Kidney transplant program waitlisting rate as a metric to assess transplant access

Setting reasonable goals for kidney transplant referral among dialysis facilities

BACKGROUND

Determining whether a patient is eligible for kidney transplantation is complex. In this study, we estimate what proportion of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) might have been suitable candidates for kidney transplantation but were not referred.

METHODS

We identified 43,952 people initiating dialysis for kidney failure between 2012 and 2017 in the states of Georgia, North Carolina, or South Carolina from the United States Renal Data System and linked to the Early-Steps to Transplant Access Registry to obtain data on referral and waitlisting up until December 2020. We identified 'good transplant candidates' as those who were waitlisted within 2-years of referral, among all patients referred within 1-year of dialysis initiation. Using propensity score cut-offs, logistic regression, and area under the curve (AUC), we then estimated the proportion of individuals who may have been good transplant candidates, but were not referred.

RESULTS

Overall, 42.6% of incident dialysis patients were referred within one year and among them, 32.9% were waitlisted within 2 years of referral. Our model had reasonably good discrimination for identifying good transplant candidates with an AUC of 0.70 (95%CI 0.69-0.71), sensitivity of 0.68 and specificity of 0.61. Overall, 25% of individuals not referred for transplant may have been 'good' transplant candidates. Adding these patients to the existing 18,725 referred patients would increase the proportion of incident ESKD patients being referred within one year from 42.6% to 57.2% (a ~ 14.6% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we show that a significant proportion of potentially good transplant candidates are not being referred for transplant. A ~ 14% increase in the proportion of patients being referred from dialysis facilities is both a meaningful and realistic goal and could lead to more qualified patients being referred and subsequently waitlisted for a lifesaving transplant.

Expanding the access to kidney transplantation: Strategies for kidney transplant programs

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.

Disparities in Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Among Young Patients Without Medical Comorbidities

Importance

Disparities in kidney transplant referral and waitlisting contribute to disparities in kidney disease outcomes. Whether these differences are rooted in population differences in comorbidity burden is unclear.

Objective

To examine whether disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting were present among a young, relatively healthy cohort of patients unlikely to have medical contraindications to kidney transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used the US Renal Data System Registry to identify patients with end-stage kidney disease who initiated dialysis between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2019. Patients who were older than 40 years, received a preemptive transplant, were preemptively waitlisted, or had documented medical comorbidities other than hypertension or smoking were excluded, yielding an analytic cohort of 52 902 patients. Data were analyzed between March 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023.

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Kidney transplant waitlisting after dialysis initiation.

Results

Of 52 902 patients (mean [SD] age, 31 [5] years; 31 132 [59%] male; 3547 [7%] Asian/Pacific Islander, 20 782 [39%] Black/African American, and 28 006 [53%] White) included in the analysis, 15 840 (30%) were waitlisted for a kidney transplant within 1 year of dialysis initiation, 11 122 (21%) were waitlisted between 1 and 5 years after dialysis initiation, and 25 940 (49%) were not waitlisted by 5 years. Patients waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation were more likely to be male, to be White, to be employed full time, and to have had predialysis nephrology care. There were large state-level differences in the proportion of patients waitlisted within 1 year (median, 33%; range, 15%-58%). In competing risk regression, female sex (adjusted subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.94), Hispanic ethnicity (SHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80), and Black race (SHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68) were all associated with lower waitlisting after dialysis initiation. Unemployment (SHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.45-0.48) and part-time employment (SHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77) were associated with lower waitlisting compared with full-time employment, and more than 1 year of predialysis nephrology care, compared with none, was associated with greater waitlisting (SHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.46-1.56).

Conclusions and Relevance

This retrospective cohort study found that fewer than one-third of patients without major medical comorbidities were waitlisted for a kidney transplant within 1 year of dialysis initiation, with sociodemographic disparities in waitlisting even in this cohort of young, relatively healthy patients unlikely to have a medical contraindication to transplantation. Transplant policy changes are needed to increase transparency and address structural barriers to waitlist access.

A Population Health Approach to Transplant Access: Challenging the Status Quo

Transplant referral and evaluation are critical steps to waitlisting yet remain an elusive part of the transplant process. Despite calls for more data collection on pre-waitlisting steps, there are currently no national surveillance data to aid in understanding the causes and potential solutions for the extreme variation in access to transplantation. As population health scientists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and ethicists we submit that the transplant community has an obligation to better understand disparities in transplant access as a first necessary step to effectively mitigating these inequities. Our position is grounded in a population health approach, consistent with several new overarching national policy and quality initiatives. The purpose of this Perspective is to (1) provide an overview of how a population health approach should inform current multisystem policies impacting kidney transplantation and demonstrate how these efforts could be enhanced with national data collection on pre-waitlisting steps; (2) demonstrate the feasibility and concrete next steps for pre-waitlisting data collection; and (3) identify potential opportunities to use these data to implement effective population-level interventions, policies, and quality measures to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

Using Administrative Health Care Databases to Identify Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease With No Recorded Contraindication to Receiving a Kidney Transplant

Background

Administrative health care databases can be efficiently analyzed to describe the degree to which patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have access to kidney transplantation. Measures of access to transplantation are better represented when restricting to only those patients eligible to receive a kidney transplant. The way administrative data can be used to assess kidney transplant eligibility in the absence of clinical data has not been well described.

Objective

To demonstrate a method that uses administrative health care databases to identify patients with ESKD who have no recorded contraindication to receiving a kidney transplant.

Design and setting

Population-based cohort study using linked administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada.

Patients

Adult patients with ESKD approaching the need for dialysis (predialysis) or receiving maintenance dialysis between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2015 in Ontario, Canada.

Measurements

Recipient of a kidney-only or kidney-pancreas transplant.

Methods

We assessed more than 80 baseline characteristics, including demographic information, comorbidities, kidney-specific characteristics, and referral and listing criteria for kidney transplantation. We compared these characteristics between patients who did and did not receive a kidney transplant.

Results

We included 23 642 patients with ESKD (11 195 who were predialysis and 12 447 receiving maintenance dialysis). Over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (25th, 75th percentile: 1.3, 5.6), 3215 (13.6%) received a kidney-only or kidney-pancreas transplant. Of the studied characteristics available in administrative databases, >97% of patients with one or more of these characteristics did not receive a kidney transplant during follow-up: ESKD-modified Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥7 (a higher score represents greater comorbidity), home oxygen use, age above 75 years, dementia, living in a long-term care facility, receiving at least one physician house call in the past year, and a combination of select malignancies (ie, lung, lymphoma, cervical, colorectal, liver, active multiple myeloma, and bladder cancer). Using these combined criteria reduced the total number of patients from 23 642 to 12 539 with no recorded contraindications to transplant (a 47% reduction), while the proportion who received a kidney transplant changed from 13.6% (denominator of 23 642) to 24.9% (denominator of 12 539).

Limitations

Administrative databases are unable to capture all the complexities of determining transplant eligibility.

Conclusion

We identified several criteria available within administrative health care databases that can be used to identify patients with ESKD who have no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant. These criteria could be applied when reporting measures of access to kidney transplantation that require knowledge of transplant eligibility.

Non-medical barriers in access to early steps of kidney transplantation in the United States - A scoping review

BACKGROUND

In the United States (US), barriers in access to later steps in the kidney transplantation process (i.e. waitlisting) have been well documented. Barriers in access to earlier steps (i.e. referral and evaluation) are less well described due to the lack of national surveillance data. In this review, we summarize the available literature on non-medical barriers in access to kidney transplant referral and evaluation.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a scoping review of the literature through June 3, 2021. We included all studies (quantitative and qualitative) reporting on barriers to kidney transplant referral and evaluation in the US published from 1990 onwards in English and among adult end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014015027). We narratively synthesized results across studies.

RESULTS

We retrieved information from 33 studies published from 1990 to 2021 (reporting data between 1990 and 2018). Most studies (n = 28, 85%) described barriers among patient populations, three (9%) among provider populations, and two (6%) included both patients and providers. Key barriers were identified across multiple levels and included patient- (e.g. demographic, socioeconomic, sociocultural, and knowledge), provider- (e.g. miscommunication, staff availability, provider perceptions and attitudes), and system- (e.g. geography, distance to care, healthcare logistics) level factors.

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-pronged approach (e.g. targeted and systemwide interventions, and policy change) implemented at multiple levels of the healthcare system will be necessary to reduce identified barriers in access to early kidney transplant steps. Collection of national surveillance data on these early kidney transplant steps is also needed to enhance our understanding of barriers to referral and evaluation.

Nonmedical barriers to early steps in kidney transplantation among underrepresented groups in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite numerous targeted interventions and policy reforms, underrepresented minorities and patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) continue to have unequal access to kidney transplant. In this review, we summarize the most recent evidence on barriers to early kidney transplant steps (i.e. referral and evaluation) among underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities and low SES groups in the United States.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review highlights the interconnectedness of several patient-level (e.g. medical mistrust, transplant knowledge, access to care), provider-level (e.g. dialysis profit status, patient--provider communication; staff accessibility), and system-level (e.g. center-specific criteria, healthcare logistics, neighborhood poverty, healthcare logistics) factors associated with lower rates of referral and evaluation among underrepresented minorities and low SES groups, and the influence of systemic racism operating at all levels.

SUMMARY

Collection of national surveillance data on early transplant steps, as well as routinely captured data on upstream social determinants of health, including the measurement of racism rather than race, is necessary to enhance our understanding of barriers to referral and evaluation. A multipronged approach (e.g. targeted and systemwide interventions, and policy change) implemented at multiple levels of the healthcare system will be necessary to reduce disparities in early transplant steps.

Patients with High Priority for Kidney Transplant Who Are Not Given Expedited Placement on the Transplant Waiting List Represent Lost Opportunities

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is associated with the best outcomes for most patients with ESKD. The national Kidney Allocation System prioritizes patients with Estimated Post-Transplant Survival (EPTS) scores in the top 20% for expedited access to optimal deceased donor kidneys.

METHODS

We studied adults aged ≥18 years in the United States Renal Data System with top 20% EPTS scores who had been preemptively waitlisted or initiated dialysis in 2015-2017. We evaluated time to waitlist placement, transplantation, and mortality with unadjusted and multivariable survival models.

RESULTS

Of 42,445 patients with top 20% EPTS scores (mean age, 38.0 years; 57% male; 59% White patients, and 31% Black patients), 7922 were preemptively waitlisted. Among 34,523 patients initiating dialysis, the 3-year cumulative waitlist placement incidence was 37%. Numerous factors independently associated with waitlisting included race, income, and having noncommercial insurance. For example, waitlisting was less likely for Black versus White patients, and for patients in the lowest-income neighborhoods versus those in the highest-income neighborhoods. Among patients initiating dialysis, 61% lost their top 20% EPTS status within 30 months versus 18% of patients who were preemptively listed. The 3-year incidence of deceased and living donor transplantation was 5% and 6%, respectively, for patients who initiated dialysis and 26% and 44%, respectively, for patients who were preemptively listed.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with ESKDqualifying with top 20% EPTS status are not placed on the transplant waiting list in a timely manner, with significant variation on the basis of demographic and social factors. Patients who are preemptively listed are more likely to receive benefits of top 20% EPTS status. Efforts to expedite care for qualifying candidates are needed, and automated transplant referral for patients with the best prognoses should be considered.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast athttps://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2021_07_30_JASN2020081146.mp3.

Dialysis Facility Profit Status and Early Steps in Kidney Transplantation in the Southeastern United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Dialysis facilities in the United States play a key role in access to kidney transplantation. Previous studies reported that patients treated at for-profit facilities are less likely to be waitlisted and receive a transplant, but their effect on early steps in the transplant process is unknown. The study's objective was to determine the association between dialysis facility profit status and critical steps in the transplantation process in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

In this retrospective cohort study, we linked referral and evaluation data from all nine transplant centers in the Southeast with United States Renal Data System surveillance data. The cohort study included 33,651 patients with kidney failure initiating dialysis from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2016. Patients were censored for event (date of referral, evaluation, or waitlisting), death, or end of study (August 31, 2017 for referral and March 1, 2018 for evaluation and waitlisting). The primary exposure was dialysis facility profit status: for profit versus nonprofit. The primary outcome was referral for evaluation at a transplant center after dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were start of evaluation at a transplant center after referral and waitlisting.

RESULTS

Of the 33,651 patients with incident kidney failure, most received dialysis treatment at a for-profit facility (85%). For-profit (versus nonprofit) facilities had a lower cumulative incidence difference for referral within 1 year of dialysis (-4.5%; 95% confidence interval, -6.0% to -3.2%). In adjusted analyses, for-profit versus nonprofit facilities had lower referral (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.88). Start of evaluation within 6 months of referral (-1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -3.1% to 1.3%) and waitlisting within 6 months of evaluation (1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2 to 3.3) did not meaningfully differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest lower access to referral among patients dialyzing in for-profit facilities in the Southeast United States, but no difference in starting the evaluation and waitlisting by facility profit status.