Short Report: Race and Ethnicity Misclassification in Kidney Transplantation Research

Components of Residential Neighborhood Deprivation and Their Impact on the Likelihood of Live-Donor and Preemptive Kidney Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Adults residing in deprived neighborhoods face various socioeconomic stressors, hindering their likelihood of receiving live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and preemptive kidney transplantation (KT). We quantified the association between residential neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) and the likelihood of LDKT/preemptive KT, testing for a differential impact by race and ethnicity.

METHODS

We studied 403 937 adults (age ≥ 18) KT candidates (national transplant registry; 2006-2021). NDI and its 10 components were averaged at the ZIP-code level. Cause-specific hazards models were used to quantify the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of LDKT and preemptive KT across tertiles of NDI and its 10 components.

RESULTS

Candidates residing in high-deprivation neighborhoods were more likely to be female (40.1% vs. 36.2%) and Black (41.9% vs. 17.7%), and were less likely to receive both LDKT (aHR = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.67) and preemptive KT (aHR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.59-0.62) than those in low-deprivation neighborhoods. These associations differedby race and ethnicity (Black: aHRLDKT = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55-0.62; aHRpreemptive KT = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.63-0.73; Pinteractions: LDKT < 0.001; Preemptive KT = 0.002). All deprivation components were associated with the likelihood of both LDKT and preemptive KT (except median home value): for example, higher median household income (LDKT: aHR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.07-1.09; Preemptive KT: aHR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11) and educational attainments (≥high school [LDKT: aHR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.18; Preemptive KT: aHR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.21-1.25]).

CONCLUSION

Residence in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods is associated with a lower likelihood of LDKT and preemptive KT, differentially impacting minority candidates. Identifying and understanding which neighborhood-level socioeconomic status contributes to these racial disparities can be instrumental in tailoring interventions to achieve health equity in LDKT and preemptive KT.

Differences in Racial and Ethnic Disparities Between First and Repeat Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest patients with graft failure had better access to repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) than transplant-naive dialysis accessing first KT. This was postulated to be because of better familiarity with the transplant process and healthcare system; whether this advantage is equitably distributed is not known. We compared the magnitude of racial/ethnic disparities in access to re-KT versus first KT.

METHODS

Using United States Renal Data System, we identified 104 454 White, Black, and Hispanic patients with a history of graft failure from 1995 to 2018, and 2 357 753 transplant-naive dialysis patients. We used adjusted Cox regression to estimate disparities in access to first and re-KT and whether the magnitude of these disparities differed between first and re-KT using a Wald test.

RESULTS

Black patients had inferior access to both waitlisting and receiving first KT and re-KT. However, the racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.80) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.64) was greater than the racial/ethnic disparities in first KT (waitlisting: aHR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93; Pinteraction = 0.001; KT: aHR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64-0.72; Pinteraction < 0.001). For Hispanic patients, ethnic disparities in waitlisting for re-KT (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) were greater than for first KT (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.16; Pinteraction < 0.001). However, the disparity in receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80) was similar to that for first KT (aHR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79; Pinteraction = 0.55). Inferences were similar when restricting the cohorts to the Kidney Allocation System era.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike White patients, Black and Hispanic patients with graft failure do not experience improved access to re-KT. This suggests that structural and systemic barriers likely persist for racialized patients accessing re-KT, and systemic changes are needed to achieve transplant equity.

Neighborhood Segregation and Access to Live Donor Kidney Transplantation

Importance

Identifying the mechanisms of structural racism, such as racial and ethnic segregation, is a crucial first step in addressing the persistent disparities in access to live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

Objective

To assess whether segregation at the candidate's residential neighborhood and transplant center neighborhood is associated with access to LDKT.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study spanning January 1995 to December 2021, participants included non-Hispanic Black or White adult candidates for first-time LDKT reported in the US national transplant registry. The median (IQR) follow-up time for each participant was 1.9 (0.6-3.0) years.

Main Outcome and Measures

Segregation, measured using the Theil H method to calculate segregation tertiles in zip code tabulation areas based on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates, reflects the heterogeneity in neighborhood racial and ethnic composition. To quantify the likelihood of LDKT by neighborhood segregation, cause-specific hazard models were adjusted for individual-level and neighborhood-level factors and included an interaction between segregation tertiles and race.

Results

Among 162 587 candidates for kidney transplant, the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (13.2) years, 65 141 (40.1%) were female, 80 023 (49.2%) were Black, and 82 564 (50.8%) were White. Among Black candidates, living in a high-segregation neighborhood was associated with 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.97]) lower access to LDKT relative to residence in low-segregation neighborhoods; no such association was observed among White candidates (P for interaction = .01). Both Black candidates (AHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-1.00]) and White candidates (AHR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]) listed at transplant centers in high-segregation neighborhoods had lower access to LDKT relative to their counterparts listed at centers in low-segregation neighborhoods (P for interaction = .64). Within high-segregation transplant center neighborhoods, candidates listed at predominantly minority neighborhoods had 17% lower access to LDKT relative to candidates listed at predominantly White neighborhoods (AHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]). Black candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers in predominantly minority neighborhoods had significantly lower likelihood of LDKT relative to White candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers located in predominantly White neighborhoods (65% and 64%, respectively).

Conclusions

Segregated residential and transplant center neighborhoods likely serve as a mechanism of structural racism, contributing to persistent racial disparities in access to LDKT. To promote equitable access, studies should assess targeted interventions (eg, community outreach clinics) to improve support for potential candidates and donors and ultimately mitigate the effects of segregation.

Barriers to Timely Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases

Although eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, including eosinophilic esophagitis, have been described over the past 2 to 3 decades, barriers to diagnosis and treatment are common and compounded by issues related to social determinants of health, race, ethnicity, and access to care. These barriers contribute to delays in diagnosis, resulting in persistent inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract, which can have significant consequences, including fibrostenotic complications in adults, failure to thrive in children, and decreased quality of life in all affected patients. In this commentary, we summarize gaps in knowledge regarding the epidemiology of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, highlight barriers to diagnosis, discuss potential approaches based on best practices in other atopic and chronic gastrointestinal diseases, and provide recommendations for reducing barriers to timely diagnosis of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases in underserved populations.

Retaining Race in Chronic Kidney Disease Diagnosis and Treatment

The best overall measure of kidney function is glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as commonly estimated from serum creatinine concentrations (eGFRcr) using formulas that correct for the higher average creatinine concentrations in Blacks. After two decades of use, these formulas have come under scrutiny for estimating GFR differently in Blacks and non-Blacks. Discussions of whether to include race (Black vs. non-Black) in the calculation of eGFRcr fail to acknowledge that the original race-based eGFRcr provided the same CKD treatment recommendations for Blacks and non-Blacks based on directly (exogenously) measured GFR. Nevertheless, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease removed race in CKD treatment guidelines and pushed for the immediate adoption of a race-free eGFRcr formula by physicians and clinical laboratories. This formula is projected to negate CKD in 5.51 million White and other non-Black adults and reclassify CKD to less severe stages in another 4.59 million non-Blacks, in order to expand treatment eligibility to 434,000 Blacks not previously diagnosed and to 584,000 Blacks previously diagnosed with less severe CKD. This review examines: 1) the validity of the arguments for removing the original race correction, and 2) the performance of the proposed replacement formula. Excluding race in the derivation of eGFRcr changed the statistical bias from +3.7 to -3.6 ml/min/1.73m2 in Blacks and from +0.5 to +3.9 in non-Blacks, i.e., promoting CKD diagnosis in Blacks at the cost of restricting diagnosis in non-Blacks. By doing so, the revised eGFRcr greatly exaggerates the purported racial disparity in CKD burden. Claims that the revised formulas identify heretofore undiagnosed CKD in Blacks are not supported when studies that used kidney failure replacement therapy and mortality are interpreted as proxies for baseline CKD. Alternatively, a race-stratified eGFRcr (i.e., separate equations for Blacks and non-Blacks) would provide the least biased eGFRcr for both Blacks and non-Blacks and the best medical treatment for all patients.

Blind Spots: Biases in Prehospital Race and Ethnicity Recording

OBJECTIVE

Inequities have been described in areas of prehospital care ranging from pain medication administration and scene time, to stroke and cardiac arrest management. Though a critical element in understanding inequity, race and ethnicity information are often missing from the prehospital patient care report. This study aimed to characterize and understand demographic trends among records with missing race and ethnicity information.

METHODS

This before-and-after retrospective review compared patient care reports prior to and after an intervention that mandated the recording of patient race and ethnicity. Records with incomplete race and ethnicity information in the before group were evaluated to understand demographic patterns associated with this incomplete documentation.

RESULTS

Among 98,725 patient care reports, race/ethnicity in the before period as compared to the after period was less likely to be documented in nonwhite patients (p < 0.001), younger patients (p < 0.001), male patients (p < 0.001), and non-emergent transports (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to data after the implementation of mandated race and ethnicity fields, missing race and ethnicity data were found to be more common in patients of color, younger patients, males, and those transported non-emergently. Inconsistent completion of race and ethnicity documentation may lead to a poor understanding of equity issues within a system, suggesting a need for mandatory race and ethnicity fields.