Patient Perspectives on the Use of Frailty, Cognitive Function, and Age in Kidney Transplant Evaluation

Patient Perspectives on the Use of Aging Metrics for Kidney Transplant Decision-Making

INTRODUCTION

Frailty and cognitive function are often measured during kidney transplant evaluation. However, patient perspectives on the ethical considerations of this practice are unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are patient perspectives on the use of aging metrics in kidney transplant decision-making?

DESIGN

One hundred participants who were evaluated for kidney transplantation and were enrolled in an ongoing prospective cohort study (response rate = 61.3%) were surveyed. Participants were informed of the definitions of frailty and cognitive impairment and then asked survey questions regarding the use of these measures of aging to determine kidney transplant candidacy.

RESULTS

Participants (75.6%) thought it was unfair to prevent older adults from receiving a kidney transplant based on age, but there was less agreement on whether it was fair to deny frail (46.5%) and cognitively impaired (45.9%) patients from accessing kidney transplantation. Compared to older participants, younger participants had 5.36-times (95%CI:1.94-14.81) the odds of choosing a hypothetical younger, frail patient to list for kidney transplantation than an older, non-frail patient; they also had 3.56-times (95%CI:1.33-9.56) the odds of choosing the hypothetical frail patient with social support rather than a non-frail patient without social support. Participants disagreed on the use of patient age as a listing criterion; 19.5% ranked it as the fairest and 28.7% as the least fair.

CONCLUSION

The patient views highlighted in this study are an important step toward developing ethical guidelines to ensure fair use of frailty, cognitive function, and chronological age for kidney transplant decision-making.

Medical Distrust Among Kidney Transplant Candidates

BACKGROUND

Medical distrust may hinder kidney transplantation (KT) access. Among KT candidates evaluated for waitlisting, we identified factors associated with high distrust levels and quantified their association with waitlisting.

METHODS

Among 812 candidates (2018-2023), we assessed distrust using the Revised Health Care System Distrust Scale across composite, competence, and values subscales. We used linear regression to quantify the associations between candidate and neighborhood-level factors and distrust scores. We used Cox models to quantify the associations between distrust scores and waitlisting.

RESULTS

At KT evaluation, candidates who were aged 35-49 years (difference = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.78-3.16), female (difference = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.23-1.97), and Black (difference = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.47-2.47) were more likely to report higher composite distrust score. For subscales, candidates aged 35-49 were more likely to have higher competence distrust score (difference = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.59-1.68) and values distrust score (difference = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.05-1.61). Race/ethnicity (Black, difference = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.76-2.07; Hispanic, difference = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.35-2.69) was only associated with higher values distrust scores. Female candidates reporting higher rescaled values distrust scores (each one point) had a lower chance of waitlisting (aHR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.98), whereas this association was not observed among males. Similarly, among non-White candidates, each 1-point increase in both rescaled composite (aHR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.99) and values (aHR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99) distrust scores was associated with a lower chance of waitlisting, while there was no association among White candidates.

CONCLUSION

Female, younger, and non-White candidates reported higher distrust scores. Values distrust may contribute to the long-standing racial/ethnic and gender disparities in access to KT. Implementing tailored strategies to reduce distrust in transplant care may improve KT access for groups that experience persistent disparities.

Unmet Questions About Frailty in Kidney Transplant Candidates

Frailty occurs frequently among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, especially among women. Assessing frailty in kidney transplant (KT) candidates is crucial for informing them about associated risks. However, there is poor agreement between frailty scales and research on their correlation with transplant outcomes. Being prefrail significantly impacts both graft and patient survival, often beginning with just 1 Fried criterion. Rather than viewing frailty as a categorical state, it should be regarded as a spectrum ranging from 1 to 5 criteria, with the risk of adverse outcomes escalating as frailty worsens. Frailty status fluctuates during the waiting period for KT; hence, a 1-time frailty evaluation is insufficient to determine risks and implement strategies for improving functional status. Further research should investigate the components of frailty that most frequently change during this waiting period and establish strategies to prevent or reverse frailty. Although careful evaluation of frail KT candidates is necessary to prevent early complications and mortality, exclusion based solely on a frailty score is unwarranted. Instead, efforts should focus on timely interventions to enhance their condition before transplantation. Although evidence is limited, exercise programs appear feasible and yield positive results. A pretransplant clinical framework encompassing multimodal prehabilitation-comprising physical therapy, nutritional measures, and psychological support-during the waiting list period may help alleviate the effects of frailty and poor fitness after KT, ultimately improving key outcomes. Despite logistical challenges, there is a pressing need for interventional trials in this area.

Age Disparities in Access to First and Repeat Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that older patients are less frequently placed on the waiting list for kidney transplantation (KT) than their younger counterparts. The trends and magnitude of this age disparity in access to first KT and repeat KT (re-KT) remain unclear.

METHODS

Using the US Renal Data System, we identified 2 496 743 adult transplant-naive dialysis patients and 110 338 adult recipients with graft failure between 1995 and 2018. We characterized the secular trends of age disparities and used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the chances of listing and receiving first KT versus re-KT by age (18-64 y versus ≥65 y).

RESULTS

Older transplant-naive dialysis patients were less likely to be listed (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.18) and receive first KT (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.87-0.89) compared with their younger counterparts. Additionally, older patients with graft failure had a lower chance of being listed (aHR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.38-0.41) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81). The magnitude of the age disparity in being listed for first KT was greater than that for re-KT ( Pinteraction  < 0.001), and there were no differences in the age disparities in receiving first KT or re-KT ( Pinteraction  = 0.13). Between 1995 and 2018, the age disparity in listing for first KT reduced significantly ( P  < 0.001), but the age disparities in re-KT remained the same ( P  = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Age disparities exist in access to both first KT and re-KT; however, some of this disparity is attenuated among older adults with graft failure. As the proportion of older patients with graft failure rises, a better understanding of factors that preclude their candidacy and identification of appropriate older patients are needed.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment predicts listing for kidney transplant in patients with end-stage renal disease: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) involves a formal broad approach to assess frailty and creating a plan for management. However, the impact of CGA and its components on listing for kidney transplant in older adults has not been investigated.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective study of patients with end-stage renal disease who underwent CGA during kidney transplant candidacy evaluation between 2017 and 2021. All patients ≥ 65 years old and those under 65 with any team member concern for frailty were referred for CGA, which included measurements of healthcare utilization, comorbidities, social support, short physical performance battery, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Physical Frailty Phenotype (FPP), and estimate of surgical risk by the geriatrician.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty patients underwent baseline CGA evaluation; 58.7% (135) had high CGA ("Excellent" or "Good" rating for transplant candidacy) and 41.3% (95) had low CGA ratings ("Borderline," "Fair," or "Poor"). High CGA rating (OR 8.46; p < 0.05), greater number of CGA visits (OR 4.93; p = 0.05), younger age (OR 0.88; p < 0.05), higher MoCA scores (OR 1.17; p < 0.05), and high physical activity (OR 4.41; p < 0.05) were all associated with listing on transplant waitlist.

CONCLUSIONS

The CGA is a useful, comprehensive tool to help select older adults for kidney transplantation. Further study is needed to better understand the predictive value of CGA in predicting post-operative outcomes.

Frailty assessment as part of transplant listing: yes, no or maybe?

Frailty, characterized by a decreased physiological reserve and an increased vulnerability to stressors, is common among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. In this review, we present and summarize the key arguments for and against the assessment of frailty as part of KT evaluation. The key arguments for including frailty were: (i) sheer prevalence and far-reaching consequences of frailty on KT, and (ii) the ability to conduct a more holistic and objective evaluation of candidates, removing the inaccuracy associated with 'eye-ball' assessments of transplant fitness. The key argument against were: (i) lack of agreement on the definition of frailty and which tools should be used in renal populations, (ii) a lack of clarity on how, by whom and how often frailty assessments should be performed, and (iii) a poor understanding of how acute stressors affect frailty. However, it is the overwhelming opinion that the time has come for frailty assessments to be incorporated into KT listing. Although ongoing areas of uncertainty exist and further evidence development is needed, the well-established impact of frailty on clinical and experiential outcomes, the invaluable information obtained from frailty assessments, and the potential for intervention outweigh these limitations. Proactive and early identification of frailty allows for individualized and improved risk assessment, communication and optimization of candidates.