Access to liver transplantation for minority populations in the United States

Liver Transplant Costs and Activity After United Network for Organ Sharing Allocation Policy Changes

Importance

A new liver allocation policy was implemented by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in February 2020 with the stated intent of improving access to liver transplant (LT). There are growing concerns nationally regarding the implications this new system may have on LT costs, as well as access to a chance for LT, which have not been captured at a multicenter level.

Objective

To characterize LT volume and cost changes across the US and within specific center groups and demographics after the policy implementation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study collected and reviewed LT volume from multiple centers across the US and cost data with attention to 8 specific center demographics. Two separate 12-month eras were compared, before and after the new UNOS allocation policy: March 4, 2019, to March 4, 2020, and March 5, 2020, to March 5, 2021. Data analysis was performed from May to December 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Center volume, changes in cost.

Results

A total of 22 of 68 centers responded comparing 1948 LTs before the policy change and 1837 LTs postpolicy, resulting in a 6% volume decrease. Transplants using local donations after brain death decreased 54% (P < .001) while imported donations after brain death increased 133% (P = .003). Imported fly-outs and dry runs increased 163% (median, 19; range, 1-75, vs 50, range, 2-91; P = .009) and 33% (median, 3; range, 0-16, vs 7, range, 0-24; P = .02). Overall hospital costs increased 10.9% to a total of $46 360 176 (P = .94) for participating centers. There was a 77% fly-out cost increase postpolicy ($10 600 234; P = .03). On subanalysis, centers with decreased LT volume postpolicy observed higher overall hospital costs ($41 720 365; P = .048), and specifically, a 122% cost increase for liver imports ($6 508 480; P = .002). Transplant centers from low-income states showed a significant increase in hospital (12%) and import (94%) costs. Centers serving populations with larger proportions of racial and ethnic minority candidates and specifically Black candidates significantly increased costs by more than 90% for imported livers, fly-outs, and dry runs despite lower LT volume. Similarly, costs increased significantly (>100%) for fly-outs and dry runs in centers from worse-performing health systems.

Conclusions and Relevance

Based on this large multicenter effort and contrary to current assumptions, the new liver distribution system appears to place a disproportionate burden on populations of the current LT community who already experience disparities in health care. The continuous allocation policies being promoted by UNOS could make the situation even worse.

Xenotransplantation could either be a friend or foe of healthcare equity

Chisholm-Burns et al. discuss the substantial shortage of organs available for transplantation, with disparities in access amongst some racial and ethnic groups. The authors suggest that while xenotransplantation can potentially increase organ availability, it also has the potential to further embed inequities in transplant care.

Disparities in outcomes and access to therapy options in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) disproportionately impacts racial and ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. These social determinants of health (SDH) lead to disparities in access to care and outcomes. We aim to understand the relationship between SDH and survival and locoregional treatment options in HCC.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated survival and access locoregional treatments including non-transplant surgery, liver transplant (LT), and liver-directed radiation therapy (LDRT) in patients with HCC diagnosed between 2004 and 2017. Variables including clinical stage, age, sex, race, income, rurality, year of diagnosis, facility type (FT), Charlson-Deyo score (CD), and insurance were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression and dominance analyses were used for analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 140 340 patients were included. Worse survival was seen with advanced stage, older age, Black race, rurality, public insurance, treatment at a nonacademic center, and lower income. The top predictors for survival included stage, age, and income. Completion of non-transplant surgery was best predicted by stage, FT, and insurance type, whereas LT was predicted by age, year of diagnosis, and CD score. LDRT utilization was most associated with year of diagnosis, FT, and CD score.

CONCLUSION

For patients with HCC, survival was predicted primarily by stage, age, and income. The primary sociodemographic factors associated with access to surgical treatments, in addition to FT, were insurance and income, highlighting the financial burdens of health care. Work is needed to address disparities in access to care, including improved insurance access, addressing financial inequities and financial toxicities of treatments, and equalizing care opportunities in community centers.

African American race does not confer an increased risk of clinical events in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis

BACKGROUND

The natural history of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) among African Americans (AA) is not well understood.

METHODS

Transplant-free survival and hepatic decompensation-free survival were assessed using a retrospective research registry from 16 centers throughout North America. Patients with PSC alive without liver transplantation after 2008 were included. Diagnostic delay was defined from the first abnormal liver test to the first abnormal cholangiogram/liver biopsy. Socioeconomic status was imputed by the Zip code.

RESULTS

Among 850 patients, 661 (77.8%) were non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs), and 85 (10.0%) were AA. There were no significant differences by race in age at diagnosis, sex, or PSC type. Inflammatory bowel disease was more common in NHWs (75.8% vs. 51.8% p=0.0001). The baseline (median, IQR) Amsterdam-Oxford Model score was lower in NHWs (14.3, 13.4-15.2 vs. 15.1, 14.1-15.7, p=0.002), but Mayo risk score (0.03, -0.8 to 1.1 vs. 0.02, -0.7 to 1.0, p=0.83), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (5.9, 2.8-10.7 vs. 6.4, 2.6-10.4, p=0.95), and cirrhosis (27.4% vs. 27.1%, p=0.95) did not differ. Race was not associated with hepatic decompensation, and after adjusting for clinical variables, neither race nor socioeconomic status was associated with transplant-free survival. Variables independently associated with death/liver transplant (HR, 95% CI) included age at diagnosis (1.04, 1.02-1.06, p<0.0001), total bilirubin (1.06, 1.04-1.08, p<0.0001), and albumin (0.44, 0.33-0.61, p<0.0001). AA race did not affect the performance of prognostic models.

CONCLUSIONS

AA patients with PSC have a lower rate of inflammatory bowel disease but similar progression to hepatic decompensation and liver transplant/death compared to NHWs.

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.

Geospatial Analysis of Organ Transplant Referral Regions

IMPORTANCE

System and center-level interventions to improve health equity in organ transplantation benefit from robust characterization of the referral population served by each transplant center. Transplant referral regions (TRRs) define geographic catchment areas for transplant centers in the US, but accurately characterizing the demographics of populations within TRRs using US Census data poses a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 2 methods of linking US Census data with TRRs-a geospatial intersection method and a zip code cross-reference method.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study compared spatial congruence of spatial intersection and zip code cross-reference methods of characterizing TRRs at the census block level. Data included adults aged 18 years and older on the waiting list for kidney transplant from 2008 through 2018.

EXPOSURES

End-stage kidney disease.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multiple assignments, where a census tract or block group crossed the boundary between 2 hospital referral regions and was assigned to multiple different TRRs; misassigned area, the portion of census tracts or block groups assigned to a TRR using either method but fall outside of the TRR boundary.

RESULTS

In total, 102 TRRs were defined for 238 transplant centers. The zip code cross-reference method resulted in 4627 multiple-assigned census block groups (representing 18% of US land area assigned to TRRs), while the spatial intersection method eliminated this problem. Furthermore, the spatial method resulted in a mean and median reduction in misassigned area of 65% and 83% across all TRRs, respectively, compared with the zip code cross-reference method.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, characterizing populations within TRRs with census block groups provided high spatial resolution, complete coverage of the country, and balanced population counts. A spatial intersection approach avoided errors due to duplicative and incorrect assignments, and allowed more detailed and accurate characterization of the sociodemographics of populations within TRRs; this approach can enrich transplant center knowledge of local referral populations, assist researchers in understanding how social determinants of health may factor into access to transplant, and inform interventions to improve heath equity.

Editorial: Disparities in transplantation access and outcomes: mind the gap!

Organ transplantation still remains a problem of supply and demand and presents multiple ethical challenges to our society. Despite numerous targeted interventions and policy reforms, women, underrepresented minorities and patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) continue to have unequal access to transplant. The purpose of this special edition is to highlight disparities in access to transplantation and posttransplant outcomes. Acknowledging that these disparities exist is the first step toward interventions aimed at mitigating this long-standing inequity. This issue provides 10 articles that give the background and summarize relevant literature describing these disparities and identify potential areas of intervention. Most of the data relates to the United States but may reflect patterns encounter in most societies. Each manuscript was written by leaders of international teams in the field of patient advocacy, public health or outcome research in transplantation.