islet allotransplantation in the United States: A call for an urgent regulatory update

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and “more than minimally manipulated” human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as “minimally manipulated tissue” and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States

Strategies for the management of adverse events associated with mTOR inhibitors

AbstractMammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used as potent immunosuppressive agents in solid-organ transplant recipients (everolimus and sirolimus) and as antineoplastic therapies for various cancers (eg, advanced renal cell carcinoma; everolimus, temsirolimus, ridaforolimus). Relevant literature, obtained from specific PubMed searches, was reviewed to evaluate the incidence and mechanistic features of specific adverse events (AEs) associated with mTOR inhibitor treatment, and to present strategies to effectively manage these events. The AEs examined in this review include stomatitis and other cutaneous AEs, wound-healing complications (eg, lymphocele, incisional hernia), diabetes/hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, proteinuria, nephrotoxicity, delayed graft function, pneumonitis, anemia, hypertension, gonadal dysfunction, and ovarian toxicity. Strategies for selecting appropriate patients for mTOR inhibitor therapy and minimizing the risks of AEs are discussed, along with best practices for identifying and managing side effects. mTOR inhibitors are promising therapeutic options in immunosuppression and oncology; most AEs can be effectively detected and managed or reversed with careful monitoring and appropriate interventions