Eliminating racial disparities in kidney transplantation

Racial Disparities in Waiting List Outcomes of Patients Listed for Lung Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The Lung Allocation Score, implemented in 2005, prioritized lung transplant candidates by medical urgency rather than waiting list time and was expected to improve racial disparities in transplant allocation. We evaluated whether racial disparities in lung transplant persisted after 2005.

METHODS

We identified all wait-listed adult lung transplant candidates in the United States from 2005 through 2021 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We evaluated the association between race and receipt of a transplant by using a multivariable competing risk regression model adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic status, Lung Allocation Score, clinical measures, and time. We evaluated interactions between race and age, sex, socioeconomic status, and Lung Allocation Score.

RESULTS

We identified 33,158 candidates on the lung transplant waiting list between 2005 and 2021: 27,074 White (82%), 3350 African American (10%), and 2734 Hispanic (8%). White candidates were older, had higher education levels, and had lower Lung Allocation Scores (P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, African American and Hispanic candidates were less likely to receive lung transplants than White candidates (African American: adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91; Hispanic: adjusted subhazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.87). Lung transplant was significantly less common among Hispanic candidates aged >65 years (P = .003) and non-White candidates from higher-poverty communities (African-American: P = .013; Hispanic: P =.0036).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite implementation of the Lung Allocation Score, racial disparities persisted for wait-listed African American and Hispanic lung transplant candidates and differed by age and poverty status. Targeted interventions are needed to ensure equitable access to this life-saving intervention.

Comparable kidney transplant outcomes in selected patients with a body mass index ≥ 40: A personalized medicine approach to recipient selection

INTRODUCTION

Many kidney transplant (KT) centers decline patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2 . This study's aim was to evaluate KT outcomes according to recipient BMI.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective review of adult KTs comparing BMI ≥40 patients (n = 84, BMI = 42 ± 2 kg/m2 ) to a matched BMI < 40 cohort (n = 84, BMI = 28 ± 5 kg/m2 ). Patients were matched for age, gender, race, diabetes, and donor type.

RESULTS

BMI ≥40 patients were on dialysis longer (5.2 ± 3.2 years vs. 4.1 ± 3.5 years, p = .03) and received lower kidney donor profile index (KDPI) kidneys (40 ± 25% vs. 53 ± 26%, p = .003). There were no significant differences in prevalence of delayed graft function, reoperations, readmissions, wound complications, patient survival, or renal function at 1 year. Long-term graft survival was higher for BMI ≥40 patients, including after adjusting for KDPI (BMI ≥40: aHR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.09-2.9). BMI ≥40 patients had similar BMI change in the first year post-transplant (delta BMI: BMI ≥ 40 +.9 ± 3.3 vs. BMI < 40 +1.1 ± 3.2, p = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall outcomes after KT were comparable in BMI ≥40 patients compared to a matched cohort with lower BMI with improved long-term graft survival in obese patients. BMI-based exclusion criteria for KT should be reexamined in favor of a more individualized approach.

Use of Machine Learning Consensus Clustering to Identify Distinct Subtypes of Kidney Transplant Recipients With DGF and Associated Outcomes

Data and transplant community opinion on delayed graft function (DGF), and its impact on outcomes, remains varied. An unsupervised machine learning consensus clustering approach was applied to categorize the clinical phenotypes of kidney transplant (KT) recipients with DGF using OPTN/UNOS data. DGF was observed in 20.9% (n = 17,073) of KT and most kidneys had a KDPI score <85%. Four distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 recipients were young, high PRA re-transplants. Cluster 2 recipients were older diabetics and more likely to receive higher KDPI kidneys. Cluster 3 recipients were young, black, and non-diabetic; they received lower KDPI kidneys. Cluster 4 recipients were middle-aged, had diabetes or hypertension and received well-matched standard KDPI kidneys. By cluster, one-year patient survival was 95.7%, 92.5%, 97.2% and 94.3% (p < 0.001); one-year graft survival was 89.7%, 87.1%, 91.6%, and 88.7% (p < 0.001). There were no differences between clusters after accounting for death-censored graft loss (p = 0.08). Clinically meaningful differences in recipient characteristics were noted between clusters, however, after accounting for death and return to dialysis, there were no differences in death-censored graft loss. Greater emphasis on recipient comorbidities as contributors to DGF and outcomes may help improve utilization of DGF at-risk kidneys.

Transplant Clinician Opinions on Use of Race in the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Current race-based eGFR calculators assign a higher eGFR value to Black patients, which could affect the care of kidney transplant candidates and potential living donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a survey of staff at adult kidney transplant centers in the United States (December 17, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to assess opinions on use of race-based eGFR equations for waitlisting and living donor candidate evaluation, availability of serum cystatin C testing and measured GFR, and related practices.

RESULTS

Respondents represented 57% (124 of 218) of adult kidney transplant programs, and the responding centers conducted 70% of recent kidney transplant volume. Most (93%) programs use serum creatinine-based eGFR for listing candidates. However, only 6% of respondents felt that current race-based eGFR calculators are appropriate, with desire for change grounded in concerns for promotion of health care disparities by current equations and inaccuracies in reporting of race. Most respondents (70%) believed that elimination of race would allow more preemptive waitlisting for Black patients, but a majority (79%) also raised concerns that such an approach could incur harms. More than one third of the responding programs lacked or were unsure of availability of testing for cystatin C or measured GFR. At this time, 40% of represented centers did not plan to remove race from eGFR calculators, 46% were planning to remove, and 15% had already done so. There was substantial variability in eGFR reporting and listing of multiracial patients with some Black ancestry. There was no difference in GFR acceptance thresholds for Black versus non-Black living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

This national survey highlights a broad consensus that extant approaches to GFR estimation are unsatisfactory, but it also identified a range of current opinions.