Implicit bias and the gender inequity in liver transplantation

Temporal trends of health disparity in the utilization of curative-intent treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma: are we making progress?

BACKGROUND

Liver-directed treatments - ablative therapy (AT), surgical resection (SR), liver transplantation (LT), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) - improve the overall survival of patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although racial and socioeconomic disparities affect access to liver-directed therapies, the temporal trends for the curative-intent treatment of HCC remain to be elucidated.

METHODS

This study performed chi-square, logistic regression, and temporal trends analyses on data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2011 to 2019. The outcome of interest was the rate of AT, SR, LT (curative-intent treatments), and TACE utilization, and the primary predictors were racial/ethnic group and socioeconomic status (SES; insurance status).

RESULTS

African American and Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving AT (African American: odds ratio [OR], 0.78; P < .001; Hispanic: OR, 0.84; P = .005) and SR (African American: OR, 0.71; P < .001; Hispanics: OR, 0.64; P < .001) than White patients. Compared with White patients, the odds of LT was lower in African American patients (OR, 0.76; P < .001) but higher in Hispanic patients (OR, 1.25; P = .001). Low SES was associated with worse odds of AT (OR, 0.79; P = .001), SR (OR, 0.66; P < .001), and LT (OR, 0.84; P = .028) compared with high SES. Although curative-intent treatments showed significant upward temporal trends among White patients (10.6%-13.9%; P < .001) and Asian and Pacific Islander/other patients (14.4%-15.7%; P = .007), there were nonsignificant trends among African American patients (10.9%-10.1%; P = .825) or Hispanic patients (12.2%-13.7%; P = .056).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated concerning disparities in the utilization of curative-intent treatment for HCC based on race/ethnicity and SES. Moreover, racial/ethnic disparities have widened rather than improved over time.

Geographic disparities in access to liver transplant for advanced cirrhosis: Time to ring the alarm!

Decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer are major risk factors for mortality worldwide. Liver transplantation (LT), both live-donor LT or deceased-donor LT, are lifesaving, but there are several barriers toward equitable access. These barriers are exacerbated in the setting of critical illness or acute-on-chronic liver failure. Rates of LT vary widely worldwide but are lowest in lower-income countries owing to lack of resources, infrastructure, late disease presentation, and limited donor awareness. A recent experience by the Chronic Liver Disease Evolution and Registry for Events and Decompensation consortium defined these barriers toward LT as critical in determining overall survival in hospitalized cirrhosis patients. A major focus should be on appropriate, affordable, and early cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer care to prevent the need for LT. Live-donor LT is predominant across Asian countries, whereas deceased-donor LT is more common in Western countries; both approaches have unique challenges that add to the access disparities. There are many challenges toward equitable access but uniform definitions of acute-on-chronic liver failure, improving transplant expertise, enhancing availability of resources and encouraging knowledge between centers, and preventing disease progression are critical to reduce LT disparities.

Sex-based Disparities in Access to Liver Transplantation for Waitlisted Patients With Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score of 40

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of sex with access to liver transplantation among candidates with the highest possible model for end-stage liver disease score (MELD 40).

BACKGROUND

Women with end-stage liver disease are less likely than men to receive liver transplantation due in part to MELD's underestimation of renal dysfunction in women. The extent of the sex-based disparity among patients with high disease severity and equally high MELD scores is unclear.

METHODS

Using national transplant registry data, we compared liver offer acceptance (offers received at match MELD 40) and waitlist outcomes (transplant vs death/delisting) by sex for 7654 waitlisted liver transplant candidates from 2009 to 2019 who reached MELD 40. Multivariable logistic and competing-risks regression was used to estimate the association of sex with the outcome and adjust for the candidate and donor factors.

RESULTS

Women (N = 3019, 39.4%) spent equal time active at MELD 40 (median: 5 vs 5 days, P = 0.28) but had lower offer acceptance (9.2% vs 11.0%, P < 0.01) compared with men (N = 4635, 60.6%). Adjusting for candidate/donor factors, offers to women were less likely accepted (odds ratio = 0.87, P < 0.01). Adjusting for candidate factors, once they reached MELD 40, women were less likely to be transplanted (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.90, P < 0.01) and more likely to die or be delisted (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.14, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Even among candidates with high disease severity and equally high MELD scores, women have reduced access to liver transplantation and worse outcomes compared with men. Policies addressing this disparity should consider factors beyond MELD score adjustments alone.

Liver transplantation for people of minoritised sexual and gender identities in the USA

The number of people who report to be of minoritised sexual or gender identities in the USA, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexuality-diverse and gender-diverse identities, has been increasing in the past decade. This diverse and unique population continues to experience not only health disparities but also psychosocial, economic, and legal disparities in accessing and receiving health care, including liver transplantations. As liver transplantation is life-saving for people with end-stage liver disease, understanding the factors that can affect access to and quality of liver transplantation care in people of minoritised sexual and gender identities in the USA, including differential social supports, insurance coverage, and medical and psychiatric comorbidities, is crucial. Actions, such as collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data, implementing inclusive language, recognising implicit biases, building diverse teams, providing a safer environment, and supporting further research to understand the unique health challenges are needed to ensure equitable access to high-quality liver transplantation care for people of minoritised sexual and gender identities.

A translational perspective towards clinical AI fairness

Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated the ability to extract insights from data, but the fairness of such data-driven insights remains a concern in high-stakes fields. Despite extensive developments, issues of AI fairness in clinical contexts have not been adequately addressed. A fair model is normally expected to perform equally across subgroups defined by sensitive variables (e.g., age, gender/sex, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc.). Various fairness measurements have been developed to detect differences between subgroups as evidence of bias, and bias mitigation methods are designed to reduce the differences detected. This perspective of fairness, however, is misaligned with some key considerations in clinical contexts. The set of sensitive variables used in healthcare applications must be carefully examined for relevance and justified by clear clinical motivations. In addition, clinical AI fairness should closely investigate the ethical implications of fairness measurements (e.g., potential conflicts between group- and individual-level fairness) to select suitable and objective metrics. Generally defining AI fairness as "equality" is not necessarily reasonable in clinical settings, as differences may have clinical justifications and do not indicate biases. Instead, "equity" would be an appropriate objective of clinical AI fairness. Moreover, clinical feedback is essential to developing fair and well-performing AI models, and efforts should be made to actively involve clinicians in the process. The adaptation of AI fairness towards healthcare is not self-evident due to misalignments between technical developments and clinical considerations. Multidisciplinary collaboration between AI researchers, clinicians, and ethicists is necessary to bridge the gap and translate AI fairness into real-life benefits.

Equity in liver transplantation: are we any closer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As policies governing liver transplantation (LT) continue to change and influence clinical practice, it is important to monitor trends in equitable access and outcomes amongst patients. The purpose of this review is to closely examine recent advances and findings in health equity research in LT over the last 2 years; specifically evaluating inequities at the different stages of LT (referral, evaluation, listing, waitlist outcomes and post-LT outcomes).

RECENT FINDINGS

Advancements in geospatial analysis have enabled investigators to identify and begin to study the role of community level factors (such as neighborhood poverty, increased community capital/urbanicity score) in driving LT disparities. There has also been a shift in investigating center specific characteristics that contributes to disparities in waitlist access. Modification to the current model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score policy accounting for height differences is also crucial to eradicating the disparity in LT amongst sexes. Lastly, Black pediatric patients have been shown to have higher rates of death and worse posttransplant outcome after transitioning to adult healthcare.

SUMMARY

Although, there have been some advances in methodology and policies, inequities in waitlist access, waitlist outcomes and posttransplant outcomes continue to be pervasive in the field of LT. Future directions include expansion of social determinants of health measures, inclusion of multicenter designs, MELD score modification and investigation into drivers of worse posttransplant outcomes in Black patients.

The sex disparity in liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review describes the sex disparity in liver transplantation (LT) and explains its underlying causes.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a small but persistent sex disparity in transplant rate and waitlist mortality that disappears once women are listed as Status 1. Allocation systems that could replace the Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-Na with scores less reliant on serum creatine and muscle mass have the potential to alleviate part of the sex disparity. Women perform worse on frailty assessments and are more likely to have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). A diagnosis of NASH is compounding risk factor for frailty.

SUMMARY

Women remain disadvantaged in their access to LT despite multiple evolutions of the allocation system. An allocation system that relies less heavily on serum creatinine could partially alleviate the sex disparity. As NASH becomes more prevalent and frailty becomes more important in listing decisions, we may also need to carefully consider differences in the manifestations of frailty between the genders.

Actionable Solutions to Achieve Health Equity in Chronic Liver Disease

There are well-described racial and ethnic disparities in the burden of chronic liver diseases. Hispanic persons are at highest risk for developing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the fastest growing cause of liver disease. Hepatitis B disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent. The highest rates of hepatitis C occur in American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. In addition to disparities in disease burden, there are also marked racial and ethnic disparities in access to treatments, including liver transplantation. Disparities also exist by gender and geography, especially in alcohol-related liver disease. To achieve health equity, we must address the root causes that drive these inequities. Understanding the role that social determinants of health play in the disparate health outcomes that are currently observed is critically important. We must forge and/or strengthen collaborations between patients, community members, other key stakeholders, health care providers, health care institutions, professional societies, and legislative bodies. Herein, we provide a high-level review of current disparities in chronic liver disease and describe actionable strategies that have potential to bridge gaps, improve quality, and promote equity in liver care.

Association of Body Surface Area With Access to Deceased Donor Liver Transplant and Novel Allocation Policies

Importance

Small waitlist candidates are significantly less likely than larger candidates to receive a liver transplant.

Objective

To investigate the magnitude of the size disparity and test potential policy solutions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A decision analytical model was generated to match liver transplant donors to waitlist candidates based on predefined body surface area (BSA) ratio limits (donor BSA divided by recipient BSA). Participants included adult deceased liver transplant donors and waitlist candidates in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from June 18, 2013, to March 20, 2020. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to September 2021.

Exposures

Candidates were categorized into 6 groups according to BSA from smallest (group 1) to largest (group 6). Waitlist outcomes were examined. A match run was created for each donor under the current acuity circle liver allocation policy, and the proportion of candidates eligible for a liver based on BSA ratio was calculated. Novel allocation models were then tested.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Time on the waitlist, assigned Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and proportion of patients undergoing a transplant were compared by BSA group. Modeling under the current allocation policies was used to determine baseline access to transplant by group. Simulation of novel allocation policies was performed to examine change in access.

Results

There were 41 341 donors (24 842 [60.1%] male and 16 499 [39.9%] female) and 84 201 waitlist candidates (53 724 [63.8%] male and 30 477 [36.2%] female) in the study. The median age of the donors was 42 years (IQR, 28-55) and waitlist candidates, 57 years (IQR, 50-63). Females were overrepresented in the 2 smallest BSA groups (7100 [84.0%] and 7922 [61.1%] in groups 1 and 2, respectively). For each increase in group number, waitlist time decreased (234 days [IQR, 48-700] for group 1 vs 179 days [IQR, 26-503] for group 6; P < .001) and the proportion of the group undergoing transplant likewise improved (3890 [46%] in group 1 vs 4932 [57%] in group 6; P < .001). The smallest 2 groups of candidates were disadvantaged under the current acuity circle allocation model, with 37% and 7.4% fewer livers allocated relative to their proportional representation on the waitlist. Allocation of the smallest 10% of donors (by BSA) to the smallest 15% of candidates overcame this disparity, as did performing split liver transplants.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, liver waitlist candidates with the smallest BSAs had a disadvantage due to size. Prioritizing allocation of smaller liver donors to smaller candidates may help overcome this disparity.

Addressing sex-based disparities in liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Disparities in access to liver transplantation by sex have been well described, disadvantaging women. Understanding the multifactorial causes of these disparities as well as the variety of proposed solutions is critical to improving access to this life-saving intervention for women. This review aims to summarize the current body of evidence on observed sex disparities in liver transplantation and highlight actionable, evidence-based mechanisms by which these disparities can be addressed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Strategies for addressing sex disparities in liver transplantation include increasing organ utilization, changing allocation policy, and leveraging public policies to reduce the incidence of end-stage liver disease. Several other promising interventions are currently being explored.

SUMMARY

In the United States, women face additional barriers to liver transplantation on the basis of sex. Immediate action is necessary to systematically address these inequities.

Addressing sex-based disparities in solid organ transplantation in the United States - a conference report

Solid organ transplantation provides the best treatment for end-stage organ failure, but significant sex-based disparities in transplant access exist. On June 25, 2021, a virtual multidisciplinary conference was convened to address sex-based disparities in transplantation. Common themes contributing to sex-based disparities were noted across kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation, specifically the existence of barriers to referral and wait listing for women, the pitfalls of using serum creatinine, the issue of donor/recipient size mismatch, approaches to frailty and a higher prevalence of allosensitization among women. In addition, actionable solutions to improve access to transplantation were identified, including alterations to the current allocation system, surgical interventions on donor organs, and the incorporation of objective frailty metrics into the evaluation process. Key knowledge gaps and high-priority areas for future investigation were also discussed.