Perpetuating Disparity: Failure of the Kidney Transplant System to Provide the Most Kidney Transplants to Communities With the Greatest Need

Geospatial Modeling Methods in Epidemiological Kidney Research: An Overview and Practical Example

Geospatial modeling methods in population-level kidney research have not been used to full potential because few studies have completed associative spatial analyses between risk factors and exposures and kidney conditions and outcomes. Spatial modeling has several advantages over traditional modeling, including improved estimation of statistical variation and more accurate and unbiased estimation of coefficient effect direction or magnitudes by accounting for spatial data structure. Because most population-level kidney research data are geographically referenced, there is a need for better understanding of geospatial modeling for evaluating associations of individual geolocation with processes of care and clinical outcomes. In this review, we describe common spatial models, provide details to execute these analyses, and perform a case-study to display how results differ when integrating geographic structure. In our case-study, we used U.S. nationwide 2019 chronic kidney disease (CKD) data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Kidney Disease Surveillance System and 2006 to 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency environmental quality index (EQI) data and fit a nonspatial count model along with global spatial models (spatially lagged model [SLM]/pseudo-spatial error model [PSEM]) and a local spatial model (geographically weighted quasi-Poisson regression [GWQPR]). We found the SLM, PSEM, and GWQPR improved model fit in comparison to the nonspatial regression, and the PSEM model decreased the positive relationship between EQI and CKD prevalence. The GWQPR also revealed spatial heterogeneity in the EQI-CKD relationship. To summarize, spatial modeling has promise as a clinical and public health translational tool, and our case-study example is an exhibition of how these analyses may be performed to improve the accuracy and utility of findings.

A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study on Management Protocols and Clinical Outcomes After ABO-incompatible Kidney Transplantation in India

BACKGROUND

There is no robust evidence-based data for ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation (ABOiKT) from emerging countries.

METHODS

Data from 1759 living donor ABOiKT and 33 157 ABO-compatible kidney transplantations (ABOcKT) performed in India between March 5, 2011, and July 2, 2022, were included in this retrospective, multicenter (n = 25) study. The primary outcomes included management protocols, mortality, graft loss, and biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR).

RESULTS

Protocol included rituximab 100 (232 [13.18%]), 200 (877 [49.85%]), and 500 mg (569 [32.34%]); immunoadsorption (IA) (145 [8.24%]), IVIG (663 [37.69%]), and no induction 200 (11.37%). Mortality, graft loss, and BPAR were reported in 167 (9.49%), 136 (7.73%), and 228 (12.96%) patients, respectively, over a median follow-up of 36.3 mo. In cox proportional hazard model, mortality was higher with IA (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.53 [1.62-3.97]; P  < 0.001), BPAR (HR: 1.83 [1.25-2.69]; P  = 0.0020), and graft loss (HR: 1.66 [1.05-2.64]; P  = 0.0310); improved graft survival was associated with IVIG (HR: 0.44 [0.26-0.72]; P  = 0.0010); higher BPAR was reported with conventional tube method (HR: 3.22 [1.9-5.46]; P  < 0.0001) and IA use (HR: 2 [1.37-2.92]; P  < 0.0001), whereas lower BPAR was reported in the prepandemic era (HR: 0.61 [0.43-0.88]; P  = 0.008). Primary outcomes were not associated with rituximab dosing or high preconditioning/presurgery anti-A/anti-B titers. Incidence of overall infection 306 (17.39%), cytomegalovirus 66 (3.75%), and BK virus polyoma virus 20 (1.13%) was low. In unmatched univariate analysis, the outcomes between ABOiKT and ABOcKT were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our largest multicenter study on ABOiKT provides insights into various protocols and management strategies with results comparable to those of ABOcKT.

Mitigating Health Disparities in Transplantation Requires Equity, Not Equality

Despite decades of research and evidence-based mitigation strategies, disparities in access to transplantation persist for all organ types and in all stages of the transplant process. Although some strategies have shown promise for alleviating disparities, others have fallen short of the equity goal by providing the same tools and resources to all rather than tailoring the tools and resources to one's circumstances. Innovative solutions that engage all stakeholders are needed to achieve equity regardless of race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, or geography. Mitigation of disparities is paramount to ensure fair and equitable access for those with end-stage disease and to preserve the trust of the public, upon whom we rely for their willingness to donate organs. In this overview, we present a summary of recent literature demonstrating persistent disparities by stage in the transplant process, along with policies and interventions that have been implemented to combat these disparities and hypotheses for why some strategies have been more effective than others. We conclude with future directions that have been proposed by experts in the field and how these suggested strategies may help us finally arrive at equity in transplantation.