Geographic variability in access to primary kidney transplantation in the United States, 1996-2005

Determinants of Long Waiting Time to Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Disparity in waiting time to kidney transplantation led to new policy (KAS250). Our aims were to identify variables associated with long wait time (LWT); assess the impact of KAS250 on WT; and analyze modifiable transplant center behaviors correlated with WT.

METHODS

SRTR data for adult deceased donor kidney transplants were analyzed. Time-periods from 8/1/2018-7/31/2019 and 5/1/2021-4/30/2022 were chosen for pre- and post-KAS250 analyses. Transplant centers were categorized as LWT or SWT centers depending on whether pre-KAS250 median center waiting times were greater or less than the national pre-KAS250 median waiting time of 57.8 months.

RESULTS

In multivariate analysis, transplantation with HCV NAT negative kidneys was associated with an additional 21.3 months of WT (CI: 18.5-24.2, P < .0001), and transplantation with KDPI <85% kidneys was associated with an additional 10.8 months (CI: 8.2-13.3, P < .0001). Post-KAS250 national kidney transplant waiting time decreased from 61-58 months (P < .0001) and waiting time at LWT centers decreased from 74-69 months (P < .0001). Cold ischemic times (CIT) increased (20.2 hours vs 18.3 hours, P < .0001) and DGF rates also increased (32.7% vs 31.0%, P < .0001). Centers generally displayed more aggressive transplantation practices post-KAS250 however significant differences in DCD utilization, organ offer acceptance ratios and tolerance for long CIT persist between SWT and LWT centers.

CONCLUSION

KAS250 has reduced waiting time disparities between SWT and LWT centers at the cost of increased CIT and DGF and reduced allocation efficiency. Significant differences in transplant practice persist between SWT and LWT centers.

Associations between long-term exposure to air pollution and kidney function utilizing electronic healthcare records: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects more than 38 million people in the United States, predominantly those over 65 years of age. While CKD etiology is complex, recent research suggests associations with environmental exposures.

METHODS

Our primary objective is to examine creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr) and diagnosis of CKD and potential associations with fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ozone (O3), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) using a random sample of North Carolina electronic healthcare records (EHRs) from 2004 to 2016. We estimated eGFRcr using the serum creatinine-based 2021 CKD-EPI equation. PM2.5 and NO2 data come from a hybrid model using 1 km2 grids and O3 data from 12 km2 CMAQ grids. Exposure concentrations were 1-year averages. We used linear mixed models to estimate eGFRcr per IQR increase of pollutants. We used multiple logistic regression to estimate associations between pollutants and first appearance of CKD. We adjusted for patient sex, race, age, comorbidities, temporality, and 2010 census block group variables.

RESULTS

We found 44,872 serum creatinine measurements among 7,722 patients. An IQR increase in PM2.5 was associated with a 1.63 mL/min/1.73m2 (95% CI: -1.96, -1.31) reduction in eGFRcr, with O3 and NO2 showing positive associations. There were 1,015 patients identified with CKD through e-phenotyping and ICD codes. None of the environmental exposures were positively associated with a first-time measure of eGFRcr < 60 mL/min/1.73m2. NO2 was inversely associated with a first-time diagnosis of CKD with aOR of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year average PM2.5 was associated with reduced eGFRcr, while O3 and NO2 were inversely associated. Neither PM2.5 or O3 were associated with a first-time identification of CKD, NO2 was inversely associated. We recommend future research examining the relationship between air pollution and impaired renal function.

Kidney Transplantation Contraindications: Variation in Nephrologist Practice and Training Vintage

Introduction

Health system leaders aim to increase access to kidney transplantation in part by encouraging nephrologists to refer more patients for transplant evaluation. Little is known about nephrologists' referral decisions and whether nephrologists with older training vintage weigh patient criteria differently (e.g., more restrictively).

Methods

Using a novel, iteratively validated survey of US-based nephrologists, we examined how nephrologists assess adult patients' suitability for transplant, focusing on established, important criteria: 7 clinical (e.g., overweight) and 7 psychosocial (e.g., insurance). We quantified variation in nephrologist restrictiveness-proportion of criteria interpreted as absolute or partial contraindications versus minor or negligible concerns-and tested associations between restrictiveness and nephrologist age (proxy for training vintage) in logistic regression models, controlling for nephrologist-level and practice-level factors.

Results

Of 144 nephrologists invited, 42 survey respondents (29% response rate) were 85% male and 54% non-Hispanic White, with mean age 52 years, and 67% spent ≥1 day/wk in outpatient dialysis facilities. Nephrologists interpreted patient criteria inconsistently; consistency was lower for psychosocial criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.28) than for clinical criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.43; P < 0.01). With each additional 10 years of age, nephrologists' odds of interpreting criteria restrictively (top tertile) doubled (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-4.07), with marginal statistical significance. This relationship was significant when interpreting psychosocial criteria (aOR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.16-8.71) but not when interpreting clinical criteria (aOR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52-2.38).

Conclusion

Nephrologists interpret evaluation criteria variably when assessing patient suitability for transplant. Guideline-based educational interventions could influence nephrologists' referral decision-making differentially by age.

Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation: Access, fate, and review of the status in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation (PLDKT) is recommended as the optimal treatment for end-stage renal disease.

AIM

To assess the rate of PLDKT among patients who accessed KT in our center and review the status of PLDKT in Egypt.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the patients who accessed KT in our center from November 2015 to November 2022. In addition, the PLDKT status in Egypt was reviewed relative to the literature.

RESULTS

Of the 304 patients who accessed KT, 32 patients (10.5%) had preemptive access to KT (PAKT). The means of age and estimated glomerular filtration rate were 31.7 ± 13 years and 12.8 ± 3.5 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively. Fifty-nine patients had KT, including 3 PLDKTs only (5.1% of total KTs and 9.4% of PAKT). Twenty-nine patients (90.6%) failed to receive PLDKT due to donor unavailability (25%), exclusion (28.6%), regression from donation (3.6%), and patient regression on starting dialysis (39.3%). In multivariate analysis, known primary kidney disease (P = 0.002), patient age (P = 0.031) and sex (P = 0.001) were independent predictors of achievement of KT in our center. However, PAKT was not significantly (P = 0.065) associated with the achievement of KT. Review of the literature revealed lower rates of PLDKT in Egypt than those in the literature.

CONCLUSION

Patient age, sex, and primary kidney disease are independent predictors of achieving living donor KT. Despite its non-significant effect, PAKT may enhance the low rates of PLDKT. The main causes of non-achievement of PLDKT were patient regression on starting regular dialysis and donor unavailability or exclusion.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Kidney Transplant Candidate Waitlist Status across Demographic and Geographic Groups: A National Analysis of UNOS STAR Data

The primary goal of this retrospective study is to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic differentially impacted transplant status across race, sex, age, primary insurance, and geographic regions by examining which candidates: (i) remained on the waitlist, (ii) received transplants, or (iii) were removed from the waitlist due to severe sickness or death on a national level. Methods: The trend analysis aggregated by monthly transplant data from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2021 (18 months) at the transplant center level. Ten variables about every transplant candidate were extracted from UNOS standard transplant analysis and research (STAR) data and analyzed. Characteristics of demographical groups were analyzed bivariately using t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and using Chi-sq/Fishers exact tests for categorical variables. Results: The trend analysis with the study period of 18 months included 31,336 transplants across 327 transplant centers. Patients experienced a longer waiting time when their registration centers in a county where high numbers of COVID-19 deaths were observed (SHR < 0.9999, p < 0.01). White candidates had a more significant transplant rate reduction than minority candidates (-32.19% vs. -20.15%) while minority candidates were found to have a higher waitlist removal rate than White candidates (9.23% vs. 9.45%). Compared to minority patients, White candidates' sub-distribution hazard ratio of the transplant waiting time was reduced by 55% during the pandemic period. Candidates in the Northwest United States had a more significant reduction in the transplant rate and a greater increase in the removal rate during the pandemic period. Conclusions: Based on this study, waitlist status and disposition varied significantly based on patient sociodemographic factors. During the pandemic period, minority patients, those with public insurance, older patients, and those in counties with high numbers of COVID-19 deaths experienced longer wait times. In contrast, older, White, male, Medicare, and high CPRA patients had a statistically significant higher risk of waitlist removal due to severe sickness or death. The results of this study should be considered carefully as we approach a reopening world post-COVID-19, and further studies should be conducted to elucidate the relationship between transplant candidate sociodemographic status and medical outcomes during this era.

Perception of social inequities in the access to the kidney transplant waiting list by nephrology trainees: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Social inequalities in health are responsible for disparities in access to the kidney transplant waiting list (KTWL). The perception of disparities by nephrologists has consequences for the registration on the KTWL. The purposes of our study were to assess the perception of the factors implicated in the disparities in access to the KTWL by nephrology trainees and to assess the quality of the questionnaire.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed to assess the perception of the determinants of the inequities in access to waitlisting. Continuous variables were described by median, 1st and 3rd quartiles. Categorical variables were described by frequencies and percentages. A principal component analysis and a hierarchical cluster analysis were performed to approach the correlation between the variables. A scree plot and a factor analysis were performed to determine the dimensions of the questionnaire. The internal consistency was estimated by Cronbach's coefficient.

RESULTS

The response rate was 98/110 (89%). The determinants of inequities in the access to KTWL not perceived by the nephrology trainees were "female sex", "income level" and "the centre provision to adapt the information to all of the patients" (18,3%, 36,7, 47% respectively). "Age", "being born abroad", "place of living", "education level", "transplant centre", "the health care provider" were determinants of disparities perceived by most of the trainees (85,7%, 75,5%, 82,6%, 78,6%, 73,5% et 78,5% respectively). Items related to the transplant centre were positively correlated, as well as "being born abroad", "education level" and "income level". The Cronbach's coefficient was 0,60.

CONCLUSION

Social inequalities in health are partially perceived by nephrology trainees. A teaching session could raise nephrologists' awareness of this issue and could help reduce the impact of these disparities on the course of ESKD (end-stage kidney disease) patients.

The New Distance-Based Kidney Allocation System: Implications for Patients, Transplant Centers, and Organ Procurement Organizations

Purpose of Review

The goal of deceased donor kidney allocation policy is to provide objective prioritization for donated kidneys, and policy has undergone a series of revisions in the past decade in attempt to achieve equity and utility in access to kidney transplantation. Most recently, to address geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation, the Kidney Allocation System changed to a distance-based allocation system—colloquially termed “KAS 250”—moving away from donor service areas as the geographic basis of allocation. We review the early impact of this policy change on access to transplant for patients, and on complexity of organ allocation and transplantation for transplant centers and organ procurement organizations.

Recent Findings

Broader sharing of kidneys has increased complexity of the allocation system, as transplant centers and OPOs now interact in larger networks. The increased competition resulting from this system, and the increased operational burden on centers and OPOs resulting from greater numbers of organ offers, may adversely affect organ utilization. Preliminary results suggest an increase in transplant rate overall but a trend toward higher kidney discard and increased cold ischemia time.

Summary

The KAS 250 allocation policy changed the geographic basis of deceased donor kidney distribution in a manner that is intended to reduce geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation. Close monitoring of this policy’s impact on patients, transplant center behavior, and process measures is critical to the aim of maximizing access to transplant while achieving transplant equity.

Perpetuating Disparity: Failure of the Kidney Transplant System to Provide the Most Kidney Transplants to Communities With the Greatest Need

BACKGROUND

The burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and kidney transplant rates vary significantly across the United States. This study aims to examine the mismatch between ESKD burden and kidney transplant rates from a perspective of spatial epidemiology.

METHODS

US Renal Data System data from 2015 to 2017 on incident ESKD and kidney transplants per 1000 incident ESKD cases was analyzed. Clustering of ESKD burden and kidney transplant rates at the county level was determined using local Moran's I and correlated to county health scores. Higher percentile county health scores indicated worse overall community health.

RESULTS

Significant clusters of high-ESKD burden tended to coincide with clusters of low kidney transplant rates, and vice versa. The most common cluster type had high incident ESKD with low transplant rates (377 counties). Counties in these clusters had the lowest overall mean transplant rate (61.1), highest overall mean ESKD incidence (61.3), and highest mean county health scores percentile (80.9%, P <0.001 vs all other cluster types). By comparison, counties in clusters with low ESKD incidence and high transplant rates (n=359) had the highest mean transplant rate (110.6), the lowest mean ESKD incidence (28.9), and the lowest county health scores (20.2%). All comparisons to high-ESKD/low-transplant clusters were significant at P value <0.001.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant mismatch between kidney transplant rates and ESKD burden, where areas with the greatest need had the lowest transplant rates. This pattern exacerbates pre-existing disparities, as disadvantaged high-ESKD regions already suffer from worse access to care and overall community health, as evidenced by the highest county health scores in the study.

County-Level Characteristics Associated with Variation in ESKD Mortality in the United States, 2010-2018

Background

Geographic and neighborhood-level factors, such as poverty and education, have been associated with an increased risk for incident ESKD, likelihood of receiving pre-ESKD care, and likelihood of receiving a transplant. However, few studies have examined whether these same factors are associated with ESKD mortality. In this study, we examined county-level variation in ESKD mortality and identified county-level characteristics associated with this variation.

Methods

We identified 1,515,986 individuals (aged 18-84 years) initiating RRT (dialysis or transplant) between 2010 and 2018 using the United States Renal Data System. Among 2781 counties, we estimated county-level, all-cause, age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) among patients with ESKD. We then identified county-level demographic (e.g., percent female), socioeconomic (e.g., percent unemployed), healthcare (e.g., percent without health insurance), and health behavior (e.g., percent current smokers) characteristics associated with ASMR using multivariable hierarchic linear mixed models and quantified the percentage of ASMR variation explained by county-level characteristics.

Results

County-level ESKD ASMR ranged from 45 to 1022 per 1000 person-years (PY) (mean, 119 per 1000 PY). ASMRs were highest in counties located in the Tennessee Valley and Appalachia regions, and lowest in counties located in New England, the Pacific Northwest, and Southern California. In fully adjusted models, county-level characteristics significantly associated with higher ESKD mortality included a lower percentage of Black residents (-4.94 per 1000 PY), lower transplant rate (-4.08 per 1000 PY), and higher healthcare expenditures (5.21 per 1000 PY). Overall, county-level characteristics explained 19% of variation in ESKD mortality.

Conclusions

Counties with high ESKD-related mortality may benefit from targeted and multilevel interventions that combine knowledge from a growing evidence base on the interplay between individual and community-level factors associated with ESKD mortality.

The beneficial effect of providing kidney transplantation information on transplantation status differs between for-profit and nonprofit dialysis centers

Informing end-stage kidney disease patients about kidney transplantation options increases the likelihood of kidney transplant waiting list (WL) enrollment and live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) receipt. Patients in for-profit dialysis centers have lower rates of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. This study examined if the ownership status of dialysis centers modified the association between informing patients about transplantation options and patients' transplantation status. Multilevel analysis using mixed-effect multinomial logistic regression was performed using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data (January 2005 to December 2017). The study showed that informing patients improved the odds of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. However, the effect of informing patients on transplantation status was less pronounced at for-profit as compared with nonprofit centers (Nonprofit: WL enrollment OR: 2.23 [95% CI: 2.07-2.40], and LDKT receipt OR: 3.35 [95% CI: 2.65-4.25]. For-profit: WL enrollment OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.66-1.79], and LDKT receipt OR: 2.35 [95% CI: 2.08-2.66]), although the odds of informing patients was higher for for-profit centers, and type of patients informed were similar across both types of centers. Information provided by for-profit centers was potentially less effective than those provided by nonprofit centers. Standardized guidelines for transplantation information provision are needed in order to ensure similar informational quality across centers.

Kidney Allocation Policy: Past, Present, and Future

Despite an increase in the number of kidney transplants performed annually, there remain more than 90,000 individuals awaiting transplantation in the United States. As kidney transplantation has evolved, so has kidney allocation policies. The Kidney Allocation System, which was introduced in 2014, made significant strides to improve utility and equity, but regional and geographic disparities remain. Further modifications eliminating donor service areas have been introduced. Moving forward, systems involving continuous distribution and artificial intelligence may provide further advancement toward an ideal allocation system.

Geographic disparities in transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Final Rule clearly states that geography should not be a determinant of a chance of a potential candidate being transplanted. There have been multiple concerns about geographic disparities in patients in need of solid organ transplantation. Allocation policy adjustments have been designed to address these concerns, but there is little evidence that the disparities have been solved. The purpose of this review is to describe the main drivers of geographic disparities in solid organ transplantation and how allocation policy changes and other potential actions could impact these inequalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Geographical disparities have been reported in kidney, pancreas, liver, and lung transplantation. Organ Procurement and Transplant Network has modified organ allocation rules to underplay geography as a key determinant of a candidates' chance of receiving an organ. Thus, heart, lung, and more recently liver and Kidney Allocation Systems have incorporated broader organ sharing to reduce geographical disparities. Whether these policy adjustments will indeed eliminate geographical disparities are still unclear.

SUMMARY

Modern allocation policy focus in patients need, regardless of geography. Innovative actions to further reduce geographical disparities are needed.

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.

Failure to Advance Access to Kidney Transplantation over Two Decades in the United States

BACKGROUND

Extensive research and policies have been developed to improve access to kidney transplantation among patients with ESKD. Despite this, wide variation in transplant referral rates exists between dialysis facilities.

METHODS

To evaluate the longitudinal pattern of access to kidney transplantation over the past two decades, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with ESKD initiating ESKD or placed on a transplant waiting list from 1997 to 2016 in the United States Renal Data System. We used cumulative incidence models accounting for competing risks and multivariable Cox models to evaluate time to waiting list placement or transplantation (WLT) from ESKD onset.

RESULTS

Among the study population of 1,309,998 adult patients, cumulative 4-year WLT was 29.7%, which was unchanged over five eras. Preemptive WLT (prior to dialysis) increased by era (5.2% in 1997-2000 to 9.8% in 2013-2016), as did 4-year WLT incidence among patients aged 60-70 (13.4% in 1997-2000 to 19.8% in 2013-2016). Four-year WLT incidence diminished among patients aged 18-39 (55.8%-48.8%). Incidence of WLT was substantially lower among patients in lower-income communities, with no improvement over time. Likelihood of WLT after dialysis significantly declined over time (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.82) in 2013-2016 relative to 1997-2000.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite wide recognition, policy reforms, and extensive research, rates of WLT following ESKD onset did not seem to improve in more than two decades and were consistently reduced among vulnerable populations. Improving access to transplantation may require more substantial interventions.

Allocating kidneys in optimized heterogeneous circles

Recently, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network approved a plan to allocate kidneys within 250-nm circles around donor hospitals. These homogeneous circles might not substantially reduce geographic differences in transplant rates because deceased donor kidney supply and demand differ across the country. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2016-2019, we used an integer program to design unique, heterogeneous circles with sizes between 100 and 500 nm that reduced supply/demand ratio variation across transplant centers. We weighted demand according to wait time because candidates who have waited longer have higher priority. We compared supply/demand ratios and average travel distance of kidneys, using heterogeneous circles and 250 and 500-nm fixed-distance homogeneous circles. We found that 40% of circles could be 250 nm or smaller, while reducing supply/demand ratio variation more than homogeneous circles. Supply/demand ratios across centers for heterogeneous circles ranged from 0.06 to 0.13 kidneys per wait-year, compared to 0.04 to 0.47 and 0.05 to 0.15 kidneys per wait-year for 250-nm and 500-nm homogeneous circles, respectively. The average travel distance for kidneys using heterogeneous, and 250-nm and 500-nm fixed-distance circles was 173 nm, 134 nm, and 269 nm, respectively. Heterogeneous circles reduce geographic disparity compared to homogeneous circles, while maintaining reasonable travel distances.

Dialysis facility referral and start of evaluation for kidney transplantation among patients treated with dialysis in the Southeastern United States

Variability in transplant access exists, but barriers to referral and evaluation are underexplored due to lack of national surveillance data. We examined referral for kidney transplantation evaluation and start of the evaluation among 34 857 incident, adult (18-79 years) end-stage kidney disease patients from 690 dialysis facilities in the United States Renal Data System from January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2016, followed through February 2018 and linked data to referral and evaluation data from nine transplant centers in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Multivariable-adjusted competing risk analysis examined each outcome. The median within-facility cumulative percentage of patients referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis at the 690 dialysis facilities in Network 6 was 33.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 25.3%-43.1%). Only 48.3% of referred patients started the transplant evaluation within 6 months of referral. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with referral vs evaluation start among those referred at any time differed. For example, black, non-Hispanic patients had a higher rate of referral (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.27), but lower evaluation start among those referred (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.98), vs white non-Hispanic patients. Barriers to transplant varied by step, and national surveillance data should be collected on early transplant steps to improve transplant access.

Does Distance to Transplant Center Affect Post Kidney Transplant Readmission Rates?

Many transplant recipients travel long distances to their transplant center with challenging access to their transplant team. As such, many centers keep recipients near to the center for a period immediately after discharge from the transplant admission. Thus far, the correlation between distance to the transplant center, readmission, and outcomes has not been described. The aim of this study was to examine this relationship. Patients undergoing deceased donor kidney transplant at a single center over a three-year period were analyzed via retrospective chart review for factors associated with distance to the transplant center and readmission. P values < 0.05 were considered significant. Of 141 patients, the overall 90-day readmission rate was 38.3 per cent, and rates were similar between nonlocal and local recipients. Nonlocal were more likely whites (66.1% vs 45.6%; P = 0.032) and from rural areas (56.5% vs 13.9%; P < 0.001). Length of stay was similar between groups, as were rates of delayed graft function. Non–death-censored graft survival was higher at one and three years for nonlocal patients (96.8% and 96.8% vs 89.7% and 78.4%; P = 0.016). This remained significant after adjusting for baseline differences between the groups (hazard ratio (HR) for graft failure = 0.195, 95%, P = 0.046). Patients who live remotely from the transplant center do not experience higher rates of readmission or worsened outcomes, and thus may be managed safely at home. Interestingly, graft survival is improved in nonlocal patients. This may reflect the urban nature of the area surrounding our transplant center, but warrants further study for conclusions to be reached.

Policies to promote timely referral for kidney transplantation

There are numerous patient, provider, and health system barriers to accessing kidney transplantation. Patient barriers such as sociocultural and clinical characteristics and provider factors such as provider knowledge and awareness of transplantation play important roles in facilitating transplant. Health system factors like misaligned incentives and quality metrics for dialysis facilities and transplant centers also influence transplant access. While numerous studies have documented the impact of these barriers on wait-listing and transplant, few studies have examined referral from a dialysis facility to a transplant center and start of the transplant evaluation process. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require that dialysis facilities educate patients about transplant, there are no guidelines for the content and objectives for this education. In addition, policies to require timely referral for transplantation have been considered by CMS but are difficult to implement without national data on referral. Federal policies should be amended to mandate transplant center submission of referral data-while decreasing the unfunded mandate to collect other unusable data currently collected as part of regulatory monitoring of transplant centers-to promote timely access to transplant, increased transplant rates, and to better understand the multilevel barriers and facilitators to transplant referral.

A Donor Utilization Index to Assess the Utilization and Discard of Deceased Donor Kidneys Perceived as High Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of patients on the waitlist for a kidney transplant indicates a need to effectively utilize as many deceased donor kidneys as possible while ensuring acceptable outcomes. Assessing regional and center-level organ utilization with regards to discard can reveal regional variation in suboptimal deceased donor kidney acceptance patterns stemming from perceptions of risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We created a weighted donor utilization index from a logistic regression model using high-risk donor characteristics and discard rates from 113,640 deceased donor kidneys procured for transplant from 2010 to 2016, and used it to examine deceased donor kidney utilization in 182 adult transplant centers with >15 annual deceased donor kidney transplants. Linear regression and correlation were used to analyze differences in donor utilization indexes.

RESULTS

The donor utilization index was found to significantly vary by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network region (P<0.001), revealing geographic trends in kidney utilization. When investigating reasons for this disparity, there was no significant correlation between center volume and donor utilization index, but the percentage of deceased donor kidneys imported from other regions was significantly associated with donor utilization for all centers (rho=0.39; P<0.001). This correlation was found to be particularly strong for region 4 (rho=0.83; P=0.001) and region 9 (rho=0.82; P=0.001). Additionally, 25th percentile time to transplant was weakly associated with the donor utilization index (R ²=0.15; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked center-level variation in the use of deceased donor kidneys with less desirable characteristics both within and between regions. Broader utilization was significantly associated with shorter time to transplantation.

Real-world data on healthcare resource consumption and costs before and after kidney transplantation

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is increasing worldwide as a consequence of population aging and increasing chronic illness. Treatment consists mostly of dialysis and kidney transplantation (KTx), and KTx offers advantages for life expectancy and long-term cost reductions compared with dialysis. This study uses the administrative database of the Lombardy Region to analyze the costs of a cohort of patients with ESRD receiving KTx, covering a time period of 24 months before transplant to 12 months after. During 2011, 276 patients underwent kidney transplantation (8.7% preemptive and 91.3% non-preemptive). In the period before transplantation, the main cost driver was dialysis (66.6% for the period from -24 to -12 months and 73.8% for the period from -12 to 0 months), while in the 12 months after KTx, the most relevant cost was surgery. The total cost -24 to -12 months pre-KTx was 35 049.2€; the cost -12 to 0 months was 36 745.9€; and the cost 12 months after KTx was 43 805.8€. Non-preemptive patients showed much higher costs both pre- and post-KTx than preemptive patients. This study highlights how KTx modifies the resource consumption and costs composition of patients with ESRD vs those undergoing dialysis treatment and how KTx may be economically beneficial, especially preemptive intervention.

Association Between Dialysis Facility Ownership and Access to Kidney Transplantation

Importance

For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population.

Objective

To determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study that included 1 478 564 patients treated at 6511 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report).

Exposures

The primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Access to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome.

Results

Among 1 478 564 patients, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 55-76 years), with 55.3% male, and 28.1% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 121 680 patients (8.2%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to -2.3%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: -4.3% [95% CI, -4.4% to -4.2%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.54]); and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.45]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among US patients with end-stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelihood of accessing kidney transplantation. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.

Referral for Kidney Transplantation in Canadian Provinces

BACKGROUND

Patient referral to a transplant facility, a prerequisite for dialysis-treated patients to access kidney transplantation in Canada, is a subjective process that is not recorded in national dialysis or transplant registries. Patients who may benefit from transplant may not be referred.

METHODS

In this observational study, we prospectively identified referrals for kidney transplant in adult patients between June 2010 and May 2013 in 12 transplant centers, and linked these data to information on incident dialysis patients in a national registry.

RESULTS

Among 13,184 patients initiating chronic dialysis, the cumulative incidence of referral for transplant was 17.3%, 24.0%, and 26.8% at 1, 2, and 3 years after dialysis initiation, respectively; the rate of transplant referral was 15.8 per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 15.1 to 16.4). Transplant referral varied more than three-fold between provinces, but it was not associated with the rate of deceased organ donation or median waiting time for transplant in individual provinces. In a multivariable model, factors associated with a lower likelihood of referral included older patient age, female sex, diabetes-related ESKD, higher comorbid disease burden, longer durations (>12.0 months) of predialysis care, and receiving dialysis at a location >100 km from a transplant center. Median household income and non-Caucasian race were not associated with a lower likelihood of referral.

CONCLUSIONS

Referral rates for transplantation varied widely between Canadian provinces but were not lower among patients of non-Caucasian race or with lower socioeconomic status. Standardization of transplantation referral practices and ongoing national reporting of referral may decrease disparities in patient access to kidney transplant.

Transplant waitlisting attenuates the association between hemodialysis access type and mortality

Prior studies have shown that beginning hemodialysis (HD) with a hemodialysis catheter (HC) is associated with worse mortality than with an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG). We hypothesized that transplant waitlisting would modify the effect of HD access on mortality, given waitlist candidates' more robust health status. Using the US Renal Data System, we studied patients with incident ESRD who initiated HD between 2010 and 2015 with an AVF, AVG, or HC. We used Cox regression including an interaction term for HD access and waitlist status. There were 587,607 patients that initiated HD, of whom 82,379 (14.0%) were waitlisted for transplantation. Only 26,264 (4.5%) were transplanted. Among patients not listed, those with an AVF had a 34% lower mortality compared to HC [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.67] while those with an AVG had a 21% lower mortality compared to HC (aHR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.81). Transplant waitlisting attenuated the association between hemodialysis access type and mortality (interaction p < 0.001 for both AVF and AVG vs. HC). Among patients on the waitlist, those with an AVF had a 12% lower mortality compared to HC (aHR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.93), while those with an AVG had no difference in mortality (aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.08). While all patients benefit from AVF or AVG over HC, the benefit was attenuated in waitlisted patients. Efforts to improve health status and access to healthcare for non-waitlisted ESRD patients might decrease HD-associated mortality and improve rates of AVF and AVG placement.

Geographic inequity in transplant access

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Scarcity is a defining feature of the modern transplant landscape, and in light of chronic shortages in donor organs, there is cause for concern about geographic inequities in patients' access to lifesaving resources. Recent policy changes designed to ameliorate unequal donor supply and demand have brought new interest to measuring and addressing disparities at all stages of transplant care. The purpose of this review is to describe an overview of recent literature on geographic inequities in transplant access, focusing on kidney, liver, and lung transplantation and the impact of policy changes on organ allocation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite a major change to the kidney allocation policy in 2014, geographic inequity in kidney transplant access remains. In liver transplantation, the debate has centered on the median acuity score at transplantation; however, a more thorough examination of disparities in access and survival has emerged.

SUMMARY

Geographic differences in access and quality of transplant care are undeniable, but existing disparity metrics reflect disparities only among candidates who are waitlisted. Future research should address major gaps in our understanding of geographic inequity in transplant access, including patients who may be transplant-eligible but experience a wide variety of barriers in accessing the transplant waiting list.

A Culturally Sensitive Web-based Intervention to Improve Living Donor Kidney Transplant Among African Americans

Introduction

There are pervasive racial disparities in access to living donor kidney transplantation, which for most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) represents the optimal treatment. We previously developed a theory-driven, culturally sensitive intervention for African American (AA) patients with kidney disease called Living ACTS (About Choices in Transplantation and Sharing) as a DVD and booklet, and found this intervention was effective in increasing living donor transplant knowledge. However, it is unknown whether modifying this intervention for a Web-based environment is effective at increasing access to living donor transplantation.

Methods

We describe the Web-based Living ACTS study, a multicenter, randomized controlled study designed to test the effectiveness of a revised Living ACTS intervention in 4 transplant centers in the southeastern United States. The intervention consists of a Web site with 5 modules: Introduction, Benefits and Risks, The Kidney Transplant Process, Identifying a Potential Kidney Donor, and ACT Now (which encourages communication with friends and family about transplantation).

Results

This study will enroll approximately 800 patients from the 4 transplant centers. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 inquiry from a potential living donor among patients who receive Living ACTS as compared with those who receive a control Web site.

Conclusion

The results from this study are expected to demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to increase access to living donor transplantation among AA individuals. If successful, the Web-based intervention could be disseminated across the >250 transplant centers in the United States to improve equity in living donor kidney transplantation.

Racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for deceased donor kidney transplantation 1 year after implementation of the new national kidney allocation system

The impact of a new national kidney allocation system (KAS) on access to the national deceased-donor waiting list (waitlisting) and racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting among US end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is unknown. We examined waitlisting pre- and post-KAS among incident (N = 1 253 100) and prevalent (N = 1 556 954) ESRD patients from the United States Renal Data System database (2005-2015) using multivariable time-dependent Cox and interrupted time-series models. The adjusted waitlisting rate among incident patients was 9% lower post-KAS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.93), although preemptive waitlisting increased from 30.2% to 35.1% (P < .0001). The waitlisting decrease is largely due to a decline in inactively waitlisted patients. Pre-KAS, blacks had a 19% lower waitlisting rate vs whites (HR: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82); following KAS, disparity declined to 12% (HR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.90). In adjusted time-series analyses of prevalent patients, waitlisting rates declined by 3.45/10 000 per month post-KAS (P < .001), resulting in ≈146 fewer waitlisting events/month. Shorter dialysis vintage was associated with greater decreases in waitlisting post-KAS (P < .001). Racial disparity reduction was due in part to a steeper decline in inactive waitlisting among minorities and a greater proportion of actively waitlisted minority patients. Waitlisting and racial disparity in waitlisting declined post-KAS; however, disparity remains.

Geographic disparity in kidney transplantation under KAS

The Kidney Allocation System fundamentally altered kidney allocation, causing a substantial increase in regional and national sharing that we hypothesized might impact geographic disparities. We measured geographic disparity in deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rate under KAS (6/1/2015-12/1/2016), and compared that with pre-KAS (6/1/2013-12/3/2014). We modeled DSA-level DDKT rates with multilevel Poisson regression, adjusting for allocation factors under KAS. Using the model we calculated a novel, improved metric of geographic disparity: the median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of transplant rate, a measure of DSA-level variation that accounts for patient casemix and is robust to outlier values. Under KAS, MIRR was _1.75 1.81_1.86 for adults, meaning that similar candidates across different DSAs have a median 1.81-fold difference in DDKT rate. The impact of geography was greater than the impact of factors emphasized by KAS: having an EPTS score ≤20% was associated with a 1.40-fold increase (IRR = _1.35 1.40_1.45 , P < .01) and a three-year dialysis vintage was associated with a 1.57-fold increase (IRR = _1.56 1.57_1.59 , P < .001) in transplant rate. For pediatric candidates, MIRR was even more pronounced, at _1.66 1.92_2.27 . There was no change in geographic disparities with KAS (P = .3). Despite extensive changes to kidney allocation under KAS, geography remains a primary determinant of access to DDKT.

New Kidney Allocation System Associated With Increased Rates Of Transplants Among Black And Hispanic Patients

Before the 2014 implementation of a new kidney allocation system by the United Network for Organ Sharing, white patients were more likely than black or Hispanic patients to receive a kidney transplant. To determine the effect of the new allocation system on these disparities, we examined data for 179,071 transplant waiting list events in the period June 2013-September 2016, and we calculated monthly transplantation rates (34,133 patients actually received transplants). Implementation of the new system was associated with a narrowing of the disparities in the average monthly transplantation rates by 0.29 percentage point for blacks compared to whites and by 0.24 percentage point for Hispanics compared to whites, which resulted in both disparities becoming nonsignificant after implementation of the new system.

Awareness of Racial Disparities in Kidney Transplantation among Health Care Providers in Dialysis Facilities

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the important role that health care providers at dialysis facilities have in reducing racial disparities in access to kidney transplantation in the United States, little is known about provider awareness of these disparities. We aimed to evaluate health care providers' awareness of racial disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting and identify factors associated with awareness.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a survey of providers from low-waitlisting dialysis facilities (n=655) across all 18 ESRD networks administered in 2016 in the United States merged with 2014 US Renal Data System and 2014 US Census data. Awareness of national racial disparity in waitlisting was defined as responding "yes" to the question: "Nationally, do you think that African Americans currently have lower waitlisting rates than white patients on average?" The secondary outcome was providers' perceptions of racial difference in waitlisting at their own facilities.

RESULTS

Among 655 providers surveyed, 19% were aware of the national racial disparity in waitlisting: 50% (57 of 113) of medical directors, 11% (35 of 327) of nurse managers, and 16% (35 of 215) of other providers. In analyses adjusted for provider and facility characteristics, nurse managers (versus medical directors; odds ratio, 7.33; 95% confidence interval, 3.35 to 16.0) and white providers (versus black providers; odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 5.02) were more likely to be unaware of a national racial disparity in waitlisting. Facilities in the South (versus the Northeast; odds ratio, 3.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 8.94) and facilities with a low percentage of blacks (versus a high percentage of blacks; odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 3.39) were more likely to be unaware. One quarter of facilities had >5% racial difference in waitlisting within their own facilities, but only 5% were aware of the disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a limited sample of dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, provider awareness of racial disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting was low, particularly among staff who may have more routine contact with patients.

Transplant Center Patient Navigator and Access to Transplantation among High-Risk Population: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Barriers exist in access to kidney transplantation, where minority and patients with low socioeconomic status are less likely to complete transplant evaluation. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a transplant center-based patient navigator in helping patients at high risk of dropping out of the transplant evaluation process access the kidney transplant waiting list.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 401 patients (n=196 intervention and n=205 control) referred for kidney transplant evaluation (January 2013 to August 2014; followed through May 2016) at a single center. A trained navigator assisted intervention participants from referral to waitlisting decision to increase waitlisting (primary outcome) and decrease time from referral to waitlisting (secondary outcome). Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine differences in waitlisting between intervention and control patients.

RESULTS

At study end, waitlisting was not significantly different among intervention (32%) versus control (26%) patients overall (P=0.17), and time from referral to waitlisting was 126 days longer for intervention patients. However, the effectiveness of the navigator varied from early (<500 days from referral) to late (≥500 days) follow-up. Although no difference in waitlisting was observed among intervention (50%) versus control (50%) patients in the early period (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.53), intervention patients were 3.3 times more likely to be waitlisted after 500 days (75% versus 25%; hazard ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 9.12). There were no significant differences in intervention versus control patients who started evaluation (85% versus 79%; P=0.11) or completed evaluation (58% versus 51%; P=0.14); however, intervention patients had more living donor inquiries (18% versus 10%; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

A transplant center-based navigator targeting disadvantaged patients improved waitlisting but not until after 500 days of follow-up. However, the absolute effect was relatively small.

Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratio to Assess Performance of Transplant Referral among Dialysis Facilities

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

For patients with ESRD, referral from a dialysis facility to a transplant center for evaluation is an important step toward kidney transplantation. However, a standardized measure for assessing clinical performance of dialysis facilities transplant access is lacking. We describe methodology for a new dialysis facility measure: the Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratio.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Transplant referral data from 8308 patients with incident ESRD within 249 dialysis facilities in the United States state of Georgia were linked with US Renal Data System data from January of 2008 to December of 2011, with follow-up through December of 2012. Facility-level expected referrals were computed from a two-stage Cox proportional hazards model after patient case mix risk adjustment including demographics and comorbidities. The Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratio (95% confidence interval) was calculated as a ratio of observed to expected referrals. Measure validity and reliability were assessed.

RESULTS

Over 2008-2011, facility Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratios in Georgia ranged from 0 to 4.87 (mean =1.16, SD=0.76). Most (77%) facilities had observed referrals as expected, whereas 11% and 12% had Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratios significantly greater than and less than expected, respectively. Age, race, sex, and comorbid conditions were significantly associated with the likelihood of referral, and they were included in risk adjustment for Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratio calculations. The Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratios were positively associated with evaluation, waitlisting, and transplantation (r=0.46, 0.35, and 0.20, respectively; P<0.01). On average, approximately 33% of the variability in Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratios was attributed to between-facility variation, and 67% of the variability in Standardized Transplantation Referral Ratios was attributed to within-facility variation.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of observed variation in dialysis facility referral performance was due to characteristics within a dialysis facility rather than patient factors included in risk adjustment models. Our study shows a method for computing a facility-level standardized measure for transplant referral on the basis of a pilot sample of Georgia dialysis facilities that could be used to monitor transplant referral performance of dialysis facilities.

Long-term effects of pancreas transplant alone on nephropathy in type 1 diabetic patients with optimal renal function

Background

Limited data are available regarding optimal selection criteria for pancreas transplant alone (PTA) to minimize aggravation of diabetic nephropathy.

Methods

A total of 87 type 1 diabetic patients were evaluated before and after PTA at a single center from January, 1999 to December, 2015, together with 87 matched non-transplanted type 1 diabetic subjects who were candidates for PTA to compare deterioration of native kidney function. A total of 163 patients (79 in the transplanted group and 84 in the nontransplanted group) were finally enrolled after excluding nine patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and two patients with moderate proteinuria (≥ 1.5 g/day).

Results

A total of seven recipients (8.9%) had end-stage renal disease post-transplant whereas only one patient (1.2%) developed end-stage renal disease in the nontransplanted group during their follow-up period (median 12.0, range 6–96 months) (p = 0.03). Furthermore, a composite of severe renal dysfunction and end-stage renal disease (31.6% vs 2.4%) was significantly higher in the transplanted group (p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that a higher level of tacrolimus at six months post-transplant (HR = 1.648, CI = 1.140–2.385, p = 0.008) was the only significant factor associated with end-stage renal disease.

Conclusions

There is a considerable risk for deterioration of renal function in PTA recipients post-transplant compared with non-transplant diabetic patients. With rather strict selection criteria such as preoperative proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate, PTA should be considered in diabetic patients to minimize post-transplant aggravation of diabetic nephropathy.

Between-center disparities in access to heart transplantation in France: contribution of candidate and center factors - A comprehensive cohort study

Transplantation represents the last option for patients with advanced heart failure. We assessed between-center disparities in access to heart transplantation in France 1 year after registration and evaluated the contribution of factors to these disparities. Adults (n = 2347) registered on the French national waiting list between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, in the 23 transplant centers were included. Associations between candidate and transplant center characteristics and access to transplantation were assessed by proportional hazards frailty models. Candidate blood groups O and A, sensitization, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m² were independently associated with lower access to transplantation, while female gender, severity of heart failure, and high serum bilirubin levels were independently associated with greater access to transplantation. Center factors significantly associated with access to transplantation were heart donation rate in the donation service area, proportion of high-urgency candidates among listed patients, and donor heart offer decline rate. Between-center variability in access to transplantation increased by 5% after adjustment for candidate factors and decreased by 57% after adjustment for center factors. After adjustment for candidate and center factors, five centers were still outside of normal variability. These findings will be taken into account in the future French heart allocation system.

Difficult conversations: Australian Indigenous patients' views on kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Indigenous Australians suffer a disproportionate burden of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) but are significantly less likely to receive a transplant. This study explores Indigenous ESKD patients' views on transplantation as a treatment option.

METHODS

The Improving Access to Kidney Transplants (IMPAKT) research program investigated barriers to kidney transplantation for Indigenous Australians. An interview study, conducted in 2005-2006, elicited illness experience narratives from 146 Indigenous patients, including views on transplant. Interviews were conducted at 26 sites that collectively treat the majority of Indigenous ESKD patients. Key themes were identified via team consensus meetings, providing a flexible framework and focus for continued coding.

RESULTS

Four inter-related themes were identified in patient commentary: a very high level (90% of respondents) of positive interest in transplantation; patients experienced a range of communication difficulties and felt uninformed about transplant; family involvement in decision-making was constrained by inadequate information; and patients needed to negotiate cultural and social sensitivities around transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Indigenous ESKD patients demonstrated an intense interest in transplantation preferring deceased over living kidney donation. Patients believe transplant is the path most likely to support the re-establishment of their 'normal' family life. Patients described themselves as poorly informed; most had only a rudimentary knowledge of the notion of transplant but no understanding of eligibility criteria, the transplant procedure and associated risks. Patients experienced multiple communication barriers that - taken together - undermine their engagement in treatment decision-making. Families and communities are disempowered because they also lack information to reach a shared understanding of transplantation. Cultural sensitivities associated with transplantation were described but these did not appear to constrain patients in making choices about their own health. Transplant units and local treatment providers should collaborate to develop user-friendly, culturally informed and region-specific patient education programs. Quality improvement cycles should underpin the development of national guidelines for patient education. Noting Indigenous patients' intense interest in transplantation, and nephrologists' concerns regarding poor transplant outcomes, research should prioritise exploring the predictors of transplant outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

Outcomes of Deceased Donor Kidney Offers to Patients at the Top of the Waiting List

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Transplant centers may accept or refuse deceased-donor kidneys that are offered to their patients at the top of the waiting list. We sought to determine the outcomes of deceased-donor kidney offers and their association with characteristics of waitlisted patients and organ donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We examined all 7 million deceased-donor adult kidney offers in the United States from 2007 to 2012 that led to eventual transplantation. Data were obtained from the national organ allocation system through the United Network of Organ Sharing. The study cohort consisted of 178,625 patients waitlisted for a deceased-donor kidney transplant and 31,230 deceased donors. We evaluated offers made to waitlisted patients and their outcomes (transplantation or specific reason for refusal).

RESULTS

Deceased-donor kidneys were offered a median of seven times before being accepted for transplantation. The most common reasons for refusal of an offer were donor-related factors, e.g., age or organ quality (3.2 million offers, 45.0%), and transplant center bypass, e.g., minimal acceptance criteria not met (3.2 million offers, 44.0%). After adjustment for characteristics of waitlisted patients, organ donors, and transplant centers, male (odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.91 to 0.95) and Hispanic (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99) waitlisted patients were less likely to have an offer accepted than female and white patients, respectively. The likelihood of offer acceptance varied greatly across transplant centers (interquartile ratio, 2.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant centers frequently refuse deceased-donor kidneys. Such refusals differ by patient and donor characteristics, may contribute to disparities in access to transplantation, and vary greatly across transplant centers.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2017_07_27_Huml.mp3.

Decisional conflict between treatment options among end-stage renal disease patients evaluated for kidney transplantation

Although kidney transplantation provides a significant benefit over dialysis, many patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are conflicted about their decision to undergo kidney transplant. We aimed to identify the prevalence and characteristics associated with decisional conflict between treatment options in ESRD patients presenting for transplant evaluation. Among a cross-sectional sample of patients with ESRD (n=464) surveyed in 2014 and 2015, we assessed decisional conflict through a validated 10-item questionnaire. Decisional conflict was dichotomized into no decisional conflict (score=0) and any decisional conflict (score>0). We investigated potential characteristics of patients with decisional conflict using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression. The overall mean age was 50.6 years, with 62% male patients and 48% African American patients. Nearly half (48.5%) of patients had decisional conflict regarding treatment options. Characteristics significantly associated with decisional conflict in multivariable analysis included male sex, lower educational attainment, and less transplant knowledge. Understanding characteristics associated with decisional conflict in patients with ESRD could help identify patients who may benefit from targeted interventions to help patients make informed, value-based, and supported decisions when deciding how to best treat their kidney disease.

Disparities in kidney transplantation across the United States: Does residential segregation play a role?

BACKGROUND

Although residential segregation has been implicated in various negative health outcomes, its association with kidney transplantation has not been examined.

METHODS

Age- and sex-standardized kidney transplantation rates were calculated from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, 2000-2013. Population characteristics including segregation indices were derived from the 2010 U.S. Census data and the U.S. Renal Data System. Separate multivariable Poisson regression models were constructed to identify factors independently associated with kidney transplantation among Blacks and Whites.

RESULTS

Median age- and sex-standardized kidney transplantation rates were 114 per 100,000 for Blacks and 38 per 100,000 for Whites. 16.1% of the U.S. population lived in counties with high segregation. There was no difference in the kidney transplantation rates across the levels of segregation among Blacks and Whites.

CONCLUSION

Factors other than residential segregation may play roles in kidney transplantation disparities. Continued efforts to identify these factors may be beneficial in reducing transplantation disparities across the U.S.

SUMMARY

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and U.S. census data, we aimed to determine whether residential segregation was associated with kidney transplantation rates. We found that there was no association between residential segregation and kidney transplantation rates.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Association Between Hospitalization and Kidney Transplantation Among Waitlisted End-Stage Renal Disease Patients

BACKGROUND

Even after placement on the deceased donor waitlist, there are racial disparities in access to kidney transplant. The association between hospitalization, a proxy for health while waitlisted, and disparities in kidney transplant has not been investigated.

METHODS

We used United States Renal Data System Medicare-linked data on waitlisted end-stage renal disease patients between 2005 and 2009 with continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A & B (n = 24 581) to examine the association between annual hospitalization rate and odds of receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant. We used multilevel mixed effects models to estimate adjusted odds ratios, controlling for individual-, transplant center-, and organ procurement organization-level clustering.

RESULTS

Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be hospitalized for circulatory system or endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (P < 0.001). After adjustment, compared with individuals not hospitalized, patients who were hospitalized frequently while waitlisted were less likely to be transplanted (>2 vs 0 hospitalizations/year adjusted odds ratios = 0.57; P < 0.001). Though blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be hospitalized than whites (P < 0.001), adjusting for hospitalization did not change estimated racial/ethnic disparities in kidney transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals hospitalized while waitlisted were less likely to receive a transplant. However, hospitalization does not account for the racial disparity in kidney transplantation after waitlisting.

Referral for Kidney Transplantation and Indicators of Quality of Dialysis Care: A Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Dialysis facility performance measures to improve access to kidney transplantation are being considered. Referral of patients for kidney transplantation evaluation by the dialysis facility is one potential indicator, but limited data exist to evaluate whether referral is associated with existing dialysis facility quality indicators.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

12,926 incident (July 2005 to September 2011) adult (aged 18-69 years) patients treated at 241 dialysis facilities with complete quality indicator information from US national registry data linked to transplantation referral data from all 3 Georgia kidney transplantation centers.

FACTORS

Facility performance on dialysis quality indicators (high, intermediate, and low tertiles).

OUTCOME

Percentages of patients referred within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation at dialysis facility.

RESULTS

Overall, a median of 25.4% of patients were referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation. Higher facility-level referral was associated with better performance with respect to standardized transplantation ratio (high, 28.6%; intermediate, 25.1%; and low, 22.9%; P=0.001) and percentage waitlisted (high, 30.7%; intermediate, 26.8%; and low, 19.2%; P<0.001). Facility-level referral was not associated with indicators of quality of care associated with dialysis therapy initiation, including percentage of incident patients being informed of transplantation options. For most non-transplantation-related indicators of high-quality care, including those capturing mortality, morbidity, and anemia management, better performance was not associated with higher facility-level transplantation referral.

LIMITATIONS

Potential ecologic fallacy and residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplantation referral among patients at dialysis facilities does not appear to be associated with overall quality of dialysis care at the facility. Quality indicators related to kidney transplantation were positively associated with, but not entirely correspondent with, higher percentages of patients referred for kidney transplantation evaluation from dialysis facilities. These results suggest that facility-level referral, which is within the control of the dialysis facility, may provide information about the quality of dialysis care beyond current indicators.

Kidney transplant in Nigeria: a single centre experience

Introduction

Kidney transplant is the preferred renal replacement therapy for patients with end stage kidney disease. However management of patients with kidney transplant in resource poor countries is evolving and groaning under several mental, financial and infrastructural challenges. The objective of the study is to evaluate the management of patients with kidney transplant in a kidney care Centre in Nigeria.

Methods

This was a non-randomized prospective study. The study population were post-transplant patients presenting between 1^st August 2010 and 31^st December 2014.The biodata, pre and post-transplant details of these patients were documented. The data was analysed using SPSS Vs 17.

Results

A total of 47 patients were studied with M: F ratio of 4:1, the mean age was 45.4 ± 13.6 years. Chronic glomerulonephritis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and HIV related kidney disease were the commonest cause of CKD. Financial constraint delayed transplant in 66% and non-availability of donor in 17.2%. About 90% of the transplants were in India and 81% either financed the transplant either directly or through a relation. There was no cadaveric transplant and about 70% of the donors were not related. Tacrolimus, mycophenolate and prednisolone were most frequently used immunosuppressive combination. The one and three years graft survival were 95.3% and 67.6% respectively while corresponding patients survival were 97.7% and 82.4% respectively. Septicaemia, acute rejection and urinary tract infection were most common complications.

Conclusion

Management of patients with kidney transplant has good prospect despite the challenges.

A Randomized Trial to Reduce Disparities in Referral for Transplant Evaluation

Georgia has the lowest kidney transplant rates in the United States and substantial racial disparities in transplantation. We determined the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to increase referral of patients on dialysis for transplant evaluation in the Reducing Disparities in Access to kidNey Transplantation Community Study (RaDIANT), a randomized, dialysis facility-based, controlled trial involving >9000 patients receiving dialysis from 134 dialysis facilities in Georgia. In December of 2013, we selected dialysis facilities with either low transplant referral or racial disparity in referral. The intervention consisted of transplant education and engagement activities targeting dialysis facility leadership, staff, and patients conducted from January to December of 2014. We examined the proportion of patients with prevalent ESRD in each facility referred for transplant within 1 year as the primary outcome, and disparity in the referral of black and white patients as a secondary outcome. Compared with control facilities, intervention facilities referred a higher proportion of patients for transplant at 12 months (adjusted mean difference [aMD], 7.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 5.5% to 9.2%; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.26). The difference between intervention and control facilities in the proportion of patients referred for transplant was higher among black patients (aMD, 6.4%; 95% CI, 4.3% to 8.6%) than white patients (aMD, 3.7%; 95% CI, 1.6% to 5.9%; P<0.05). In conclusion, this intervention increased referral and improved equity in kidney transplant referral for patients on dialysis in Georgia; long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether these effects led to more transplants.

Changes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation One Year After KAS Implementation

After over a decade of discussion, analysis, and consensus-building, a new kidney allocation system (KAS) was implemented on December 4, 2014. Key goals included improving longevity matching between donor kidneys and recipients and broadening access for historically disadvantaged subpopulations, in particular highly sensitized patients and those with an extended duration on dialysis but delayed referral for transplantation. To evaluate the early impact of KAS, we compared Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data 1 year before versus after implementation. The distribution of transplants across many recipient characteristics has changed markedly and suggests that in many ways the new policy is achieving its goals. Transplants in which the donor and recipient age differed by more than 30 years declined by 23%. Initial, sharp increases in transplants were observed for Calculated Panel-Reactive Antibody 99-100% recipients and recipients with at least 10 years on dialysis, with a subsequent tapering of transplants to these groups suggesting bolus effects. Although KAS has arguably increased fairness in allocation, the potential costs of broadening access must be considered. Kidneys are more often being shipped over long distances, leading to increased cold ischemic times. Delayed graft function rates have increased, but 6-month graft survival rates have not changed significantly.

Matching the Genotype in Resolution: Innovative Ways of Phenotype Capture

Social and spatial context are important determinants of morbidity and mortality. However, there is little clarity about the role of context for kidney disease specifically, particularly before the end stage. Meanwhile, research clarifying the clinical, cellular, molecular, and genetic causes of kidney disease is accelerating considerably. We postulate that without contextual information, even the most detailed biomedical information cannot fully capture the factors that ultimately drive the development and progression of kidney disease. The Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network is integrating detailed, state-of-the-art information on a social and spatial context to enable the exploration of the associations between the social environment and kidney disease. Here, we discuss the extant literature on social context and kidney disease, present information on sources of contextual information, and provide recommended further reading to facilitate future research on the contribution of the social context to kidney disease.

Early Changes in Kidney Distribution under the New Allocation System

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS), a major change to deceased donor kidney allocation, was implemented in December 2014. Goals of KAS included directing the highest-quality organs to younger/healthier recipients and increasing access to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) for highly sensitized patients and racial/ethnic minorities. Using national registry data, we compared kidney distribution, DDKT rates for waitlist registrants, and recipient characteristics between January 1, 2013, and December 3, 2014 (pre-KAS) with those between December 4, 2014, and August 31, 2015 (post-KAS). Regional imports increased from 8.8% pre-KAS to 12.5% post-KAS; national imports increased from 12.7% pre-KAS to 19.1% post-KAS (P<0.001). The proportion of recipients >30 years older than their donor decreased from 19.4% to 15.0% (P<0.001). The proportion of recipients with calculated panel-reactive antibody =100 increased from 1.0% to 10.3% (P<0.001). Overall DDKT rate did not change as modeled using exponential regression adjusting for candidate characteristics (P=0.07). However, DDKT rate (incidence rate ratio, 95% confidence interval) increased for black (1.19; 1.13 to 1.25) and Hispanic (1.13; 1.05 to 1.20) candidates and for candidates aged 18-40 (1.47; 1.38 to 1.57), but declined for candidates aged >50 (0.93; 0.87 to 0.98 for aged 51-60 and 0.90; 0.85 to 0.96 for aged >70). Delayed graft function in transplant recipients increased from 24.8% pre-KAS to 29.9% post-KAS (P<0.001). Thus, in the first 9 months under KAS, access to DDKT improved for minorities, younger candidates, and highly sensitized patients, but declined for older candidates. Delayed graft function increased substantially, possibly suggesting poorer long-term outcomes.

Variation in Dialysis Facility Referral for Kidney Transplantation Among Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease in Georgia

IMPORTANCE

Dialysis facilities in the United States are required to educate patients with end-stage renal disease about all treatment options, including kidney transplantation. Patients receiving dialysis typically require a referral for kidney transplant evaluation at a transplant center from a dialysis facility to start the transplantation process, but the proportion of patients referred for transplantation is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe variation in dialysis facility-level referral for kidney transplant evaluation and factors associated with referral among patients initiating dialysis in Georgia, the US state with the lowest kidney transplantation rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Examination of United States Renal Data System data from a cohort of 15,279 incident, adult (18-69 years) patients with end-stage renal disease from 308 Georgia dialysis facilities from January 2005 to September 2011, followed up through September 2012, linked to kidney transplant referral data collected from adult transplant centers in Georgia in the same period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Referral for kidney transplant evaluation within 1 year of starting dialysis at any of the 3 Georgia transplant centers was the primary outcome; placement on the deceased donor waiting list was also examined.

RESULTS

The median within-facility percentage of patients referred within 1 year of starting dialysis was 24.4% (interquartile range, 16.7%-33.3%) and varied from 0% to 75.0%. Facilities in the lowest tertile of referral (<19.2%) were more likely to treat patients living in high-poverty neighborhoods (absolute difference, 21.8% [95% CI, 14.1%-29.4%]), had a higher patient to social worker ratio (difference, 22.5 [95% CI, 9.7-35.2]), and were more likely nonprofit (difference, 17.6% [95% CI, 7.7%-27.4%]) compared with facilities in the highest tertile of referral (>31.3%). In multivariable, multilevel analyses, factors associated with lower referral for transplantation, such as older age, white race, and nonprofit facility status, were not always consistent with the factors associated with lower waitlisting.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In Georgia overall, a limited proportion of patients treated with dialysis were referred for kidney transplant evaluation between 2005 and 2011, but there was substantial variability in referral among facilities. Variables associated with referral were not always associated with waitlisting, suggesting that different factors may account for disparities in referral.