ABSTRACT
Background Prioritization of HLA antigen-level matching in the US kidney allocation system intends to improve post-transplant survival but causes racial disparities and thus has been substantially de-emphasized. Recently, molecular matching based on eplets has been found to improve risk stratification compared to antigen matching.
Methods To assign eplets unambiguously, we utilized a cohort of 5193 individuals with high resolution allele-level HLA genotypes from the National Kidney Registry. Using repeated random sampling to simulate donor-recipient genotype pairings based on the ethnic composition of the historical US deceased donor pool, we profiled the percentage of well-matched donors for candidates by ethnicity.
Results The percentage of well-matched donors with zero-DR/DQ eplet mismatch was 3-fold less racially disparate for Black and Asian candidates than percentage of donors with zero-ABDR antigen mismatches, and 2-fold less racially disparate for Latino candidates. For other HLA antigen and eplet mismatch thresholds, the percentage of well-matched donors was more similar across candidate ethnic groups.
Conclusions Compared to the current zero-ABDR antigen mismatch, prioritizing a zero-DR/DQ eplet mismatch in allocation would decrease racial disparities and increase the percentage of well-matched donors. High resolution HLA deceased donor genotyping would enable unambiguous assignment of eplets to operationalize molecular mismatch metrics in allocation.
Question What is the impact of prioritizing low molecular mismatch transplants on racial and ethnic disparities in US deceased-donor kidney allocation, compared to the current prioritization of antigen-level matching?
Findings The lowest-risk eplet mismatch approach decreases racial disparities up to 3-fold compared to lowest-risk antigen mismatch and identifies a larger number of the lowest allo-immune risk donors.
Meaning Prioritizing eplet matching in kidney transplant allocation could both improve outcomes and reduce racial disparities compared to the current antigen matching.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of NYU Langone gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
updated email of the corresponding author
Data Availability
Data can be requested from the NKR.
