Access to liver transplantation for minority populations in the United States

Health disparities in cirrhosis care and liver transplantation

Morbidity and mortality from cirrhosis are substantial and increasing. Health disparities in cirrhosis and liver transplantation are reflective of inequities along the entire spectrum of chronic liver disease care, from screening and diagnosis to prevention and treatment of liver-related complications. The key populations experiencing disparities in health status and healthcare delivery include racial and ethnic minority groups, sexual and gender minorities, people of lower socioeconomic status and underserved rural communities. These disparities lead to delayed diagnosis of chronic liver disease and complications of cirrhosis (for example, hepatocellular carcinoma), to differences in treatment of chronic liver disease and its complications, and ultimately to unequal access to transplantation for those with end-stage liver disease. Calling out these disparities is only the first step towards implementing solutions that can improve health equity and clinical outcomes for everyone. Multi-level interventions along the care continuum for chronic liver disease are needed to mitigate these disparities and provide equitable access to care.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Liver Transplantation and Post-Liver Transplant Survival Among Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis and overall outcomes for HCC are well known. We present updated real-world data on racial or ethnic differences in LT and post-LT survival among patients with HCC in a large population-based database.

METHODS

We used the TriNetX database to retrospectively identify patients who had HCC (ICD-10 C22.0, C22.8) and underwent LT (CPT codes 47,135, 47,140, 47,140, 47,141, 47,142) from 2012 to 2022 and compared outcomes across racial and ethnic subgroups.

RESULTS

Majority of the patients were Caucasians (2403/2901, 84.8%), followed by African Americans (267/2901, 9.2%) Hispanic/Asian (231/2901, 7.9%). At follow up of 5 years, we noted no significant difference in mortality between AA and Caucasian patients [HR = 1.087 (95% CI 0.76, 1.56, p = 0.59)] as well as Hispanic/Asian and Caucasian patients [HR = 1.14 (95% CI 0.73, 1.78, p = 0.10)].

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that stringent implementation of policies aimed at ensuring equitable access to LT may contribute to bridging disparities in overall outcomes in HCC.

Acceptable outcomes of liver transplantation in uninsured patients under the coverage of a state assistance program

The lack of health insurance is a major barrier to access to health care, even in the case of life-saving procedures such as liver transplantation (LT). Concerns about worse outcomes in uninsured patients have also discouraged the evaluation and transplantation of patients without adequate health insurance coverage. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes from the largest cohort of uninsured patients who underwent LT with the support of a state payment assistance program (also called charity care). This study included all consecutive patients who underwent LT at a single center from 2002 to 2020. Demographic, clinical, and social variables and outcome metrics were collected and compared between insured and uninsured patients. Among a total of 978 LT recipients, 594 had private insurance, 324 government insurance (Medicare/Medicaid), and 60 were uninsured and covered under a state charity care program. In the charity care group, there was a higher proportion of Hispanic subjects, single marital status, younger age, and high-MELD score patients. The 1- and 3-year patient survival rates were 89.0% and 81.8% in private insurance patients, 88.8% and 80.1% in government insurance recipients, and 93.3% and 79.6% in those with charity care ( p =0.49). There was no difference in graft survival between insured and uninsured patients ( p =0.62). The 3 insurance groups presented similar hospital length-of-stay and 30-day readmission rates. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, uninsured status (charity care) was not associated with worse patient survival (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.84-1.80, p =0.29) or graft survival (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.84-1.78, p =0.29). In conclusion, there was no difference in outcomes after LT between insured and uninsured patients. A charity care program may be an effective tool to mitigate socioeconomic disparities in both outcomes and access to LT.

Barriers to liver transplant referral in safety net settings: A national provider survey

Safety net systems care for patients with a high burden of liver disease yet experience many barriers to liver transplant (LT) referral. This study aimed to assess safety net providers' perspectives on barriers to LT referrals in the United States. We conducted a nationwide anonymous online survey of self-identified safety net gastroenterologists and hepatologists from March through November 2022. This 27-item survey was disseminated via e-mail, society platforms, and social media. Survey sections included practice characteristics, transplant referral practices, perceived multilevel barriers to referral, potential solutions, and respondent characteristics. Fifty complete surveys were included in analysis. A total of 60.0% of respondents self-identified as White and 54.0% male. A total of 90.0% practiced in an urban setting, 82.0% in tertiary medical centers, and 16.0% in community settings, with all 4 US regions represented. Perceived patient-level barriers ranked as most significant, followed by practice-level, then provider-level barriers. Patient-level barriers such as lack of insurance (72.0%), finances (66.0%), social support (66.0%), and stable housing/transportation (64.0%) were ranked as significant barriers to referral, while medical mistrust and lack of interest were not. Limited access to financial services (36.0%) and addiction/mental health resources (34.0%) were considered important practice-level barriers. Few reported existing access to patient navigators (12.0%), and patient navigation was ranked as most likely to improve referral practices, followed by an expedited/expanded pathway for insurance coverage for LT. In this national survey, safety net providers reported the highest barriers to LT referral at the patient level and practice level. These data can inform the development of multilevel interventions in safety net settings to enhance equity in LT access for vulnerable patients.

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.