The National Landscape of Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up in the United States

Are Differences in Living Kidney Donation Rates a Sex or a Gender Disparity?

Sex-disaggregated data reveal significant disparities in living kidney donation, with more female than male living kidney donors in most countries and proportions over 60% in some countries. We summarize the present state of knowledge with respect to the potential drivers of this disparity and argue that it is primarily driven by gender-related factors. First, we present the differences between sex and gender and then proceed to summarize the potential medical reasons that have been proposed to explain why males are less likely to be living kidney donors than females, such as the higher prevalence of kidney failure in males. We then present counterarguments as to why biological sex differences are not enough to explain lower living kidney donation among males, such as a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease among females, which could affect donation rates. We argue that gender differences likely provide a better explanation as to why there are more women than men living kidney donors and explore the role of economic and social factors, as well as gender roles and expectations, in affecting living kidney donation among both men and women. We conclude with the need for a gender analysis to explain this complex psychosocial phenomenon in living kidney donation.

Long-term Care of Living Kidney Donors Needs a Better Model of Healthcare Delivery

Every year, over 30,000 healthy individuals globally donate a kidney to a patient with kidney failure. These living kidney donors are at higher risk of some medical complications post-donation when compared with matched controls. Although the absolute risk of these complications is low, appropriate long-term care is essential to allow early detection and timely interventions. Some transplant centers follow living donors long-term, but many recommend that donors regularly see a primary care practitioner post-donation. However, primary care is currently not integrated with transplant centers, and the two often work in silos with little to no channels of communication with each other. As this model of care is suboptimal, existing evidence suggests that post-donation care and follow-up are inadequate. We argue for an integrated model of living donor care with stronger continuity and coordination between primary care and transplant centers that are developed with the input of all relevant stakeholders.

Change in Body Mass Index and Attributable Risk of New-Onset Hypertension Among Obese Living Kidney Donors

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether body mass index (BMI) changes modify the association between kidney donation and incident hypertension.

BACKGROUND

Obesity increases hypertension risk in both general and living kidney donor (LKD) populations. Donation-attributable risk in the context of obesity, and whether weight change modifies that risk, is unknown.

METHODS

Nested case-control study among 1558 adult LKDs (1976-2020) with obesity (median follow-up: 3.6 years; interquartile range: 2.0-9.4) and 3783 adults with obesity in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) studies (9.2 y; interquartile range: 5.3-15.8). Hypertension incidence was compared by donor status using conditional logistic regression, with BMI change investigated for effect modification.

RESULTS

Overall, LKDs and nondonors had similar hypertension incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.94-1.43, P =0.16], even after adjusting for BMI change (IRR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.99-1.58, P =0.05). Although LKDs and nondonors who lost >5% BMI had comparable hypertension incidence (IRR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.46-1.34, P =0.36), there was a significant interaction between donor and >5% BMI gain (multiplicative interaction IRR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.15-2.29, P =0.006; relative excess risk due to interaction: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.24-1.56, P =0.007), such that LKDs who gained weight had higher hypertension incidence than similar nondonors (IRR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.32-2.53, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, LKDs and nondonors with obesity had similar hypertension incidence. Weight stability and loss were associated with similar hypertension incidence by donor status. However, LKDs who gained >5% saw increased hypertension incidence versus similar nondonors, providing support for counseling potential LKDs with obesity on weight management postdonation.

The Minnesota attributable risk of kidney donation (MARKD) study: a retrospective cohort study of long-term (> 50 year) outcomes after kidney donation compared to well-matched healthy controls

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the long-term risks of living kidney donation. Well-designed studies with controls well-matched on risk factors for kidney disease are needed to understand the attributable risks of kidney donation.

METHODS

The goal of the Minnesota Attributable Risk of Kidney Donation (MARKD) study is to compare the long-term (> 50 years) outcomes of living donors (LDs) to contemporary and geographically similar controls that are well-matched on health status. University of Minnesota (n = 4022; 1st transplant: 1963) and Mayo Clinic LDs (n = 3035; 1st transplant: 1963) will be matched to Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) controls (approximately 4 controls to 1 donor) on the basis of age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The REP controls are a well-defined population, with detailed medical record data linked between all providers in Olmsted and surrounding counties, that come from the same geographic region and era (early 1960s to present) as the donors. Controls will be carefully selected to have health status acceptable for donation on the index date (date their matched donor donated). Further refinement of the control group will include confirmed kidney health (e.g., normal serum creatinine and/or no proteinuria) and matching (on index date) of body mass index, smoking history, family history of chronic kidney disease, and blood pressure. Outcomes will be ascertained from national registries (National Death Index and United States Renal Data System) and a new survey administered to both donors and controls; the data will be supplemented by prior surveys and medical record review of donors and REP controls. The outcomes to be compared are all-cause mortality, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular disease and mortality, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) trajectory and chronic kidney disease, pregnancy risks, and development of diseases that frequently lead to chronic kidney disease (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, and obesity). We will additionally evaluate whether the risk of donation differs based on baseline characteristics.

DISCUSSION

Our study will provide a comprehensive assessment of long-term living donor risk to inform candidate living donors, and to inform the follow-up and care of current living donors.

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up.

METHODS

To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021.

RESULTS

We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Long-Term Outcomes for Living Kidney Donors With Early Guideline-Concordant Follow-up Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Current guidelines recommend that living kidney donors receive lifelong annual follow-up care to monitor kidney health. In the United States, the reporting of complete clinical and laboratory data for kidney donors has been mandated for the first 2 years post-donation; however, the long-term impact of early guideline-concordant care remains unclear.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term post-donation follow-up care and clinical outcomes of living kidney donors with and without early guideline-concordant follow-up care.

Design

Retrospective, population-based cohort study.

Setting

Linked health care databases were used to identify kidney donors in Alberta, Canada.

Patients

Four hundred sixty living kidney donors who underwent nephrectomy between 2002 and 2013.

Measurements

The primary outcome was continued annual follow-up at 5 and 10 years (adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval, _LCLaOR_UCL). Secondary outcomes included mean change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time and rates of all-cause hospitalization.

Methods

We compared long-term follow-up and clinical outcomes for donors with and without early guideline-concordant care, defined as annual physician visit and serum creatinine and albuminuria measurement for the first 2 years post-donation.

Results

Of the 460 donors included in this study, 187 (41%) had clinical and laboratory evidence of guideline-concordant follow-up care throughout the first 2 years post-donation. The odds of receiving annual follow-up for donors without early guideline-concordant care were 76% lower at 5 years (aOR _0.180.24_0.32) and 68% lower at 10 years (aOR _0.230.32_0.46) compared with donors with early care. The odds of continuing follow-up remained stable over time for both groups. Early guideline-concordant follow-up care did not appear to substantially influence eGFR or hospitalization rates over the longer term.

Limitations

We were unable to confirm whether the lack of physician visits or laboratory data in certain donors was due to physician or patient decisions.

Conclusions

Although policies directed toward improving early donor follow-up may encourage continued follow-up, additional strategies may be necessary to mitigate long-term donor risks.

Changing landscape of living kidney donation and the role of telemedicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a decline in living kidney donation over the last two decades. Donors from low-income families or racial/ethnic minorities face greater disproportionate geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to completing lengthy and complex evaluations. This has contributed to the decreased proportion of these subgroups. The authors view telemedicine as a potential solution to this problem.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the initial decline of donors in 2005, biologically related donors have experienced a lack of growth across race/ethnicity. Conversely, unrelated donors have emerged as the majority of donors in recent years across race/ethnicity, except for unrelated black donors. Disparities in access to living kidney donation persist. Telemedicine using live-video visits can overcome barriers to access transplant centers and facilitate care coordination. In a U.S. survey, nephrologists, surgeons, coordinators, social workers, and psychologists/psychologists across transplant centers are favorably disposed to use telemedicine for donor evaluation/follow-up beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, with the waning of relaxed telemedicine regulations under the Public Health Emergency, providers perceive payor policy and out-of-state licensing as major factors hindering telemedicine growth prospects.

SUMMARY

Permanent federal and state policies that support telemedicine services for living kidney donation can enhance access to transplant centers and help overcome barriers to donor evaluation.

Diabetes-free survival among living kidney donors and non-donors with obesity: A longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Approval of living kidney donors (LKD) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) risk factors, such as obesity, has increased. While lifetime ESKD development data are lacking, the study of intermediate outcomes such as diabetes is critical for LKD safety. Donation-attributable diabetes risk among persons with obesity remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 10-year diabetes-free survival among LKDs and non-donors with obesity.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study identified adult, LKDs (1976-2020) from 42 US transplant centers and non-donors from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (1985-1986) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (1987-1989) studies with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. LKDs were matched to non-donors on baseline characteristics (age, sex, race, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) plus diabetes-specific risk factors (family history of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, smoking history). Accelerated failure time models were utilized to evaluate 10-year diabetes-free survival.

FINDINGS

Among 3464 participants, 1119 (32%) were LKDs and 2345 (68%) were non-donors. After matching on baseline characteristics plus diabetes-specific risk factors, 4% (7/165) LKDs and 9% (15/165) non-donors developed diabetes (median follow-up time 8.5 (IQR: 5.6-10.0) and 9.1 (IQR: 5.9-10.0) years, respectively). While not significant, LKDs were estimated to live diabetes-free 2 times longer than non-donors (estimate 1.91; 95% CI: 0.79-4.64, p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

LKDs with obesity trended toward living longer diabetes-free than non-donors with obesity, suggesting within the decade following donation there was no increased diabetes risk among LKDs. Further work is needed to evaluate donation-attributable diabetes risk long-term.

Long-term Medical Outcomes of Living Kidney Donors

Historically, to minimize risks, living kidney donors have been highly selected and healthy. Operative risks are well-defined, yet concern remains about long-term risks. In the general population, even a mild reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is associated with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, reduction in GFR in the general population is due to kidney or systemic disease. Retrospective studies comparing donors with matched general population controls have found no increased donor risk. Prospective studies comparing donors with controls (maximum follow-up, 9 years) have reported that donor GFR is stable or increases slightly, whereas GFR decreases in controls. However, these same studies identified metabolic and vascular donor abnormalities. There are a few retrospective studies comparing donors with controls. Each has limitations in selection of the control group, statistical analyses, and/or length of follow-up. One such study reported increased donor mortality; 2 reported a small increase in absolute risk of ESKD. Risk factors for donor ESKD are similar to those in the general population. Postdonation pregnancies are also associated with increased risk of hypertension and preeclampsia. There is a critical need for long-term follow-up studies comparing donors with controls from the same era, geographic area, and socioeconomic status who are healthy, with normal renal function on the date matching the date of donation, and are matched on demographic characteristics with the donors. These data are needed to optimize donor candidate counseling and informed consent.

Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organ Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Issues

Regenerative medicine has emerged as a novel alternative solution to organ failure which circumvents the issue of organ shortage. In preclinical research settings bio-artificial organs are being developed. It is anticipated that eventually it will be possible to launch first-in-human transplantation trials to test safety and efficacy in human recipients. In early-phase transplantation trials, however, research participants could be exposed to serious risks, such as toxicity, infections and tumorigenesis. So far, there is no ethical guidance for the safe and responsible design and conduct of early-phase clinical trials of bio-artificial organs. Therefore, research ethics review committees will need to look to related adjacent fields of research, including for example cell-based therapy, for guidance. In this systematic review, we examined the literature on early-phase clinical trials in these adjacent fields and undertook a thematic analysis of relevant ethical points to consider for early-phase clinical trials of transplantable bio-artificial organs. Six themes were identified: cell source, risk-benefit assessment, patient selection, trial design, informed consent, and oversight and accountability. Further empirical research is needed to provide insight in patient perspectives, as this may serve as valuable input in determining the conditions for ethically responsible and acceptable early clinical development of bio-artificial organs.

Telemedicine services for living kidney donation: A US survey of multidisciplinary providers

Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers' practices and providers' attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation.

The Role of Registries in Kidney Transplantation Across International Boundaries

Transplant professionals strive to improve domestic kidney transplantation rates safely, cost efficiently, and ethically, but to increase rates further may wish to allow their recipients and donors to traverse international boundaries. Travel for transplantation presents significant challenges to the practice of transplantation medicine and donor medicine, but can be enhanced if sustainable international registries develop to include low- and low-middle income countries. Robust data collection and sharing across registries, linking pretransplant information to post-transplant information, linking donor to recipient information, increasing living donor transplant activity through paired exchange, and ongoing reporting of results to permit flexibility and adaptability to changing clinical environments, will all serve to enhance kidney transplantation across international boundaries.

Current Perspectives in ABO-Incompatible Kidney Transplant

For a long time, ABO incompatible living donor kidney transplantation has been considered contraindicated, due to the presence of isohemagglutinins, natural antibodies reacting with non-self ABO antigens. However, as the demand for kidney transplantation is constantly growing, methods to expand the donor pool have become increasingly important. Thus, in the last decades, specific desensitization strategies for ABOi transplantation have been developed. Nowadays, these regimens consist of transient removal of preformed anti-A or anti-B antibodies by using plasmapheresis or immunoadsorption and B-cell immunity modulation by CD20+ cells depletion with rituximab, in association with maintenance immunosuppression including corticosteroids, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. The outcome in ABOi kidney transplantation have markedly improved over the years. In fact, although randomized trials are still lacking, recent meta analysis has revealed that there is no difference in terms of graft and patient's survival between ABOi and ABO compatible kidney transplant, even in the long term. However, many concerns still exist, because ABOi kidney transplantation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and infectious complications, partly related to the effects of extracorporeal treatments and the strong immunosuppression. Thus, a continuous improvement in desensitization strategies, with the aim of minimize the immunosuppressive burden, on the basis of immune pathogenesis, antibodies titers and/or ABO blood group, is warranted. In this review, we discuss the main immune mechanisms involved in ABOi kidney transplantation, the pathogenesis of tolerance and the desensitization regimens, including immunoadsorption and plasmapheresis and the immunosuppressive protocol. Finally, we provide an overview on outcome and future perspectives in ABOi kidney transplant.

Donor‐reported barriers to living kidney donor follow‐up

BACKGROUND

Despite regulations mandating follow-up laboratory testing for living kidney donors, less than half of transplant centers are in compliance. We sought to understand barriers to follow-up testing from the donors' perspective.

METHODS

We surveyed our center's living kidney donors. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with follow-up testing completion.

RESULTS

Of 185 living kidney donors, 110 (59.4%) participated. Among them, 82 (74.5%) completed 6-month laboratory testing, 76 (69.1%) completed 12-month testing, 68 (61.8%) completed both, and 21 (19.0%) completed neither. Six-month testing completion was strongly associated with 12-month testing completion (OR 9.74, 95%CI: 2.23-42.50; p = .002). Those who disagreed with the statements, "Getting labs checked wasn't a priority for me," (OR for completing 6-month testing: 15.05, 95%CI: 3.70-61.18; p < .001; OR for completing 12-month testing: 5.85, 95%CI: 1.94-17.63; p = .002); and, "I forgot to get labs drawn [until I was reminded]" (OR for completing 6-month testing: 6.93, 95%CI: 1.59-30.08; p = .01; OR for completing 12-month testing: 6.55, 95%CI: 1.98-21.63; p = .002) were more likely to complete testing.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the only study providing perspective on donor insights regarding the need for follow-up testing post donation. Interventions to influence living donor attitudes toward follow-up testing may improve follow-up.

The Scope of Telemedicine in Kidney Transplantation: Access and Outreach Services

Access to transplant centers is a key barrier for kidney transplant evaluation and follow-up care for both the recipient and donor. Potential kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors may face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges in engaging with a transplant center and maintaining post-transplant continuity of care. Telemedicine via synchronous video visits has the potential to overcome the access barrier to transplant centers. Transplant centers can start the evaluation process for potential recipients and donors via telemedicine, especially for those who have challenges to come for an in-person visit or when there are restrictions on clinic capacities, such as during a pandemic. Similarly, transplant centers can use telemedicine to sustain post-transplant follow-up care while avoiding the burden of travel and its associated costs. However, expansion to telemedicine-based kidney transplant services is substantially dependent on telemedicine infrastructure, insurer policy, and state regulations. In this review, we discuss the practice of telemedicine in kidney transplantation and its implications for expanding access to kidney transplant services and outreach from pretransplant evaluation to post-transplant follow-up care for the recipient and donor.

Shift in Living Kidney Donor Demographics Over the Past 50 Years in a German Transplant Center

Background

Living kidney donors may face health risks after donation. Age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, and relationship to the recipient have an impact on lifetime living kidney donor risk. In view of a changing landscape in renal transplantation with increasing organ shortages, the selection criteria for potential donors may have changed over time.

Material/Methods

We investigated donor demographics and outcomes in a cohort of 760 living kidney donors who donated from 1967 to 2016 at the transplant center in Heidelberg, Germany.

Results

The living kidney donor age increased from 34.9±11.5 to 53.2±10.2 years, with 11.4% donors aged 65 years in the period from 2011 to 2016. The number of donors with comorbidities at the time of donation increased. The percentage of donors with a history of obesity, hypertension, smoking, and a family history of kidney disease enlarged to 18.6%, 36.1%, 37.0%, and 9.1%, respectively. De novo hypertension was a common problem in more than half of the donors at long-term follow-up, and donor renal function decreased about 30 mL/mi/1.73 m².

Conclusions

This detailed analysis of living kidney donor demographics over the last 50 years detected an increased proportion of donors with higher age and comorbidities today. Careful donor selection, regular follow-up visits, and systematic donor registries are required to further improve donor outcomes.

Long-term impact of baseline serum uric acid levels on living kidney donors: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative characteristics of living kidney donors are commonly considered during donor selection and postoperative follow-up. However, the impact of preoperative uric acid (UA) levels is poorly documented. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between preoperative serum UA levels and post-donation long-term events and renal function.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of 183 living kidney donors. The donors were divided into high (≥5.5 mg/dl) and low (< 5.5 mg/dl) UA groups. We analyzed the relationship between preoperative UA levels and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), as well as adverse events (cardiovascular events and additional prescriptions for hypertension, gout, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus), over 5 years after donation.

RESULTS

In total, 44 donors experienced 52 adverse events over 5 years. The incidence of adverse events within 5 years was significantly higher in the high UA group than in the low UA group (50% vs. 24%, p = 0.003); this was true even after the exclusion of hyperuricemia-related events (p = 0.047). UA emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse events (p = 0.012). Donors with higher UA levels had lower eGFRs after donation, whereas body mass index, hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol did not have any impact on the eGFR.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that preoperative UA levels should be considered during donor selection and postoperative follow-up.

Financial incentives versus standard of care to improve patient compliance with live kidney donor follow-up: protocol for a multi-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up.

METHODS/DESIGN

We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle.

DISCUSSION

Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

Care of international living kidney donor candidates in the United States: A survey of contemporary experience, practice, and challenges

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group.

Center Variation and Risk Factors for Failure to Complete 6 Month Postdonation Follow-up Among Obese Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors in the United States who were obese at donation are at increased risk of end-stage renal disease and may benefit from intensive postdonation follow-up. However, they are less likely to have complete follow-up data. Center variation and risk factors for incomplete follow-up are unknown.

METHODS

Adult living kidney donors with obesity (body mass index, ≥30 kg/m) at donation reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2005 to July 2015 were included (n = 13 831). Donor characteristics were compared by recorded serum creatinine at 6 months postdonation, and multilevel logistic regression models were used to estimate odds of 6-month creatinine.

RESULTS

After adjustment, older age, female sex, and donation after implementation of new center follow-up requirements were associated with higher odds of 6-month creatinine, with lower odds for obese donors with a history of smoking, biologically related donors, and at centers with higher total living donor volume. 23% of variation in recorded 6-month serum creatinine among obese donors was attributed to center (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.232, P < 0.001). The adjusted probability of 6-month creatinine by center ranged from 10% to 91.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Tremendous variation in recorded 6-month postdonation serum creatinine exists among obese living donors, with high volume centers having the lowest probability of follow-up. Moreover, individual-level characteristics such as age, sex, and relationship to recipient were associated with recorded 6-month creatinine. Given increased risk for end-stage renal disease among obese living donors, center-level efforts targeted specifically at increasing postdonation follow-up among obese donors should be developed and implemented.

Changes in kidney function follow living donor nephrectomy

Better understanding of kidney function after living donor nephrectomy and how it differs by donor characteristics can inform patient selection, counselling, and follow-up care. To evaluate this, we conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of living kidney donors in Alberta, Canada between 2002-2016, using linked healthcare administrative databases. We matched 604 donors to 2,414 healthy non-donors from the general population based on age, sex, year of cohort entry, urban residence and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) before cohort entry (nephrectomy date for donors and randomly assigned date for non-donors). The primary outcome was the rate of eGFR change over time (median follow-up seven years; maximum 15 years). The median age of the cohort was 43 years, 64% women, and the baseline (pre-donation) eGFR was 100 mL/min/1.73 m². Overall, from six weeks onwards, the eGFR increased by +0.35 mL/min/1.73 m² per year (95% confidence interval +0.21 to +0.48) in donors and significantly decreased by -0.85 mL/min/1.73 m² per year (-0.94 to -0.75) in the matched healthy non-donors. The change in eGFR between six weeks to two years, two to five years, and over five years among donors was +1.06, +0.64, and -0.06 mL/min/1.73 m² per year, respectively. In contrast to the steady age-related decline in kidney function in non-donors, post-donation kidney function on average initially increased by 1 mL/min/1.73 m² per year attributable to glomerular hyperfiltration, which began to plateau by five years post-donation. Thus, the average change in eGFR over time is significantly different between donors and non-donors.

Global Kidney Exchange: opportunity or exploitation? An ELPAT/ESOT appraisal

This paper addresses ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects of Global Kidney Exchange (GKE). Concerns have been raised that GKE violates the nonpayment principle, exploits donors in low- and middle-income countries, and detracts from the aim of self-sufficiency. We review the arguments for and against GKE. We argue that while some concerns about GKE are justified based on the available evidence, others are speculative and do not apply exclusively to GKE but to living donation more generally. We posit that concerns can be mitigated by implementing safeguards, by developing minimum quality criteria and by establishing an international committee that independently monitors and evaluates GKE's procedures and outcomes. Several questions remain however that warrant further clarification. What are the experiences and views of recipients and donors participating in GKE? Who manages the escrow funds that have been put in place for donor and recipients? What procedures and safeguards have been put in place to prevent corruption of these funds? What are the inclusion criteria for participating GKE centers? GKE provides opportunity to promote access to donation and transplantation but can only be conducted with the appropriate safeguards. Patients' and donors' voices are missing in this debate.

Association of Early Postdonation Renal Function With Subsequent Risk of End-Stage Renal Disease in Living Kidney Donors

Importance

Living kidney donation is associated with increased long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). An early postdonation marker of ESRD risk could improve postdonation risk assessment and counseling for kidney donors and allow early intervention for donors at increased risk.

Objective

To determine the association between renal function in the first 6 months postdonation and subsequent risk of ESRD in kidney donors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary analysis of a prospective national cohort uses a population-based registry of all living kidney donors in the United States between October 26, 1999, and January 1, 2018, with follow-up through December 31, 2018. All kidney donors who had donated in the date range and had serum creatinine measured at 6 months (±3 months) postdonation were included.

Exposures

Renal function as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate 6 months after donation (eGFR6).

Main Outcomes and Measures

End-stage renal disease, ascertained via linkage to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data.

Results

A total of 71 468 living kidney donors were included (of 109 065 total donors over this period). Their median (interquartile range) eGFR6 was 63 (54-74) mL/min/1.73 m2. Cumulative incidence of ESRD at 15 years postdonation ranged from 11.7 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values greater than 70 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 33.1 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values of 50 mL/min/1.73 m2 or less. Adjusting for age, race, sex, body mass index, and biological relationship, every 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 reduction in eGFR6 was associated with a 28% increased risk of ESRD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.54]; P = .009). The association between predonation eGFR and ESRD was not significant and was fully mediated by eGFR6 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.17]; P = .97). The postdonation eGFR value was a better marker of ESRD than eGFR decline after donation or the ratio of eGFR6 to predonation eGFR, as determined by the Akaike information criterion (in which a lower value indicates a better model fit; eGFR6, 1495.61; predonation eGFR - eGFR6, 1503.58; eGFR6 / predonation eGFR, 1502.30).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, there was an independent association of eGFR6 with subsequent ESRD risk in living kidney donors, even after adjusting for predonation characteristics. The findings support measurement of early postdonation serum creatinine monitoring in living kidney donors, and the use of these data to help identify donors who might need more careful surveillance and early intervention.

Association Between Living Kidney Donor Postdonation Hypertension and Recipient Graft Failure

BACKGROUND

Recipients of kidneys from living donors who subsequently develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) also have higher graft failure, suggesting the 2 donor kidneys share risk factors that could inform recipient outcomes. Given that donor ESRD is rare, an earlier and more common postdonation outcome could serve as a surrogate to individualize counseling and management for recipients. Hypertension is a frequent event before donor ESRD; thus, early postdonation hypertension might indicate higher risk of graft failure.

METHODS

We studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to quantify the association between early postdonation hypertension and recipient graft failure using propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression. We also examined the association between postdonation systolic blood pressure and graft failure.

RESULTS

Of 37 901 recipients, 2.4% had a donor who developed hypertension within 2 years postdonation. Controlling for donor and recipient characteristics, recipients whose donors developed hypertension had no higher risk for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.25, P = 0.72). This was consistent among subgroups of recipients at higher risk for adverse outcomes due to hyperfiltration: African American recipients (aHR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70-1.73, P = 0.68) and those with ESRD caused by hypertension (aHR 1.10, 95% CI 0.65-1.85, P = 0.73) or diabetes (aHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56-1.13, P = 0.20). However, graft failure was associated with postdonation systolic blood pressure (per 10 mm Hg, aHR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although postdonation systolic blood pressure is associated with graft failure, the reported diagnosis of hypertension as determined by the requirement for blood pressure treatment early postdonation did not portend a higher risk of recipient graft failure in the same way as eventual postdonation ESRD.

Perspectives on implementing mobile health technology for living kidney donor follow-up: In-depth interviews with transplant providers

BACKGROUND

United States transplant centers are required to report follow-up data for living kidney donors for 2 years post-donation. However, living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up is often incomplete. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could ease data collection burden but have not yet been explored in this context.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 21 transplant providers and thought leaders about challenges in LKD follow-up, and the potential role of mHealth in overcoming these challenges.

RESULTS

Participants reported challenges conveying the importance of follow-up to LKDs, limited data from international/out-of-town LKDs, and inadequate staffing. They believed the 2-year requirement was insufficient, but expressed difficulty engaging LKDs for even this short time and inadequate resources for longer-term follow-up. Participants believed an mHealth system for post-donation follow-up could benefit LKDs (by simplifying communication/tasks and improving donor engagement) and transplant centers (by streamlining communication and decreasing workforce burden). Concerns included cost, learning curves, security/privacy, patient language/socioeconomic barriers, and older donor comfort with mHealth technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant providers felt that mHealth technology could improve LKD follow-up and help centers meet reporting thresholds. However, designing a secure, easy to use, and cost-effective system remains challenging.

The landscape of international living kidney donation in the United States

In the United States, kidney donation from international (noncitizen/nonresident) living kidney donors (LKDs) is permitted; however, given the heterogeneity of healthcare systems, concerns remain regarding the international LKD practice and recipient outcomes. We studied a US cohort of 102 315 LKD transplants from 2000-2016, including 2088 international LKDs, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. International LKDs were more tightly clustered among a small number of centers than domestic LKDs (Gini coefficient 0.76 vs 0.58, P < .001). Compared with domestic LKDs, international LKDs were more often young, male, Hispanic or Asian, and biologically related to their recipient (P < .001). Policy-compliant donor follow-up was substantially lower for international LKDs at 6, 12, and 24 months postnephrectomy (2015 cohort: 45%, 33%, 36% vs 76%, 71%, 70% for domestic LKDs, P < .001). Among international LKDs, Hispanic (aOR = 0.23 0.360.56 , P < .001) and biologically related (aOR = 0.39 0.590.89 , P < .01) donors were more compliant in donor follow-up than white and unrelated donors. Recipients of international living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) had similar graft failure (aHR = 0.78 0.891.02 , P = .1) but lower mortality (aHR = 0.53 0.620.72 , P < .001) compared with the recipients of domestic LDKT after adjusting for recipient, transplant, and donor factors. International LKDs may provide an alternative opportunity for living donation. However, efforts to improve international LKD follow-up and engagement are warranted.

Early Hypertension and Diabetes After Living Kidney Donation: A National Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease, with hypertension and diabetes as the predominant causes. In this study, we sought to better understand the timeline when these diseases occur, focusing on the early postdonation period.

METHODS

We studied 41 260 living kidney donors in the United States between 2008 and 2014 from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and modeled incidence rates and risk factors for hypertension and diabetes.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, there were 74, 162, and 310 cases, respectively, of hypertension per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y, adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.51), male (aIRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.50), had higher body mass index (per 5 units, aIRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.43), and were related to their recipient (first-degree relative: aIRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; spouse: aIRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66) were more likely to develop hypertension, whereas donors who were Hispanic/Latino were less likely (aIRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, there were 2, 6, and 15 cases of diabetes per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y: aIRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11-1.82), had higher body mass index (per 5 units: aIRR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21), and were Hispanic/Latino (aIRR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.14-5.26) were more likely to develop diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national study, new-onset diabetes was rare, but 3% of donors developed hypertension within 2 years of nephrectomy. These findings reaffirm that disease pathways for kidney failure differ by donor phenotype and estimate the population most at-risk for later kidney failure.

Assessment of Postdonation Outcomes in US Living Kidney Donors Using Publicly Available Data Sets

Importance

There are limited resources providing postdonation conditions that can occur in living donors (LDs) of solid-organ transplant. Consequently, it is difficult to visualize and understand possible postdonation outcomes in LDs.

Objective

To assemble an open access resource that is representative of the demographic characteristics in the US national registry, maintained by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and administered by the United Network for Organ Sharing, but contains more follow-up information to help to examine postdonation outcomes in LDs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study in which the data for the resource and analyses stemmed from the transplant data set derived from 27 clinical studies from the ImmPort database, which is an open access repository for clinical studies. The studies included data collected from 1963 to 2016. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network national registry collected from October 1987 to March 2016 were used to determine representativeness. Data analysis took place from June 2016 to May 2018. Data from 20 ImmPort clinical studies (including clinical trials and observational studies) were curated, and a cohort of 11 263 LDs was studied, excluding deceased donors, LDs with 95% or more missing data, and studies without a complete data dictionary. The harmonization process involved the extraction of common features from each clinical study based on categories that included demographic characteristics as well as predonation and postdonation data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thirty-six postdonation events were identified, represented, and analyzed via a trajectory network analysis.

Results

The curated data contained 10 869 living kidney donors (median [interquartile range] age, 39 [31-48] years; 6175 [56.8%] women; and 9133 [86.6%] of European descent). A total of 9558 living kidney donors with postdonation data were analyzed. Overall, 1406 LDs (14.7%) had postdonation events. The 4 most common events were hypertension (806 [8.4%]), diabetes (190 [2.0%]), proteinuria (171 [1.8%]), and postoperative ileus (147 [1.5%]). Relatively few events (n = 269) occurred before the 2-year postdonation mark. Of the 1746 events that took place 2 years or more after donation, 1575 (90.2%) were nonsurgical; nonsurgical conditions tended to occur in the wide range of 2 to 40 years after donation (odds ratio, 38.3; 95% CI, 4.12-1956.9).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most events that occurred more than 2 years after donation were nonsurgical and could occur up to 40 years after donation. Findings support the construction of a national registry for long-term monitoring of LDs and confirm the value of secondary reanalysis of clinical studies.

Posttransplant Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients and Their Donors in Nigeria

OBJECTIVES

Kidney transplantation is not readily available in low-resource settings because of poor health structure, dearth of experts, and pervading poverty. Although many centers now offer kidney transplant, patients still travel outside Nigeria for this service for many reasons and many return home without a detailed medical report.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of individuals who underwent kidney transplant in Nigeria and elsewhere and who were presently receiving posttransplant care or had received such care from 2002 to 2018 at 4 Nigerian hospitals were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 35 patients (30 males; 85.7%) analyzed (mean ages of 42 ± 16 and 47 ± 8 years for men and women, respectively; P = .54), common primary kidney diseases included hypertension (27.2%), glomerulonephritis (24.2%), and diabetes mellitus/hypertension (18.3%). Most patients received transplants in India (48.6%), with others in Nigeria (23.0%) and Pakistan (8.6%). Relationships to recipient were unrelated (28.5%), living related (22.9%), and unknown (48.6%). Less than 30% of recipients had care details in their hospital records. Almost all transplant patients were treated with prednisolone (81.8%); cyclosporine (40.0%), mycophenolate mofetil (31.4%), tacrolimus (20.0%), and azathioprine (9.1%) were also used. Complications were documented in 88.9%, with 57.0% due to bacterial infections/sepsis. Many (88.9%) had more than 2 complications. In follow-up, median first transplant duration was 24 months (interquartile range, 6-44). Of total patients, 25.7% were still alive, 17.1% had died, and 54.2% were lost to follow-up. Follow-up data for only 2 donors were available.

CONCLUSIONS

Lapses in follow-up care of kidney transplant recipients and donors continue in lowresource settings where transplant tourism is still rife, resulting in poor graft/patient survival. Adherence to transplant guidelines is advocated. We propose a transplant stratification model according to level of development and resources of countries or regions. This model will encourage customizing strategies for improving patient outcomes.

Landscape of Living Multiorgan Donation in the United States: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients.

RESULTS

The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.

The Impact of the mKidney mHealth System on Live Donor Follow-Up Compliance: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Every year, more than 5500 healthy people in the United States donate a kidney for the medical benefit of another person. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) requires transplant hospitals to monitor living kidney donors (LKDs) for 2 years postdonation. However, the majority (115/202, 57%) of transplant hospitals in the United States continue to fail to meet nationally mandated requirements for LKD follow-up. A novel method for collecting LKD follow-up is needed to ease both the transplant hospital-level and patient-level burden. We built mKidney—a mobile health (mHealth) system designed specifically to facilitate the collection and reporting of OPTN-required LKD follow-up data. The mKidney mobile app was developed on the basis of input elicited from LKDs, transplant providers, and thought leaders.

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the mKidney smartphone app on LKD follow-up rates.

Methods

We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with LKDs who undergo LKD transplantation at Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. Eligible participants will be recruited in-person by a study team member at their 1-week postdonation clinical visit and randomly assigned to the intervention or control arm (1:1). Participants in the intervention arm will receive the mHealth intervention (mKidney), and participants in the control arm will receive the current standard of follow-up care. Our primary outcome will be policy-defined complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after the expected visit date) submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year visits. Our secondary outcome will be hospital-level compliance with OPTN reporting requirements at each visit. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Additionally, we will collect quantitative and qualitative process data regarding the implementation of the mKidney system.

Results

We began recruitment for this RCT in May 2018. We plan to enroll 400 LKDs over 2 years and follow participants for the 2-year mandated follow-up period.

Conclusions

This pilot RCT will evaluate the impact of the mKidney system on rates of LKD and hospital compliance with OPTN-mandated LKD follow-up at a large LKD transplant hospital. It will provide valuable information on strategies for implementing such a system in a clinical setting and inform effect sizes for future RCT sample size calculations.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/11000

Living donor postnephrectomy kidney function and recipient graft loss: A dose-response relationship

Development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors is associated with increased graft loss in the recipients of their kidneys. Our goal was to investigate if this relationship was reflected at an earlier stage postdonation, possibly early enough for recipient risk prediction based on donor response to nephrectomy. Using national registry data, we studied 29 464 recipients and their donors from 2008-2016 to determine the association between donor 6-month postnephrectomy estimated GFR (eGFR) and recipient death-censored graft failure (DCGF). We explored donor BMI as an effect modifier, given the association between obesity and hyperfiltration. On average, risk of DCGF increased with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.10, P = .007). The association was attenuated with higher donor BMI (interaction P = .049): recipients from donors with BMI = 20 (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.19, P = .002) and BMI = 25 (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12, P = .001) had a higher risk of DCGF with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR, whereas recipients from donors with BMI = 30 and BMI = 35 did not have a higher risk. The relationship between postdonation eGFR, donor BMI, and recipient graft loss can inform counseling and management of living donor kidney transplant recipients.

Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Use of Mobile Health Technologies for Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up.

METHODS

We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

Follow-up Care of Living Kidney Donors in Alberta, Canada

Background

Previous guidelines recommend that living kidney donors receive lifelong annual follow-up care to assess renal health.

Objective

To determine whether these best practice recommendations are currently being followed.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using linked health care databases.

Setting

Alberta, Canada (2002-2014).

Patients

Living kidney donors.

Measurements

We determined the proportion of donors who had annual outpatient physician visits and laboratory measurements for serum creatinine and albuminuria.

Results

There were 534 living kidney donors with a median follow-up of 7 years (maximum 13 years). The median age at the time of donation was 41 years and 62% were women. Overall, 25% of donors had all 3 markers of care (physician visit, serum creatinine, albuminuria measurement) in each year of follow-up. Adherence to physician visits was higher than serum creatinine or albuminuria measurements (67% vs 31% vs 28% of donors, respectively). Donors with guideline-concordant care were more likely to be older, reside closer to the transplant center, and receive their nephrectomy in more recent years.

Limitations

Our results may not be generalizable to other countries that do not have a similar universal health care system.

Conclusions

These findings suggest significant evidence-practice gaps, in that the majority of donors saw a physician, but the minority had measurements of kidney function or albuminuria. Future interventions should target improving follow-up care for all donors.

Marital Status and Return to Work After Living Kidney Donation

PURPOSE

Living kidney donation is safe and effective, but patients in need of a transplant continue to outnumber donors. Disincentives to living donation include lost income, risk of job loss, perioperative complications, and unreimbursed medical expenses.

METHODS

This study uses US registry and follow-up data on living kidney donors from 2013 to 2015 to identify social predictors of return to work across gender following living kidney donation.

RESULTS

Using logistic regression, we find that predictors of return to work following living kidney donation differ for women and men. Among women, age, education, smoking status, and procedure type are associated with return to work. Among men, education, procedure type, and hospital readmission within 6 weeks postdonation are associated with return to work. Notably, single and divorced men are less likely to return to work compared to married men (odds ratio [OR] for single men 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.69, P < .001; OR for divorced men 0.51, 95% CI, 0.34-0.75, P = .006). Marital status is not associated with return to work for women. Single and divorced men's greater odds of not returning to work are robust to controls for relevant pre- and postdonation characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Single and divorced men's lack of social support may present an obstacle to work resumption following living kidney donation.

Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes

Background:

Use of administrative data for outcomes assessment in living kidney donors is increasing given the rarity of complications and challenges with loss to follow-up.

Objective:

To assess the validity of living donor nephrectomy in health care administrative databases compared with the reference standard of manual chart review.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

5 major transplant centers in Ontario, Canada.

Patients:

Living kidney donors between 2003 and 2010.

Measurements:

Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV).

Methods:

Using administrative databases, we conducted a retrospective study to determine the validity of diagnostic and procedural codes for living donor nephrectomies. The reference standard was living donor nephrectomies identified through the province’s tissue and organ procurement agency, with verification by manual chart review. Operating characteristics (sensitivity and PPV) of various algorithms using diagnostic, procedural, and physician billing codes were calculated.

Results:

During the study period, there were a total of 1199 living donor nephrectomies. Overall, the best algorithm for identifying living kidney donors was the presence of 1 diagnostic code for kidney donor (ICD-10 Z52.4) and 1 procedural code for kidney procurement/excision (1PC58, 1PC89, 1PC91). Compared with the reference standard, this algorithm had a sensitivity of 97% and a PPV of 90%. The diagnostic and procedural codes performed better than the physician billing codes (sensitivity 60%, PPV 78%).

Limitations:

The donor chart review and validation study was performed in Ontario and may not be generalizable to other regions.

Conclusions:

An algorithm consisting of 1 diagnostic and 1 procedural code can be reliably used to conduct health services research that requires the accurate determination of living kidney donors at the population level.

Electronic messaging and communication with living kidney donors

New regulations require living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up for 2 years, but donor retention remains poor. Electronic communication (eg, text messaging and e-mail) might improve donor retention. To explore the possible impact of electronic communication, we recruited LKDs to participate in an exploratory study of communication via telephone, e-mail, or text messaging postdonation; communication through this study was purely optional and did not replace standard follow-up. Of 69 LKDs recruited, 3% requested telephone call, 52% e-mail, and 45% text messaging. Telephone response rate was 0%; these LKDs were subsequently excluded from analysis. Overall response rates with e-mail or text messaging at 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 94%, 87%, 81%, 72%, and 72%. Lower response rates were seen in African Americans, even after adjusting for age, sex, and contact method (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse _2.07 5.81_16.36 , P = .001). Text messaging had higher response rates than e-mail (IRR nonresponse _0.11 0.28_0.71 , P = .007). Rates of nonresponse were similar by sex (IRR 0.68, P = .4) and age (IRR 1.00, P > .9). In summary, LKDs strongly preferred electronic messaging over telephone and were highly responsive 2 years postdonation, even in this nonrequired, nonincentivized exploratory research study. These electronic communication tools can be automated and may improve regulatory compliance and postdonation care.

Center practice drives variation in choice of US kidney transplant induction therapy: a retrospective analysis of contemporary practice

To assess factors that influence the choice of induction regimen in contemporary kidney transplantation, we examined center-identified, national transplant registry data for 166 776 US recipients (2005-2014). Bilevel hierarchical models were constructed, wherein use of each regimen was compared pairwise with use of interleukin-2 receptor blocking antibodies (IL2rAb). Overall, 82% of patients received induction, including thymoglobulin (TMG, 46%), IL2rAb (22%), alemtuzumab (ALEM, 13%), and other agents (1%). However, proportions of patients receiving induction varied widely across centers (0-100%). Recipients of living donor transplants and self-pay patients were less likely to receive induction treatment. Clinical factors associated with use of TMG or ALEM (vs. IL2rAb) included age, black race, sensitization, retransplant status, nonstandard deceased donor, and delayed graft function. However, these characteristics explained only 10-33% of observed variation. Based on intraclass correlation analysis, "center effect" explained most of the variation in TMG (58%), ALEM (66%), other (51%), and no induction (58%) use. Median odds ratios generated from case-factor adjusted models (7.66-11.19) also supported large differences in the likelihood of induction choices between centers. The wide variation in induction therapy choice across US transplant centers is not dominantly explained by differences in patient or donor characteristics; rather, it reflects center choice and practice.

Living Kidney Donor Phenotype and Likelihood of Postdonation Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network requires that United States transplant centers maintain follow-up with living donors for 2 years postdonation, but lack of donor follow-up is pervasive. Donor characteristics, including younger age, minority race, and lower education, have been associated with incomplete follow-up, but it is unknown whether altruistic donors, having no previous connection to their recipient, differ from traditional donors in their likelihood of follow-up.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we examined all adult living kidney donors from 2005 to 2015 (n = 63 592) classified as altruistic or traditional, and compared likelihood of 6-month medical follow-up using modified Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Altruistic donors did not differ from traditional donors in likelihood of follow-up (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.06). Among previously identified at-risk subgroups, however, altruistic donors were more likely to have follow-up than their traditional counterparts, including those who were younger (aRR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.09), had less than college education (aRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), and were unmarried (aRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12). Having medical follow-up at 6 months was significantly associated with having follow-up at 1 year (aRR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.75-1.93) and 2 years (aRR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.56-1.70) postdonation.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide additional granularity on living donor phenotypes associated with short-term (6 month) postdonation follow-up, which is important given its association with future likelihood of follow-up. These findings offer the opportunity to tailor and direct educational efforts to increase living donor follow-up, particularly among groups at higher risk of loss to follow-up.