A Population Health Approach to Transplant Access: Challenging the Status Quo

The Early Steps to Transplant Access Registry (E-STAR) dashboard: center-specific reporting on prewaitlisting data to improve access to kidney transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report highlighted inequities in access to kidney transplantation and called for a comprehensive dashboard highlighting early transplant steps, yet data on steps such as referral and evaluation start are limited. Addressing this gap is crucial for improving equity in access to transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Early Steps to Transplant Access Registry (E-STAR) provides a model for how prewaitlisting data can be used to inform quality improvement to drive equity in access to transplantation. E-STAR includes data from 37 transplant centers across 13 states and four regions (Southeast, New York, New England, and the Ohio River Valley), representing ∼217 000 adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated in 4365 dialysis facilities, in addition to patients preemptively referred. Similar to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients center-specific reports, the E-STAR dashboard was developed as an interactive website offering center-specific and regional insights into pretransplant access measures within and across centers with the intention to improve access to transplantation. Publicly available de-identified reports illustrate trends in referral, evaluation, and waitlisting by subgroup (e.g., race, sex, age, insurance status), while password-protected features enable transplant centers to benchmark their performance against anonymized peers.

SUMMARY

The E-STAR dashboard demonstrates how centralized, standardized data collection can support transplant centers, policymakers, community partners, and regional organizations to identify disparities, drive quality improvement, and develop interventions for the advancement of equity in transplant access. This work may inform future center-specific reports once prewaitlisting data are collected nationally.

Transforming transplantation access: A federal directive for comprehensive pre-waitlisting data collection

There is substantial variation in access to transplantation across the United States that is not entirely explained by the availability of donor organs. Barriers to transplantation and variation in care among patients with end-stage organ disease exist prior to patients' placement on a transplant waiting list as well as following waitlist placement. However, there are currently no national data available to examine rates and variations in key care processes related to prelisting, including transplant referral, evaluation, or candidate selection. In February of 2024, the Health Resources and Services Administration released a directive and, in November 2024, released for public comment the proposed expansion of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data collection to include pre-waitlist data for all solid organ transplant patients to promote transparency across the transplant continuum. Although data elements and details have not been finalized, the purpose of this article is to detail the rationale and anticipated details for pre-waitlisting data collection to inform the transplant community. These data aim to examine care processes and barriers to care for patients with end-stage organ disease in the United States.

Equity and the operational considerations of the kidney transplant allocation system

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Demonstrate the impact of allocation system design on access to the waitlist and transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Minoritized groups are more likely to be declined from transplant listing owing to psychosocial criteria. Lack of consistent definitions, screening tools with differential subgroup validity, and insufficient evidence-base contribute to concerns about reliance on psychosocial factors in transplant listing decisions.

SUMMARY

Although kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment choice, a shrinking proportion of prevalent patients are waitlisted for this option in the United States, even among our youngest ESKD patients. Recent HRSA proposals to expand data collection to encompass the prewaitlisting process suggest a timely need to capture additional data on transplant referrals to improve access to transplantation. In 2021, KAS250 was implemented in response to concerns of geographic inequities in transplant rates. However, updates to this system have also resulted in a dramatic rise in organ offers, the number of offers needed to successfully place an organ and lowered utilization rates. Since KAS250, the use of alternative pathways to improve organ utilization rates, such as out-of-sequence placements has increased dramatically across the organ quality spectrum and risk exacerbating disparities in access to transplant. Additionally, the current absence of meaningful oversight risks undermining the perception of the transplant system as an objective process.

SUMMARY

There is a need for a more robust evaluation of recent iterative changes in waitlist and organ allocation practices to ensure equity in access for our most vulnerable patients.

Global perspectives on transplant disparities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our goal was to review and summarize the current state of global disease burden from organ failure and the efforts to improve outcomes with organ transplantation. We also reviewed intra- and inter-country disparities in organ failure and organ transplantation along with potential mechanisms to improve access to organ transplantation globally.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many disparities and inequities observed globally can be characterized by the country's income category. Low- and lower-middle income countries (LLMICs) have higher rates of communicable disease-attributed organ failure, while upper-income countries (UICs) have high overall prevalence due to global growth in noncommunicable etiologies of organ failure. Many downstream disparities in access to organ transplantation and outcomes are associated with country income designation. Improvements in data collection and surveillance of populations with organ failure and organ transplantation are urgently needed.

SUMMARY

Improving outcomes for patients with end-organ disease globally will require countries to improve organ transplantation access and care. For LLMICs, collaboration with international transplant systems and engagement with neighboring countries may establish important foundations for organ transplant systems. For UICs, increasing organ donor availability through technological advances and increasing public engagement will help meet the growing needs for organ transplantation as an important treatment modality.

Reducing Disparities in Access to Kidney Transplantation Regional Study: A Randomized Trial in the Southeastern United States

Key Points

Declines in referral mirror national trends; however, declines were less for some groups receiving the intervention, warranting long-term follow-up. The findings provide important context for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings.

Background

The Southeastern United States has among the lowest rates of kidney transplantation nationally and has documented racial and socioeconomic disparities in transplant access. We assessed the effectiveness and implementation of a multicomponent intervention aimed at increasing access and reducing disparities in access to early transplant steps in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Methods

The Reducing Disparities in Access to Kidney Transplantation Regional Study randomized 440 dialysis facilities in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to receive the Reducing Disparities in Access to Kidney Transplantation Regional educational and quality intervention or standard of care in 2018. The primary outcome was a change in dialysis facility–level transplant referral within 1 year of dialysis start after intervention, with secondary outcomes examining changes in evaluation start within 6 months of referral and waitlisting within 1 year of evaluation start. A process evaluation included a postimplementation survey (N =220) and semistructured interviews of staff (N =4). Generalized linear mixed-effects models assessed intervention effectiveness overall and in race subgroups.

Results

Among the 25,586 patients with ESKD treated in 440 dialysis facilities, referral rates decreased across both intervention arms 1 year after intervention; however, a greater decrease in referrals was observed among control (11.2% to 9.2%) versus intervention (11.2% to 10.5%) facilities. We observed no significant difference in the likelihood of referral among Black patients in intervention versus control facilities after intervention (adjusted odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.33); however, a significant increase in referral was observed among White patients in intervention facilities after intervention (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.51). Interviews highlighted the importance of tailored interventions, federal mandates, and implementation challenges for large pragmatic trials.

Conclusions

Postintervention declines in referral mirror national trends; however, these declines were less for some groups receiving the intervention, warranting long-term follow-up. These findings provide important context for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:

The study protocol is available on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02389387 ).

Defining pre-emptive living kidney donor transplantation as a quality indicator

Quality indicators in kidney transplants are needed to identify care gaps and improve access to transplants. We used linked administrative health care databases to examine multiple ways of defining pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants, including different patient cohorts and censoring definitions. We included adults from Ontario, Canada with advanced chronic kidney disease between January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We created 4 unique incident patient cohorts, varying the eligibility by the risk of progression to kidney failure and whether individuals had a recorded contraindication to kidney transplant (eg, home oxygen use). We explored the effect of 4 censoring event definitions. Across the 4 cohorts, size varied substantially from 20 663 to 9598 patients, with the largest reduction (a 43% reduction) occurring when we excluded patients with ≥1 recorded contraindication to kidney transplantation. The incidence rate (per 100 person-years) of pre-emptive living donor kidney transplant varied across cohorts from 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.14) for our most inclusive cohort to 2.21 (95% CI: 1.96-2.49) for the most restrictive cohort. Our methods can serve as a framework for developing other quality indicators in kidney transplantation and monitoring and improving access to pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants in health care systems.

Setting reasonable goals for kidney transplant referral among dialysis facilities

BACKGROUND

Determining whether a patient is eligible for kidney transplantation is complex. In this study, we estimate what proportion of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) might have been suitable candidates for kidney transplantation but were not referred.

METHODS

We identified 43,952 people initiating dialysis for kidney failure between 2012 and 2017 in the states of Georgia, North Carolina, or South Carolina from the United States Renal Data System and linked to the Early-Steps to Transplant Access Registry to obtain data on referral and waitlisting up until December 2020. We identified 'good transplant candidates' as those who were waitlisted within 2-years of referral, among all patients referred within 1-year of dialysis initiation. Using propensity score cut-offs, logistic regression, and area under the curve (AUC), we then estimated the proportion of individuals who may have been good transplant candidates, but were not referred.

RESULTS

Overall, 42.6% of incident dialysis patients were referred within one year and among them, 32.9% were waitlisted within 2 years of referral. Our model had reasonably good discrimination for identifying good transplant candidates with an AUC of 0.70 (95%CI 0.69-0.71), sensitivity of 0.68 and specificity of 0.61. Overall, 25% of individuals not referred for transplant may have been 'good' transplant candidates. Adding these patients to the existing 18,725 referred patients would increase the proportion of incident ESKD patients being referred within one year from 42.6% to 57.2% (a ~ 14.6% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we show that a significant proportion of potentially good transplant candidates are not being referred for transplant. A ~ 14% increase in the proportion of patients being referred from dialysis facilities is both a meaningful and realistic goal and could lead to more qualified patients being referred and subsequently waitlisted for a lifesaving transplant.

The impact of county-level food access on the mortality and post-transplant survival among patients with steatotic liver disease

BACKGROUND

The impact of county-level food access on mortality associated with steatotic liver disease, as well as post-liver transplant outcomes among individuals with steatotic liver disease, have not been characterized.

METHODS

Data on steatotic liver disease-related mortality and outcomes of liver transplant recipients with steatotic liver disease between 2010 and 2020 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control Prevention mortality as well as the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases. These data were linked to the food desert score, defined as the proportion of the total population in each county characterized as having both low income and limited access to grocery stores.

RESULTS

Among 2,710 counties included in the analytic cohort, median steatotic liver disease-related mortality was 27.3 per 100,000 population (interquartile range 24.9-32.1). Of note, patients residing in counties with high steatotic liver disease death rates were more likely to have higher food desert scores (low: 5.0, interquartile range 3.1-7.8 vs moderate: 6.1, interquartile range, 3.8-9.3 vs high: 7.6, interquartile range 4.1-11.7). Among 28,710 patients who did undergo liver transplantation, 5,310 (18.4%) individuals lived in counties with a high food desert score. Liver transplant recipients who resided in counties with the worst food access were more likely to have a higher body mass index (>35 kg/m2: low food desert score, 17.3% vs highest food desert score, 20.1%). After transplantation, there was no difference in 2-year graft survival relative to county-level food access (food desert score: low: 88.4% vs high: 88.6%; P = .77).

CONCLUSION

Poor food access was associated with a higher incidence rate of steatotic liver disease-related death, as well as lower utilization of liver transplants. On the other hand, among patients who did receive a liver transplant, there was no difference in 2-year graft survival regardless of food access strata. Policy initiatives should target the expansion of transplantation services to vulnerable communities in which there is a high mortality of steatotic liver disease.

Disparities in Access to Liver Transplant Referral and Evaluation among Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Georgia

Liver transplantation offers the best survival for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Prior studies have demonstrated disparities in transplant access; none have examined the early steps of the transplant process. We identified determinants of access to transplant referral and evaluation among patients with HCC with a single tumor either within Milan or meeting downstaging criteria in Georgia.Population-based cancer registry data from 2010 to 2019 were linked to liver transplant centers in Georgia. Primary cohort: adult patients with HCC with a single tumor ≤8 cm in diameter, no extrahepatic involvement, and no vascular involvement. Secondary cohort: primary cohort plus patients with multiple tumors confined to one lobe. We estimated time to transplant referral, evaluation initiation, and evaluation completion, accounting for the competing risk of death. In sensitivity analyses, we also accounted for non-transplant cancer treatment.Among 1,379 patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, 26% were referred to liver transplant. Private insurance and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of referral, while requiring downstaging was associated with lower likelihood of referral. Patients living in census tracts with ≥20% of residents in poverty were less likely to initiate evaluation among those referred [cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR): 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.94]. Medicaid patients were less likely to complete the evaluation once initiated (csHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.89).Different sociodemographic factors were associated with each stage of the transplant process among patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, emphasizing unique barriers to access and the need for targeted interventions at each step.

SIGNIFICANCE

Among patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, age and insurance type were associated with referral to liver transplant, race, and poverty with evaluation initiation, and insurance type with evaluation completion. Opportunities to improve transplant access include informing referring providers about insurance requirements, addressing barriers to evaluation initiation, and streamlining the evaluation process.

"You don't know what you don't know": A qualitative study of informational needs of patients, family members, and living donors to inform transplant system metrics

INTRODUCTION

Informational needs and potential use of transplant metrics, especially among patients, remain understudied and a critical component of the transplant community's commitment to patient-centered care. We sought to understand the perspectives and needs of patients, family members/caregivers, living donors, and deceased donor family members.

METHODS

We examined decision-making experiences and perspectives on the needs of these stakeholder groups for data about the national transplant system among 58 participants of 14 focus groups and 6 interviews.

RESULTS

Three major themes emerged: 1) informational priorities and unmet needs (transplantation system processes, long-term outcomes data, prelisting data, patient-centered outcomes, and ability to compare centers and regions); 2) challenges obtaining relevant and trustworthy information (patient burden and effort, challenges with medical jargon, and difficulty finding trustworthy information); and 3) burden of facing the unknown (stress and anxiety leading to difficulty processing information, challenges facing the transplant journey when you "don't know what you don't know").

CONCLUSION

Patient, family member, and living donor participation in shared decision-making has been limited by inadequate access to patient-centered information. New metrics and patient-facing data presentations should address these content gaps using best practices to improve understanding and support shared decision-making.

Sex/Gender-Based Disparities in Early Transplant Access by Attributed Cause of Kidney Disease-Evidence from a Multiregional Cohort in the Southeast United States

Introduction

We examined sex/gender disparities across the continuum of transplant care by attributed cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

Methods

All adults (18-79 years; N = 43,548) with new-onset ESKD in Georgia, North Carolina, or South Carolina between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Individuals were linked to the Early Steps to Transplant Access Registry (E-STAR) to obtain data on referral and evaluation. Waitlisting data was ascertained from USRDS. Using a Cox-proportional hazards model, with follow-up through 2020, we assessed the association between sex/gender and referral within 12 months (among all incident dialysis patients), evaluation start within 6 months (among referred patients), and waitlisting (among all evaluated patients) by attributed cause of ESKD (type 1 diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, glomerulonephritis, cystic disease, and other).

Results

Overall, women (vs. men) with type 2 diabetes-attributed ESKD were 13% (crude hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87 [0.83-0.91]), 14% (crude HR: 0.86 [0.81-0.91]), and 14% (crude HR: 0.86 [0.78-0.94]) less likely to be referred, evaluated, and waitlisted, respectively. Women (vs. men) with hypertension-attributed ESKD were 14% (crude HR: 0.86 [0.82-0.90]) and 8% (crude HR: 0.92 [0.87-0.98]) less likely to be referred and evaluated, respectively, but similarly likely to be waitlisted once evaluated (crude HR: 1.06 [0.97-1.15]). For all other attributed causes of ESKD, there was no sex/gender disparity in referral, evaluation, or waitlisting rates.

Conclusion

In the Southeast United States, sex/gender disparities in early access to kidney transplantation are specific to people with ESKD attributed to type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

Race, Age, and Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Among Patients Receiving Incident Dialysis in the United States

Rationale & Objective

Patients with kidney failure from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to the transplant waitlist relative to White and younger patients. Although racial disparities in the waitlisting group have declined after the 2014 kidney allocation system change, whether there is intersectionality of race and age in waitlisting access is unknown.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting & Participants

439,455 non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black US adults initiating dialysis between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the United States Renal Data System, and followed through 2020.

Exposures

Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black) and age group (18-29, 30-49, 50-64, and 65-80 years).

Outcomes

Placement on the United Network for Organ Sharing deceased donor waitlist.

Analytical Approach

Age- and race-stratified waitlisting rates were compared. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, censored for death, examined the association between race and waitlisting, and included interaction term for race and age.

Results

Over a median follow-up period of 1 year, the proportion of non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients waitlisted was 20.7% and 20.5%, respectively. In multivariable models, non-Hispanic Black patients were 14% less likely to be waitlisted (aHR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Relative differences between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients were different by age group. Non-Hispanic Black patients were 27%, 12%, and 20% less likely to be waitlisted than non-Hispanic White patients for ages 18-29 years (aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86), 50-64 (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98), and 65-80 years (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), respectively, but differences were attenuated among patients aged 30-49 years (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.02).

Limitations

Race and ethnicity data is physician reported, residual confounding, and analysis is limited to non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients.

Conclusions

Racial disparities in waitlisting exist between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals and are most pronounced among younger patients with kidney failure. Results suggest that interventions to address inequalities in waitlisting may need to be targeted to younger patients with kidney failure.

Plain-Language Summary

Research has shown that patients from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to transplant waitlisting relative to White and younger patients; nevertheless, how age impacts racial disparities in waitlisting is unknown. We compared waitlisting between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients with incident kidney failure, within age strata, using registry data for 439,455 US adults starting dialysis (18-80 years) during 2015-2019. Overall, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to be waitlisted and relative differences between the two racial groups differed by age. After adjusting for patient-level factors, the largest disparity in waitlisting was observed among adults aged 18-29 years. These results suggest that interventions should target younger adults to reduce disparities in access to kidney transplant waitlisting.

Identifying and understanding variation in population-based access to liver transplantation in the United States

We aimed to identify variations in liver transplant access across transplant referral regions (TRRs), accounting for differences in population characteristics and practice environments. Adult end-stage liver disease (ESLD) deaths and liver waitlist additions from 2015 to 2019 were included. The primary outcome was listing-to-death ratio (LDR). We modeled the LDR as a continuous variable and obtained adjusted LDR estimates for each TRR, accounting for clinical and demographic characteristics of ESLD decedents, socioeconomic and health care environment within the TRR, and characteristics of the transplant environment. The overall mean LDR was 0.24 (range: 0.10-0.53). In the final model, proportion of patients living in poverty and concentrated poverty was negatively associated with LDR; organ donation rate was positively associated with LDR. The R2 was 0.60, indicating that 60% of the variability in LDR was explained by the model. Approximately 40% of this variation remained unexplained and may be due to transplant center behaviors amenable to intervention to improve access to care for patients with ESLD.

Delayed referral for liver transplant evaluation worsens outcomes in chronic liver disease patients requiring inpatient transplant evaluation

BACKGROUND

Indications to refer patients with cirrhosis for liver transplant evaluation (LTE) include hepatic decompensation or a model for end stage liver disease (MELD-Na) score ≥ 15. Few studies have evaluated how delaying referral beyond these criteria affects patient outcomes.

AIM

To evaluate clinical characteristics of patients undergoing inpatient LTE and to assess the effects of delayed LTE on patient outcomes (death, transplantation).

METHODS

This is a single center retrospective cohort study assessing all patients undergoing inpatient LTE (n = 159) at a large quaternary care and liver transplant center between 10/23/2017-7/31/2021. Delayed referral was defined as having prior indication (decompensation, MELD-Na ≥ 15) for LTE without referral. Early referral was defined as referrals made within 3 mo of having an indication based on practice guidelines. Logistic regression and Cox Hazard Regression were used to evaluate the relationship between delayed referral and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Many patients who require expedited inpatient LTE had delayed referrals. Misconceptions regarding transplant candidacy were a leading cause of delayed referral. Ultimately, delayed referrals negatively affected overall patient outcome and an independent predictor of both death and not receiving a transplant. Delayed referral was associated with a 2.5 hazard risk of death.

CONCLUSION

Beyond initial access to an liver transplant (LT) center, delaying LTE increases risk of death and reduces risk of LT in patients with chronic liver disease. There is substantial opportunity to increase the percentage of patients undergoing LTE when first clinically indicated. It is crucial for providers to remain informed about the latest guidelines on liver transplant candidacy and the transplant referral process.

Ethics of allocation of donor organs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is no widely accepted single ethical principle for the fair allocation of scarce donor organs for transplantation. Although most allocation systems use combinations of allocation principles, there is a particular tension between 'prioritizing the worst-off' and 'maximizing total benefits'. It is often suggested that empirical research on public preferences should help solve the dilemma between equity and efficiency in allocation policy-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review shows that the evidence on public preferences for allocation principles is limited, and that the normative role of public preferences in donor organ allocation policy making is unclear. The review seeks to clarify the ethical dilemma to the transplant community, and draws attention to recent attempts at balancing and rank-ordering of allocation principles.

SUMMARY

This review suggests that policy makers should make explicit the relative weights attributed to equity and efficiency considerations in allocation policies, and monitor the effects of policy changes on important ethics outcomes, including equitable access among patient groups. Also, it draws attention to wider justice issues associated not with the distribution of donor organs among patients on waiting lists, but with barriers in referral for transplant evaluation and disparities among patient groups in access to waiting lists.