The ASCENT (Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation) Study: a Randomized Effectiveness-Implementation Study to Improve Kidney Transplant Waitlisting and Reduce Racial Disparity

Implementation of the ASCENT Trial to Improve Transplant Waitlisting Access

Introduction

The Allocation System for changes in Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a hybrid type 1 trial of a multicomponent intervention among 655 US dialysis facilities with low kidney transplant waitlisting to educate staff and patients about kidney allocation system (KAS) changes and increase access to and reduce racial disparities in waitlisting. Intervention components included a staff webinar, patient and staff educational videos, and facility-specific feedback reports.

Methods

Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework. Postimplementation surveys were administered among intervention group facilities (n = 334); interviews were conducted with facility staff (n = 6). High implementation was defined as using 3 to 4 intervention components, low implementation as using 1 to 2 components, and nonimplementation as using no components.

Results

A total of 331 (99%) facilities completed the survey; 57% were high implementers, 31% were low implementers, and 12% were nonimplementers. Waitlisting events were higher or similar among high versus low implementer facilities for incident and prevalent populations; for Black incident patients, the mean proportion waitlisted in low implementer facilities was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.87) at baseline and 0.55% at 1-year (95% CI: 0.48-0.62) versus 0.83% (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) at baseline and 1.40% at 1-year (95% CI: 1.35-1.45) in high implementer facilities. Interviews revealed that the intervention helped facilities prioritize transplant education, but that intervention components were not uniformly shared.

Conclusion

The findings provide important context to interpret ASCENT effectiveness results and identified key barriers and facilitators to consider for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings.

The ASCENT Intervention to Improve Access and Reduce Racial Inequalities in Kidney Waitlisting: A Randomized, Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

BACKGROUND

The US kidney allocation system (KAS) changed in 2014, but dialysis facility staff (including nephrologists, social workers, nurse managers, and facility administrators) had low awareness of how this policy change could affect their patients' access to transplant. We assessed the effectiveness of a multicomponent and multilevel educational and outreach intervention targeting US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, with a goal of increasing waitlisting and reducing Black versus White racial disparities in waitlisting.

METHODS

The Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic, multilevel, effectiveness-implementation trial including 655 US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, randomized to receive either the ASCENT intervention (a performance feedback report, a webinar, and staff and patient educational videos) or an educational brochure. Absolute and relative differences in coprimary outcomes (1-year waitlisting and racial differences in waitlisting) were reported among incident and prevalent patients.

RESULTS

Among 56,332 prevalent patients, 1-year waitlisting decreased for patients in control facilities (2.72%-2.56%) and remained the same for patients in intervention facilities (2.68%-2.75%). However, the proportion of prevalent Black patients waitlisted in the ASCENT interventions increased from baseline to 1 year (2.52%-2.78%), whereas it remained the same for White patients in the ASCENT intervention facilities (2.66%-2.69%). Among incident patients in ASCENT facilities, 1-year waitlisting increased among Black patients (from 0.87% to 1.07%) but declined among White patients (from 1.54% to 1.27%). Significant racial disparities in waitlisting were observed at baseline, with incident Black patients in ASCENT facilities less likely to waitlist compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.92), but 1 year after the intervention, this racial disparity was attenuated (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

The ASCENT intervention may have a small effect on extending the reach of the new KAS policy by attenuating racial disparities in waitlisting among a population of US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

National Institutes of Health ( NCT02879812 ).

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_03_08_CJN09760822.mp3.

Referral and Evaluation for Kidney Transplantation Following Implementation of the 2014 National Kidney Allocation System

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The national kidney allocation system (KAS) implemented in December 2014 in the United States redefined the start of waiting time from the time of waitlisting to the time of kidney failure. Waitlisting has declined post-KAS, but it is unknown if this is due to transplant center practices or changes in dialysis facility referral and evaluation. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the 2014 KAS policy change on referral and evaluation for transplantation among a population of incident and prevalent patients with kidney failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

37,676 incident (2012-2016) patients in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina identified within the US Renal Data System at 9 transplant centers and followed through December 2017. A prevalent population of 6,079 patients from the same centers receiving maintenance dialysis in 2012 but not referred for transplantation in 2012.

EXPOSURE

KAS era (pre-KAS vs post-KAS).

OUTCOME

Referral for transplantation, start of transplant evaluation, and waitlisting.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Multivariable time-dependent Cox models for the incident and prevalent population.

RESULTS

Among incident patients, KAS was associated with increased referrals (adjusted HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]) and evaluation starts among those referred (adjusted HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.10-1.21]), decreased overall waitlisting (adjusted HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.65-0.76]), and lower rates of active waitlisting among those evaluated compared to the pre-KAS era (adjusted HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.90]). Among the prevalent population, KAS was associated with increases in overall waitlisting (adjusted HR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.15-2.63]) and active waitlisting among those evaluated (adjusted HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.16-3.49]), but had no significant impact on referral or evaluation starts among those referred.

LIMITATIONS

Limited to 3 states, residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

In the southeastern United States, the impact of KAS on steps to transplantation was different among incident and prevalent patients with kidney failure. Dialysis facilities referred more incident patients and transplant centers evaluated more incident patients after implementation of KAS, but fewer evaluated patients were placed onto the waitlist. Changes in dialysis facility and transplant center behaviors after KAS implementation may have influenced the observed changes in access to transplantation.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States

Background

Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes.

Results

Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant.

Conclusions

This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-021-01616-x.

Longer Distance From Dialysis Facility to Transplant Center Is Associated With Lower Access to Kidney Transplantation

Rates of kidney transplantation vary substantially across dialysis facilities in the United States. Whether distance between the dialysis facility and transplant center associates with variations in transplantation rates has not been examined.

Effect of the ASCENT Intervention to Increase Knowledge of Kidney Allocation Policy Changes Among Dialysis Providers

INTRODUCTION

The Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) trial was a cluster-randomized pragmatic, effectiveness-implementation study designed to test whether a multicomponent educational intervention targeting leadership, clinic staff, and patients in dialysis facilities improved knowledge and awareness of the 2014 Kidney Allocation System (KAS) change.

METHODS

Participants included 690 dialysis facility medical directors, nephrologists, social workers, and other staff within 655 US dialysis facilities, with 51% (n = 334) in the intervention group and 49% (n = 321) in the control group. Intervention activities included a webinar targeting medical directors and facility staff, an approximately 10-minute educational video targeting dialysis staff, an approximately 10-minute educational video targeting patients, and a facility-specific audit and feedback report of transplant performance. The control group received a standard United Network for Organ Sharing brochure. Provider knowledge was a secondary outcome of the ASCENT trial and the primary outcome of this study; knowledge was assessed as a cumulative score on a 5-point Likert scale (higher score = greater knowledge). Intention-to-treat analysis was used.

RESULTS

At baseline, nonintervention providers had a higher mean knowledge score (mean ± SD, 2.45 ± 1.43) than intervention providers (mean ± SD, 2.31 ± 1.46). After 3 months, the average knowledge score was slightly higher in the intervention (mean ± SD, 3.14 ± 1.28) versus nonintervention providers (mean ± SD, 3.07 ± 1.24), and the estimated mean difference in knowledge scores between the groups at follow-up minus the mean difference at baseline was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.48; P = 0.039). The effect size (0.41) was low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Dialysis facility provider education could help extend the impact of a national policy change in organ allocation.

Reporting of key methodological and ethical aspects of cluster trials in hemodialysis require improvement: a systematic review

Background

The hemodialysis setting is suitable for trials that use cluster randomization, where intact groups of individuals are randomized. However, cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are complicated in their design, analysis, and reporting and can pose ethical challenges. We reviewed CRTs in the hemodialysis setting with respect to reporting of key methodological and ethical issues.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, published in English, between 2000 and 2019, and indexed in MEDLINE or Embase. Two reviewers extracted data, and study results were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified 26 completed CRTs and five study protocols of CRTs. These studies randomized hemodialysis centers (n = 17, 55%), hemodialysis shifts (n = 12, 39%), healthcare providers (n = 1, 3%), and nephrology units (n = 1, 3%). Trials included a median of 28 clusters with a median cluster size of 20 patients. Justification for using a clustered design was provided by 15 trials (48%). Methods that accounted for clustering were used during sample size calculation in 14 (45%), during analyses in 22 (71%), and during both sample size calculation and analyses in 13 trials (42%). Among all CRTs, 26 (84%) reported receiving research ethics committee approval; patient consent was reported in 22 trials: 10 (32%) reported the method of consent for trial participation and 12 (39%) reported no details about how consent was obtained or its purpose. Four trials (13%) reported receiving waivers of consent, and the remaining 5 (16%) provided no or unclear information about the consent process.

Conclusion

There is an opportunity to improve the conduct and reporting of essential methodological and ethical issues in future CRTs in hemodialysis.

Review Registration

We conducted this systematic review using a pre-specified protocol that was not registered.

Policies to promote timely referral for kidney transplantation

There are numerous patient, provider, and health system barriers to accessing kidney transplantation. Patient barriers such as sociocultural and clinical characteristics and provider factors such as provider knowledge and awareness of transplantation play important roles in facilitating transplant. Health system factors like misaligned incentives and quality metrics for dialysis facilities and transplant centers also influence transplant access. While numerous studies have documented the impact of these barriers on wait-listing and transplant, few studies have examined referral from a dialysis facility to a transplant center and start of the transplant evaluation process. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require that dialysis facilities educate patients about transplant, there are no guidelines for the content and objectives for this education. In addition, policies to require timely referral for transplantation have been considered by CMS but are difficult to implement without national data on referral. Federal policies should be amended to mandate transplant center submission of referral data-while decreasing the unfunded mandate to collect other unusable data currently collected as part of regulatory monitoring of transplant centers-to promote timely access to transplant, increased transplant rates, and to better understand the multilevel barriers and facilitators to transplant referral.

Risk Taking and Decision Making in Kidney Paired Donation: A Qualitative Study by Semistructured Interviews

INTRODUCTION

Despite excellent outcomes of kidney paired donation (KPD), little is known about how a patient's frame (apply cognitive bias) or weight (attribute value) and concerns relating to risk, justice, and equity affect his or her decision-making process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pilot study consisting of 3 KPD transplant recipients and 3 KPD kidney donors in the last year was conducted to identify and explore themes in decision making and risk taking. The pilot study was followed by the main study comprised of 20 recipients who had already undergone KPD transplantation and 20 donors who had undergone donor nephrectomy. We conducted semistructured interviews in this cohort and analyzed the data thematically. Each donor-recipient pair was interviewed together to facilitate dyadic conversation and provide deeper insight into the decision-making process leading to transplant and donation.

RESULTS

Common themes to both recipient and donor decision making included quality of life; characteristics of the unknown donor and post-transplant expectations. Recipient-specific themes included failure to reach life span milestones, experiences of fellow patients, and altruistic desire to expand the donor pool. Donor-specific themes included balancing existing life commitments with the recipient's need for a kidney, equity and mental accounting in kidney exchange (comparable quality of the kidney received versus the kidney donated), and logistical justice for the recipient.

DISCUSSION

Donors and recipients frame and weight the concepts of risk, justice, and equity differently. This may have direct implications to facilitating patient-centered communication and engagement in KPD pairs.

Awareness of Racial Disparities in Kidney Transplantation among Health Care Providers in Dialysis Facilities

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the important role that health care providers at dialysis facilities have in reducing racial disparities in access to kidney transplantation in the United States, little is known about provider awareness of these disparities. We aimed to evaluate health care providers' awareness of racial disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting and identify factors associated with awareness.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a survey of providers from low-waitlisting dialysis facilities (n=655) across all 18 ESRD networks administered in 2016 in the United States merged with 2014 US Renal Data System and 2014 US Census data. Awareness of national racial disparity in waitlisting was defined as responding "yes" to the question: "Nationally, do you think that African Americans currently have lower waitlisting rates than white patients on average?" The secondary outcome was providers' perceptions of racial difference in waitlisting at their own facilities.

RESULTS

Among 655 providers surveyed, 19% were aware of the national racial disparity in waitlisting: 50% (57 of 113) of medical directors, 11% (35 of 327) of nurse managers, and 16% (35 of 215) of other providers. In analyses adjusted for provider and facility characteristics, nurse managers (versus medical directors; odds ratio, 7.33; 95% confidence interval, 3.35 to 16.0) and white providers (versus black providers; odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 5.02) were more likely to be unaware of a national racial disparity in waitlisting. Facilities in the South (versus the Northeast; odds ratio, 3.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 8.94) and facilities with a low percentage of blacks (versus a high percentage of blacks; odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 3.39) were more likely to be unaware. One quarter of facilities had >5% racial difference in waitlisting within their own facilities, but only 5% were aware of the disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a limited sample of dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, provider awareness of racial disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting was low, particularly among staff who may have more routine contact with patients.

Awareness of the New Kidney Allocation System among United States Dialysis Providers with Low Waitlisting

It is unknown whether dialysis facility staff are aware of the new kidney allocation system implemented in December 2014, which changed how deceased donor kidneys are allocated and waiting time is calculated. U.S. dialysis facilities with low annual waitlisting (<15.2%) were surveyed as part of a large randomized study. Among 653 facilities, 57.9% of staff were aware of the policy change, with medical directors (84.4%) being more aware than social workers (73.3%), facility administrators (53.1%), nurse managers (46.4%), and other staff (43.8%). Targeted education among dialysis facilities with low waitlisting may help extend the reach of the new policy.