Impact of Social Vulnerability on Access to Educational Programming Designed to Enhance Living Donation

Regional Social Vulnerability is Associated With Geographic Disparity in Waitlist Outcomes for Patients With Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Model for End-stage Liver Disease Exceptions in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the role of regional social vulnerability in geographic disparity for patients listed for liver transplantation with non-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exceptions.

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND

Prior work has demonstrated regional variability in the appropriateness of MELD exceptions for diagnoses other than HCC.

METHODS

Adults listed at a single center for first-time liver-only transplantation without HCC after June 18, 2013 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database as of March 2021 were examined. Candidates were mapped to hospital referral regions (HRRs). Adjusted likelihood of mortality and liver transplantation were modeled. Advantaged HRRs were defined as those where exception patients were more likely to be transplanted, yet no more likely to die in adjusted analysis. The Centers for Disease Control's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was used as the measure for community health. Higher SVIs indicate poorer community health.

RESULTS

There were 49,494 candidates in the cohort, of whom 4337 (8.8%) had MELD exceptions. Among continental US HRRs, 27.3% (n = 78) were identified as advantaged. The mean SVI of advantaged HRRs was 0.42 versus 0.53 in nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.002), indicating better community health in these areas. Only 25.3% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of high SVI versus 40.7% of nonadvantaged HRRs, whereas 44.6% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of low SVI versus 38.0% of nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

An advantage for non-HCC MELD exception patients is associated with lower social vulnerability on a population level. These findings suggest assigning similar waitlist priority to all non-HCC exception candidates without considering geographic differences in social determinants of health may actually exacerbate rather than ameliorate disparity.

Interpersonal Connections Are Important for Virtual Kidney Transplant Educational Program Development

Introduction: The Living Donor Navigator program is designed to mitigate disparities in living donor kidney transplantation, although geographic disparities in program participation were observed in the initial years of implementation. The purpose of this study was to understand participant perspectives regarding the use of a virtual option/alternative to expand program participation. Methods: Previous participants of the in-person navigator program were purposively sampled. Using the nominal group technique, a well-structured formative methodology to elicit participant perspectives, 2 meetings were conducted among transplant recipients and advocates (N = 13) to identify and prioritize responses to the question "What things would concern you about participating in a virtual and remote Living Donor Navigator program?" Findings: Mean participant age was 59.3 (9.3) years, and participants were 54% male and 62% white. Education levels varied from less than high school to master's degrees. Participants generated 70 unique responses, of which 36 (51.4%) received prioritization. The top 5 ranked responses of each nominal group technique meeting received approximately 50 percent (47.6% vs. 66.7%, respectively) of the total votes and described the potentially limited interpersonal connections, time conflicts, and differing content in a virtual navigator program compared to the in-person model. Discussion: These data suggest that previous participants were concerned with upholding the original design of the program, thus, virtual living donor kidney transplantation programs should aim to maintain interpersonal connections and consistency of content to ensure adequate programmatic engagement. Future research will focus on program fidelity independent of delivery modality.

A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations

The choice of deprivation index can influence conclusions drawn regarding the extent of deprivation within a community and the identification of the most deprived communities in the United States. This study aimed to determine the degree of correlation among deprivation indices commonly used to characterize transplant populations. We used a retrospective cohort consisting of adults listed for liver or kidney transplants between 2008 and 2018 to compare 4 deprivation indices: neighborhood deprivation index, social deprivation index (SDI), area deprivation index, and social vulnerability index. Pairwise correlation between deprivation indices by transplant referral regions was measured using Spearman correlations of population-weighted medians and upper quartiles. In total, 52 individual variables were used among the 4 deprivation indices with 25% overlap. For both organs, the correlation between the population-weighted 75th percentile of the deprivation indices by transplant referral region was highest between SDI and social vulnerability index (liver and kidney, 0.93) and lowest between area deprivation index and SDI (liver, 0.19 and kidney, 0.15). The choice of deprivation index affects the applicability of research findings across studies examining the relationship between social risk and clinical outcomes. Appropriate application of these measures to transplant populations requires careful index selection based on the intended use and included variable relevance.

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.