Integrating kidney transplantation into value-based care for people with renal failure

Overview of global healthcare policies for patients with chronic kidney disease: an integrative literature review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic kidney disease is a progressive and irreversible loss of kidney function and considerably affects the lives of patients and their families. Its high incidence necessitates efficient public policies for prevention and treatment. However, policies for chronic kidney disease education and awareness are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate global public policies for the prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease adopted in various regions, aiming to comprehend the differences between various models.

METHODS

This integrative review followed PRISMA recommendations and included papers published between 2016 and 2021 across several databases.

RESULTS

The 44 selected articles were categorized into three themes: structural and financial aspects of the organization of renal healthcare, access to renal healthcare or management of chronic kidney disease, and coping strategies for chronic kidney disease or kidney health. Critical analysis of the papers revealed global neglect of kidney disease in political agendas. Considerable policy variations exist between different countries and regions of the same country. Our research highlighted that free and universal health coverage, especially for the most vulnerable patients, is crucial for accessing treatment owing to the prohibitively high treatment costs.

CONCLUSION

Social, economic, and ethnic inequalities strongly correlate with disease occurrence, primarily affecting minority groups who lack health support, especially for the prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease.

Payment systems for dialysis and their effects: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

End stage renal disease (ESRD) is a major health concern and a large drain on healthcare resources. A wide range of payment methods are used for management of ESRD. The main aim of this study is to identify current payment methods for dialysis and their effects.

METHOD

In this scoping review Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched from 2000 until 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Retrieved articles were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria. Data about the study characteristics and study results were extracted by a pre-structured data extraction form; and were analyzed by a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles were included, the majority of them were published after 2011 (66%); all of them were from high and upper middle-income countries, especially USA (64% of papers). Fee for services, global budget, capitation (bundled) payments, and pay for performance (P4P) were the main reimbursement methods for dialysis centers; and FFS, salary, and capitation were the main methods to reimburse the nephrologists. Countries have usually used a combination of methods depending on their situations; and their methods have been further developed over time specially from the retrospective payment systems (RPS) towards the prospective payment systems (PPS) and pay for performance methods. The main effects of the RPS were undertreatment of unpaid and inexpensive services, and over treatment of payable services. The main effects of the PPS were cost saving, shifting the service cost outside the bundle, change in quality of care, risk of provider, and modality choice.

CONCLUSION

This study provides useful insights about the current payment systems for dialysis and the effects of each payment system; that might be helpful for improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare.

Conservative Kidney Management in Kidney Transplant Populations

Conservative kidney management (CKM) has been increasingly accepted as a therapeutic option for seriously ill patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. CKM is active medical management of advanced chronic kidney disease without dialysis, with a focus on delaying the worsening of kidney disease and minimizing symptom burden. CKM may be considered a suitable option for kidney transplant recipients with poorly functioning and declining allografts, defined as patients with low estimated glomerular filtration rate (<20 mL/min per 1.73 m2) who are approaching allograft failure. CKM may be a fitting option for transplant patients facing high morbidity and mortality with or without dialysis resumption, and it should be offered as a choice for this patient population. In this review, we describe clinical considerations in caring for patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts, especially the unique decision-making process around kidney replacement therapies. We discuss ways to incorporate CKM as an option for these patients. We also discuss financial and policy considerations in providing CKM for this population. Patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts should be supported throughout transitions of care by an interprofessional and multidisciplinary team attuned to their unique challenges. Further research on when, who, and how to integrate CKM into existing care structures for patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts is needed.

Is there value in volume? An assessment of liver transplant practices in the United States since the inception of MELD

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation has increased in volume and provides substantial survival benefit. However, there remains a need for value-based assessment of this costly procedure.

METHODS

Model for end stage liver disease era adult recipients were identified using United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis file data (n = 75,988) and compared across time periods (period A: February 2002 to January 2007; B: February 2007 to January 2013; C: February 2013 to January 2019). Liver centers were divided into volume tertiles for each period (small, medium, large). Value for the index transplant episode was defined as percentage graft survival ≥1 year divided by mean posttransplant duration of stay.

RESULTS

All centers increased value over time due to ubiquitous improvement in 1-year graft survival. However, large centers demonstrated the most significant value change (large +17% vs small +7.0%, P < .001) due to a -8.5% reduction in large centers duration of stay from period A to C, while small centers duration of stay remained unchanged (-0.1%). Large centers delivered higher value despite more complex care: older recipients (54.8 ± 10.3 vs 53.0 ± 11.4 years P < .001), fewer model for end stage liver disease exceptions (34.0% vs 38.2%, P < .001), higher rates of candidate portal vein thrombosis (10.1% vs 8.5%, P < .001) and prior abdominal surgery (43.4% vs 37.4%, P < .001), and more marginal donor utilization (donor risk index 1.45 ± 0.38 vs 1.36 ± 0.33, P < .001). Mahalanobis metric matching demonstrated that compared with small centers, large centers progressively shortened recipient duration of stay per transplant in each period (A: -0.36 days, P = .437; B: -2.14 days, P < .001; C: -2.49 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

There is value in liver transplant volume. Adoption of value-based practices from large centers may allow optimization of health care delivery for this costly procedure.

Perioperative Dexmedetomidine Improves Outcomes of Kidney Transplant

Graft function is crucial for successful kidney transplantation. Many factors may affect graft function or cause delayed graft function (DGF), which decreases the prognosis for graft survival. This study was designed to evaluate whether the perioperative use of dexmedetomidine (Dex) could improve the incidence of function of graft kidney and complications after kidney transplantation. A total of 780 patients underwent kidney transplantations, 315 received intravenous Dex infusion during surgery, and 465 did not. Data were adjusted with propensity scores and multivariate logistic regression was used. The primary outcomes are major adverse complications, including DGF and acute rejection in the early post‐transplantation phase. The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS), infection, overall complication, graft functional status, post‐transplantation serum creatinine values, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Dex use significantly decreased DGF (19.37% vs. 23.66%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.744; 95% confidence interval, 0.564–0.981; P = 0.036), risk of infection, risk of acute rejection in the early post‐transplantation phase, the risk of overall complications, and LOS. However, there were no statistical differences in 90‐day graft functional status or 7‐day, 30‐day, and 90‐day eGFR. Perioperative Dex use reduced incidence of DGF, risk of infection, risk of acute rejection, overall complications, and LOS in patients who underwent kidney transplantation.

Implications of the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative for kidney transplant centers

The announcement of the Advancing American Kidney Health (AAKH) Initiative on July 10, 2019 was met with a mix of excitement and trepidation, befitting a proposed radical reconfiguration of the delivery of kidney disease care. Aspiring to reduce the incidence of end-stage renal disease, increase the prevalence of home dialysis, and double the number of organs available for transplant, the AAKH payment models primarily focus on incenting behaviors of general nephrologists, though actualizing positive incentives will require the active cooperation of dialysis providers and transplant centers. Here, we review the AAKH initiatives' potential impact on all stakeholders and opine on financial and regulatory pressures on kidney transplant programs, outlining areas of uncertainty and concern, and suggest key points of reflection for clinical and administrative leaders of kidney transplant centers weighing participation in any of the voluntary payment models.

Association of Racial Disparities With Access to Kidney Transplant After the Implementation of the New Kidney Allocation System

Importance

Inactive patients on the kidney transplant wait-list have a higher mortality. The implications of this status change on transplant outcomes between racial/ethnic groups are unknown.

Objectives

To determine if activity status changes differ among races/ethnicities and levels of sensitization, and if these differences are associated with transplant probability after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A multistate model was constructed from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network kidney transplant database (December 4, 2014, to September 8, 2016). The time interval followed Kidney Allocation System implementation and provided at least 1-year follow-up for all patients. The model calculated probabilities between active and inactive status and the following competing risk outcomes: living donor transplant, deceased donor transplant, and death/other. This retrospective cohort study included 42 558 patients on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network kidney transplant wait-list following Kidney Allocation System implementation. To rule out time-varying confounding from relisting, analysis was limited to first-time registrants. Owing to variations in listing practices, primary center listing data were used for dually listed patients. Individuals listed for another organ or pancreatic islets were excluded. Analysis began July 2017.

Main Outcome and Measures

Probabilities were determined for transitions between active and inactive status and the following outcome states: active to living donor transplant, active to deceased donor transplant, active to death/other, inactive to living donor transplant, inactive to deceased donor transplant, and inactive to death/other.

Results

The median (interquartile range) age at listing was 55.0 (18.0-89.0) years, and 26 535 of 42 558 (62.4%) were men. White individuals were 43.3% (n = 18 417) of wait-listed patients, while black and Hispanic individuals made up 27.8% (n = 11 837) and 19.5% (n = 8296), respectively. Patients in the calculated plasma reactive antibody categories of 0% or 1% to 79% showed no statistically significant difference in transplant probability among races/ethnicities. White individuals had an advantage in transplant probability over black individuals in calculated plasma reactive antibody categories of 80% to 89% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8 [95% CI, 1.4-2.2]) and 90% or higher (HR, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1-2.6]), while Hispanic individuals had an advantage over black individuals in the calculated plasma reactive antibody group of 90% or higher (HR, 2.5 [95% CI, 2.1-2.8]). Once on the inactive list, white individuals were more likely than Hispanic individuals (HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.17-1.3]) or black individuals (HR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.3-1.4]) to resolve issues for inactivity resulting in activation.

Conclusions and Relevance

For patients who are highly sensitized, there continues to be less access to kidney transplant in the black population after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System. Health disparities continue after listing where individuals from minority groups have greater difficulty in resolving issues of inactivity.

Value-Based Care in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Improved tolerability and outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), along with the availability of alternative donors, have expanded its use. With this growth, and the development of additional cellular therapies, we also aim to increase effectiveness, efficiency, and the quality of the care provided. Fundamentally, the goal of value-based care is to have better health outcomes with streamlined processes, improved patient experience, and lower costs for both the patients and the health care system. HCT and cellular therapy treatments are multiphase treatments which allow for interventions at each juncture.

RECENT FINDINGS

We present a summary of the current literature with focus on program structure and overall system capacity, coordination of therapy across providers, standardization across institutions, diversity and disparities in care, patient quality of life, and cost implications. Each of these topics provides challenges and opportunities to improve value-based care for HCT and cellular therapy patients.