Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study

Donor Perceptions and Preferences of Telemedicine and In-Person Visits for Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

Introduction

Living kidney donor evaluation is a lengthy and complex process requiring in-person visits. Access to transplant centers, travel costs, lost wages, and dependent care arrangements are barriers to willing donors initiating evaluation. Telemedicine can help streamline and epedite the evaluation process. We aimed to deeply understand donor experiences and preferences using hybrid telemedicine video/in-person visits to ease access to donor evaluation or counseling.

Methods

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with donors or donor candidates who completed their evaluation through telemedicine/in-person, or in-person only visits at a tertiary transplant center between November 27, 2019 and March 1, 2021. Enrollment continued until data saturation was reached (interviews with 20 participants) when no new information emerged from additional interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Eight themes were identified as follows: (i) reducing financial and logistical burdens (minimizing travel time and travel-related expenses), (ii) enhancing flexibility with scheduling (less time off work and child or family caregiver arrangements), (iii) importance of a walkthrough and establishing shared understanding, (iv) supporting information with technology and visual aids, (v) key role of the coordinator, (vi) preferred visit by provider role (meeting donor surgeon in-person to create rapport and engaging primary care provider in donor evaluation/follow-up), (vii) comparing modality differences in human connection, and (viii) opportunity for family and support network engagement (allowing loved ones to be involved in telemedicine visits irrespective of geographic locations and pandemic restrictions).

Conclusion

Telemedicine/in-person hybrid model can make donor evaluation more accessible and convenient. Our findings help inform about determinants that influence the adoption of telemedicine to initiate donor evaluation to motivate willing donors. In addition, our results call for policy and legislation that support telemedicine services for living donor kidney transplantation across states.

Ethical and Policy Issues Arising in Crowdfunding for Solid Organ Transplantation: A Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage of Recipient and Donor Fundraising Campaigns

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplantation improves the quality of life for patients but has significant out-of-pocket expenses for donors and recipients in the USA, leading many to utilize crowdfunding for donations to cover expenses. We sought to characterize crowdfunding for transplant patients and to identify ethical and policy issues.

METHODS

We obtained newspaper articles that described crowdfunding campaigns for organ transplant patients from Nexis-Uni. Using Nvivo, we identified and analyzed article details, patient characteristics, features of campaigns, additional fundraisers, and policy and ethical issues related to crowdfunding.

RESULTS

Most sources were published between 2015 and 2020. Of 231 patients identified, 43% were thoracic organ recipients and 42% were kidney recipients. GoFundMe was the most popular platform. 78% of patients reported at least one intended use of crowdfunding; medical expenses were the most cited reason. Ten percent of articles described at least one ethical or policy consideration related to crowdfunding for organ transplant. Concerns included violations of federal laws prohibiting donors from receiving "valuable consideration" for an organ, taxation of funds, loss of Medicaid or disability benefits, accountability for fund usage, and crowdfunding requirements for organ waiting list placement. In several cases, transplants were delayed due to crowdfunding concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal crowdfunding characteristics and financial barriers present among transplant patients. Furthermore, our study suggests that the ethical and policy implications for crowdfunding in the transplant population are not yet adequately assessed. National regulations and transplant center policies may need to be modified to address issues raised by patient crowdfunding.

Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators

INTRODUCTION

The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k-means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision-making process.

RESULTS

Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation-related risks are needed.

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to Living Kidney Donation Within a Sociotechnical Systems Framework

The objective of this study was to investigate factors influencing one's decision to become a live kidney donor under the framework of sociotechnical systems, by expanding the focus to include larger organizational influences and technological considerations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with live kidney donors who donated through University of Louisville Health, Trager Transplant Center, a mid-scale transplant program, in the years 2017 through 2019. The interview transcripts were analyzed for barriers and facilitators to live kidney donation within a sociotechnical system. The most salient facilitators included: having an informative, caring, and available care team; the absence of any negative external pressure toward donating; donating to a family or friend; and the ability to take extra time off work for recovery. The most recurrent barriers included: short/medium-term (<1 year) negative health impacts because of donation; the need to make minor lifestyle changes (e.g., less alcohol consumption) after donation; and mental health deterioration stemming from the donation process. The sociotechnical systems framework promotes a balanced system comprised of social, technical, and environmental subsystems. Assessing the facilitators and barriers from the sociotechnical system perspective revealed the importance of and opportunities for developing strategies to promote integration of technical subsystem, such as social media apps and interactive AI platforms, with social and environmental subsystems to enable facilitators and reduce barriers effectively.

Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report

Purpose of program

A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day.

Sources of information

The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics.

Methods

Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions.

Key findings

The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic.

Limitations

Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward.

Implications

This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

Updates in Kidney Transplantation From the 2022 Banff-Canadian Society of Transplantation Joint Meeting: Conference Report

Purpose of the Conference

The 2022 Banff-Canadian Society of Transplantation Meeting in Banff, Alberta, brought together transplant professionals to review new developments across various aspects of solid organ transplantation (SOT) in Canada.

Sources of Information

Presentations included consensus recommendations from expert-led forums; experiences with new procedures and legislation; reports from public health data repositories; original clinical and laboratory research; and industry updates regarding novel technologies. Speakers referenced articles and reports published in peer-reviewed journals and online, and unpublished data and preliminary findings.

Methods

All authors attended presentations in-person or virtually. Recordings of select presentations were available for later review. Summaries emphasize concepts indicated by speakers as new and clinically relevant.

Key Findings

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), who experience worse outcomes of COVID-19 infection than the general population. Vaccinations demonstrate an attenuated immunological response in SOTRs yet provide meaningful protection. Monoclonal antibodies are effective for both passive immunization and treatment of COVID-19 in SOTRs. Infection control protocols have driven the development of virtual methods for clinical research, such as using home blood draws and virtual follow-up to evaluate vaccine efficacy in SOTRs; and patient care delivery, such as employing telerehabilitation post transplant. Access to living kidney donation is limited by various disincentives experienced by potential donors, which may be overcome by more efficient evaluations including a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic. The International Donation and Transplantation Legislative and Policy Forum provided a means of establishing consensus guidance for organ donation and transplantation (ODT) program policy to standardize delivery across jurisdictions. The implementation of a deemed consent model for organ and tissue donation in Nova Scotia may provide insight as to whether this model indeed improves access to organs. Canada's Indigenous population experiences unique barriers to transplantation, prompting efforts for more inclusive ODT policy-making. The Pan-Canadian ODT Data and Performance Reporting System Project has defined performance quality indicators, of which iTransplant and other point-of-care software solutions may facilitate collection; however, these endeavors ultimately require information technology infrastructure that exceeds the capabilities of the existing Canadian Organ Replacement Register and Canadian Transplant Registry. Pig-to-human xenotransplantation requires genetic modification of pigs and xenoantibody testing in recipients but may yet prove viable. Serum cell-free DNA, urine biomarkers, and genetic markers offer an alternative to routine biopsy for identifying subclinical rejection. Modified perfusion temperatures and perfusion solutions with hydrogen sulfide donor compounds may improve organ preservation. Molecular compatibility tools provide another means of improving SOTR outcomes, and the Genome Canada Transplant Consortium has been examining important considerations of their implementation.

Limitations

We were unable to capture all presentations and topics at the meeting due to the sizable quantity and variety. Topics ultimately excluded from this summary include those in pathology including Banff Classification updates; those unique to extra-renal SOT; as well as numerous abstract and poster presentations, allied health provider forums, and business meetings. A portion of the material was presented by speakers prior to peer-review or publication.

Implications

The various conference presentations summarized in this report identify methods by which individual clinicians and provincial ODT programs may improve access, delivery, and quality of SOT care in Canada, while additionally identifying gaps in the literature that investigators are encouraged to pursue.

'It is a life changing experience': The experiences of living kidney donors who live in rural Australia

INTRODUCTION

A growing body of research has examined the physical, psychological, social and financial impacts of living kidney donation. However, little is known about the unique experiences or additional burdens faced by living donors from regional or remote locations.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences of living kidney donors who live outside metropolitan centres and to determine how support services could be orientated to better meet their unique needs.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen living kidney donors participated in semistructured telephone interviews. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Eight themes were identified: (1) donor's emotional well-being is influenced by the recipient's outcome, (2) varied levels of access to medical support and other important services in rural areas, (3) travel takes a toll on time, finances and well-being, (4) varied level of financial impact, (5) medical, emotional and social challenges, (6) both lay and health professional support is valued, (7) varied levels of knowledge and experiences accessing information and (8) a worthwhile experience overall.

CONCLUSION

Despite many challenges, and travel adding to the complexity, rural living kidney donors generally consider it to be a worthwhile experience. The provision of additional emotional, practical and educational support would be welcomed by this group.

Breaking Barriers and Bridging Gaps: Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Kidney Transplant Care for Black and Hispanic Patients in the United States

Kidney transplantation offers better mortality and quality of life outcomes to patients with end-stage renal failure compared to dialysis. Specifically, living donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, since it offers the greatest survival benefit compared to deceased donor kidney transplant or dialysis. However, not all patients from all racial/ethnic backgrounds enjoy these benefits. While black and Hispanic patients bear the predominant disease burden within the United States, they represent less than half of all kidney transplants in the country. Other factors such as cultural barriers that proliferate myths about transplant, financial costs that impede altruistic donation, and even biological predispositions create a complex maze and can also perpetuate care inaccessibility. Therefore, blanket efforts to increase the overall donation pool may not extend access to vulnerable populations, who may require more targeted attention and interventions. This review uses US kidney transplantation data to substantiate accessibility differences amongst racial minorities as well as provides examples of successful institutional and national systemic level changes that have improved transplantation outcomes for all.

Changing landscape of living kidney donation and the role of telemedicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a decline in living kidney donation over the last two decades. Donors from low-income families or racial/ethnic minorities face greater disproportionate geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to completing lengthy and complex evaluations. This has contributed to the decreased proportion of these subgroups. The authors view telemedicine as a potential solution to this problem.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the initial decline of donors in 2005, biologically related donors have experienced a lack of growth across race/ethnicity. Conversely, unrelated donors have emerged as the majority of donors in recent years across race/ethnicity, except for unrelated black donors. Disparities in access to living kidney donation persist. Telemedicine using live-video visits can overcome barriers to access transplant centers and facilitate care coordination. In a U.S. survey, nephrologists, surgeons, coordinators, social workers, and psychologists/psychologists across transplant centers are favorably disposed to use telemedicine for donor evaluation/follow-up beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, with the waning of relaxed telemedicine regulations under the Public Health Emergency, providers perceive payor policy and out-of-state licensing as major factors hindering telemedicine growth prospects.

SUMMARY

Permanent federal and state policies that support telemedicine services for living kidney donation can enhance access to transplant centers and help overcome barriers to donor evaluation.

Telemedicine services for living kidney donation: A US survey of multidisciplinary providers

Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers' practices and providers' attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation.

Donor‐reported barriers to living kidney donor follow‐up

BACKGROUND

Despite regulations mandating follow-up laboratory testing for living kidney donors, less than half of transplant centers are in compliance. We sought to understand barriers to follow-up testing from the donors' perspective.

METHODS

We surveyed our center's living kidney donors. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with follow-up testing completion.

RESULTS

Of 185 living kidney donors, 110 (59.4%) participated. Among them, 82 (74.5%) completed 6-month laboratory testing, 76 (69.1%) completed 12-month testing, 68 (61.8%) completed both, and 21 (19.0%) completed neither. Six-month testing completion was strongly associated with 12-month testing completion (OR 9.74, 95%CI: 2.23-42.50; p = .002). Those who disagreed with the statements, "Getting labs checked wasn't a priority for me," (OR for completing 6-month testing: 15.05, 95%CI: 3.70-61.18; p < .001; OR for completing 12-month testing: 5.85, 95%CI: 1.94-17.63; p = .002); and, "I forgot to get labs drawn [until I was reminded]" (OR for completing 6-month testing: 6.93, 95%CI: 1.59-30.08; p = .01; OR for completing 12-month testing: 6.55, 95%CI: 1.98-21.63; p = .002) were more likely to complete testing.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the only study providing perspective on donor insights regarding the need for follow-up testing post donation. Interventions to influence living donor attitudes toward follow-up testing may improve follow-up.

Motivators and Barriers to Living Donor Kidney Transplant as Perceived by Past and Potential Donors

Background:

For patients with end-stage kidney disease, living donor kidney transplant is the treatment of choice due to improved patient outcomes, longer graft survival, and reduced expenses compared with other forms of renal replacement therapy. However, organ shortage remains a challenge, and living donation rates have stagnated in recent years, particularly among men.

Objective:

To understand the motivators and barriers for past and potential living kidney transplant donors and inform policy and practice changes that support donors in the future.

Methods:

Past and potential living donors in British Columbia, Canada in the preceding 2 years were surveyed. Motivators and barriers were examined in 5 categories: family pressures and domestic responsibilities, finances, the recovery process, complications, and the transplant evaluation process. Participants ranked statements in each category on a Likert-type scale.

Results:

A total of 138 responses were collected. In both women and men, policies that address family and domestic responsibilities and finances were most strongly identified as motivators to donate. A large proportion of women and men reported that guaranteed job security (47% women and 38% of men), paid time off (51% of women and 42% of men), reimbursement of lost wages (49% of women and 38% of men), and protections to guarantee no impact on future insurability (62% of women and 52% of men) were significant motivators to donate. Timely and efficient medical evaluation was considered to be an important motivator for donation, with 52% of men and 43% of women reporting support for a “fast-track” option for evaluation to allow for a more rapid evaluation process. Median barrier and motivator scores were similar between women and men.

Conclusion:

Policies to decrease financial burden, ensure job security, improve childcare support, and offer a fast-track medical evaluation may motivate potential living kidney donors, irrespective of gender.

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation in the United States

Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is the best treatment for end-stage kidney disease, but there are racial disparities in LDKT rates. To study putative mechanisms of these disparities, we identified 58 752 adult kidney transplant candidates first activated on the United States kidney transplant waitlist 2015-2016 and defined four exposure groups by race/primary payer: African American/Medicaid, African American/NonMedicaid, Non-African American/Medicaid, Non-African American/NonMedicaid. We performed competing risk regression to compare risk of LDKT between groups. Among included candidates, 30% had African American race and 9% had Medicaid primary payer. By the end of follow up, 16% underwent LDKT. The cumulative incidence of LDKT was lowest for African American candidates regardless of payer. Compared to African American/Non-Medicaid candidates, the adjusted likelihood of LDKT was higher for both Non-African American/Medicaid (HR 1.60, 95%CI 1.43-1.78) and Non-African American/Non-Medicaid candidates (HR 2.66, 95%CI 2.50-2.83). Results were similar when analyzing only candidates still waitlisted > 2 years after initial activation or candidates with type O blood. Among 9639 candidates who received LDKT, only 13% were African American. Donor-recipient relationships were similar for African American and Non-African American recipients. These findings indicate African American candidates have a lower incidence of LDKT than candidates of other races, regardless of primary payer.

Telehealth Use by Living Kidney Donor Transplant Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: a Practical Approach

Purpose of Review

COVID-19 pandemic led to a decline in living kidney donor evaluations and transplants. This was due to concerns for donor and recipient safety, restrictions on elective cases, and diversion of staff and resources in centers with a higher incidence of COVID-19 infections. Telehealth was explored as a strategy to continue living donor evaluations during the pandemic, but faced barriers including restrictive physician licensing, reduced reimbursement, lack of infrastructure, prohibitive local policies, limited exam, and personal biases. This review highlights these barriers and potential solutions.

Recent Findings

Telehealth usage in the transplant population improves medication adherence, reduces hospitalization rates for recipients, and makes living donor evaluation convenient. Transplant centers have implemented telehealth successfully for living kidney donor evaluations. Broad use of telemedicine will be possible only if policies support the changing landscape of healthcare delivery.

Summary

Telehealth may increase access to timely kidney transplants by expediting living kidney donor evaluations. However, supportive infrastructure, regulatory policies, and reimbursement are needed to sustain access to telehealth for living kidney donor evaluation and care.

The Scope of Telemedicine in Kidney Transplantation: Access and Outreach Services

Access to transplant centers is a key barrier for kidney transplant evaluation and follow-up care for both the recipient and donor. Potential kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors may face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges in engaging with a transplant center and maintaining post-transplant continuity of care. Telemedicine via synchronous video visits has the potential to overcome the access barrier to transplant centers. Transplant centers can start the evaluation process for potential recipients and donors via telemedicine, especially for those who have challenges to come for an in-person visit or when there are restrictions on clinic capacities, such as during a pandemic. Similarly, transplant centers can use telemedicine to sustain post-transplant follow-up care while avoiding the burden of travel and its associated costs. However, expansion to telemedicine-based kidney transplant services is substantially dependent on telemedicine infrastructure, insurer policy, and state regulations. In this review, we discuss the practice of telemedicine in kidney transplantation and its implications for expanding access to kidney transplant services and outreach from pretransplant evaluation to post-transplant follow-up care for the recipient and donor.

Economic Impact of Donating a Kidney on Living Donors: A Korean Cohort Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Although existing studies have reported adverse health outcomes after kidney donation, its socioeconomic impact on living donors requires further study.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective observational cohort study including a matched comparison group.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

1,285 living kidney donors from 7 tertiary hospitals between 2003 and 2016, and a matched comparison group consisting of the same number of health screening examinees with similar baseline clinical characteristics and socioeconomic status. All participants were receiving Korean national health insurance.

EXPOSURE

Kidney donation as reflected in the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS) database.

OUTCOME

Changes in household economic status estimated by Korean national health insurance fees and changes in employment status reflected in the NHIS database.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The outcomes of the donor group and matched control group were compared annually using multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for clinical and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The median ages of the donors and matched controls were 45 and 46 years, respectively; 44.6% of both groups were male. Compared to the comparison group, living donors were at higher risk of being unemployed or losing employment during the first 2 years after donation (eg, first-year loss of employment: odds ratio (OR), 2.27 [95% CI, 1.55-3.33]); however, this association did not persist. Donors also had a significantly lower odds of improvement in economic status (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47-0.71]) and a higher odds of deterioration in financial status (OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.23-1.93]) in the first year after transplantation and subsequently.

LIMITATIONS

Unmeasured differences between donors and matched controls creating residual selection bias and confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donors may suffer loss of employment and poor economic status after their voluntary donation. The socioeconomic impact on these donors should be considered in conjunction with the potential long-term adverse health outcomes after donation.

Marginal parent donors-Process and ethics

BACKGROUND

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation for end-stage kidney disease in children has many advantages and may lead to the consideration of marginal parent donors.

METHODS

Using the example of the transplant of a kidney with medullary sponge disease from a parent to the child, we review the ethical framework for working up such donors.

RESULTS

The four principles of health ethics include autonomy (the right of the patient to retain control over his/her own body); beneficence (healthcare providers must do all they can do to benefit the patient in each situation); non-maleficence ("first do no harm"-providers must consider whether other people or society could be harmed by a decision made, even if it is made for the benefit of an individual patient) and justice (there should be an element of fairness in all medical decisions). Highly motivated donors may derive significant psychological benefit from their donation and may thus be willing to incur more risk. The transplantation team and, ideally, an independent donor advocate team must make a judgment about the acceptability of the risk-benefit ratio for particular potential donors, who must also make their own assessment. The transplantation team and donor advocate team must be comfortable with the risk-benefit ratio before proceeding.

CONCLUSIONS

An independent donor advocacy team that focuses on the donor needs is needed with sufficient multidisciplinary ethical, social, and psychological expertise. The decision to accept or reject the donor should be within the authority of the independent donor advocacy team and not the providers or the donor.

Living Kidney Donors' Financial Expenses and Mental Health

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors incur donation-related expenses, but how these expenses impact postdonation mental health is unknown.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, the association between mental health and donor-incurred expenses (both out-of-pocket costs and lost wages) was examined in 821 people who donated a kidney at one of the 12 transplant centers in Canada between 2009 and 2014. Mental health was measured by the RAND Short Form-36 Health Survey along with Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory.

RESULTS

A total of 209 donors (25%) reported expenses of >5500 Canadian dollars. Compared with donors who incurred lower expenses, those who incurred higher expenses demonstrated significantly worse mental health-related quality of life 3 months after donation, with a trend towards worse anxiety and depression, after controlling for predonation mental health-related quality of life and other risk factors for psychological distress. Between-group differences for donors with lower and higher expenses on these measures were no longer significant 12 months after donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donor transplant programs should ensure that adequate psychosocial support is available to all donors who need it, based on known and unknown risk factors. Efforts to minimize donor-incurred expenses and to better support the mental well-being of donors need to continue. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of donor reimbursement programs, which mitigate donor expenses, on postdonation mental health.

Gender and race/ethnicity differences in living kidney donor demographics: Preference or disparity?

In the United States, women are over-represented and Blacks are under-represented as living kidney donors. A traditional bioethics approach would state that as long as living donors believe that the benefits of participation outweigh the risks and harms (beneficence) and they give a voluntary and informed consent, then the demographics reflect a mere difference in preferences. Such an analysis, however, ignores the social, economic and cultural determinants as well as various forms of structural discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism) that may imply that the distribution is less voluntary than may appear initially. The distribution also raises justice concerns regarding the fair recruitment and selection of living donors. We examine the differences in living kidney donor demographics using a vulnerabilities analysis and argue that these gender and racial differences may not reflect mere preferences, but rather, serious justice concerns that need to be addressed at both the individual and systems level.

Economic Consequences of Adult Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines mandate organ donation to be financially neutral such that it neither rewards nor exploits donors. This systematic review was conducted to assess the magnitude and type of costs incurred by adult living kidney donors and to identify those at risk of financial hardship.

METHODS

We searched English-language journal articles and working papers assessing direct and indirect costs incurred by donors on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, and EconLit in 2005 and thereafter. Estimates of total costs, types of costs, and characteristics of donors who incurred the financial burden were extracted.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified involving 6158 donors. Average donor-borne costs ranged from US$900 to US$19 900 (2019 values) over the period from predonation evaluation to the end of the first postoperative year. Less than half of donors sought financial assistance and 80% had financial loss. Out-of-pocket payments for travel and health services were the most reported items where lost income accounted for the largest proportion (23.2%-83.7%) of total costs. New indirect cost items were identified to be insurance difficulty, exercise impairment, and caregiver income loss. Donors from lower-income households and those who traveled long distances reported the greatest financial hardship.

CONCLUSIONS

Most kidney donors are undercompensated. Our findings highlight gaps in donor compensation for predonation evaluation, long-distance donations, and lifetime insurance protection. Additional studies outside of North America are needed to gain a global prospective on how to provide for financial neutrality for kidney donors.

An intersectional gender analysis in kidney transplantation: women who donate a kidney

BACKGROUND

Living-donor transplantation is the best treatment option in patients with chronic kidney failure. Global data show that women are less likely to be kidney recipients than men but are more likely to become living kidney donors. We explored the experience of women who donate a kidney to relatives with biological and socio-cultural ties and to understand the similarities and differences in their experience.

METHODS

A qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study with an intersectional analysis of gender. Ten women donors accepted in the transplant evaluation period participated, all of whom donated a kidney to a pre-dialysis relative. Two categories were included: women with biological kinship ties (mothers, sisters) and women who have a socio-cultural relationship (wives) with kidney recipient. The data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Women donate their kidneys in a convinced manner, without worrying about their health, with an optimistic and positive attitude, and without believing that they are acting heroically. Women with biological kinship ties see it as a 'naturalization thing'. In contrast, wives donate conditioned by gender roles, but also as a form of empowerment and as a personal benefit: they donate in order to avoid taking on carer role for their husband and as a way of protecting their children.

CONCLUSION

The study's findings expand the conception of kidney donation as solely altruistic and may help professionals to pay attention to the complexity and intersectionality of features present in women who are living kidney donors.

Evidence of Resilience in Kidney Donors: A New York Statewide Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Donor nephrectomy (DN) is a procedure performed to provide recipients with a kidney to treat end-stage renal disease. The following analysis evaluated depression diagnosis in DN patients compared to controls.

METHODS

DN patients and matched controls were identified between 2000 and 2009 from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Cohorts were tracked for depression incidence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of a postoperative depression diagnosis.

RESULTS

The total study cohort included 2108 DN cases and 2108 controls. In both donors and controls, the baseline rate of depression was 0.95% (n = 20). The 5-year incidence of depression diagnosis after exposure increased in both cohorts (donors: 2.5%, n = 53; controls: 7.2%, n = 152; P < .001). The 5-year relative risk for developing depression was 2.65 (CI 1.59-4.42, P = .0002) in donors and 7.60 (CI 4.79-12.07, P < .001) in controls. On multivariable regression, being a donor was associated with reduced risk of developing postoperative depression (OR = 0.322, CI 0.233-0.445, P < .001), and the greatest risk factor for postoperative depression was a prior depressive diagnosis (OR = 7.811, CI 3.814-15.997, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows that the strongest risk factor for depression was a prior diagnosis of depression. However, willingness to undergo donor nephrectomy is associated with less subsequent depression than the control population, suggesting that kidney donors may be a more resilient cohort.

Psychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study

Living kidney donors' follow-up is usually focused on the assessment of the surgical and medical outcomes. Whilst the psychosocial follow-up is advocated in literature. It is still not entirely clear which exact psychosocial factors are related to a poor psychosocial outcome of donors. The aim of our study is to prospectively assess the donors' psychosocial risks factors to impaired health-related quality of life at 1-year post-donation and link their psychosocial profile before donation with their respective outcomes. The influence of the recipient's medical outcomes on their donor's psychosocial outcome was also examined. Sixty donors completed a battery of standardized psychometric instruments (quality of life, mental health, coping strategies, personality, socio-economic status), and ad hoc items regarding the donation process (e.g., motivations for donation, decision-making, risk assessment, and donor-recipient relationship). Donors' 1-year psychosocial follow-up was favorable and comparable with the general population. So far, cluster-analysis identified a subgroup of donors (28%) with a post-donation reduction of their health-related quality of life. This subgroup expressed comparatively to the rest, the need for more pre-donation information regarding surgery risks, and elevated fear of losing the recipient and commitment to stop their suffering.

Association Between the Economic Environment and the Living Organ Donation Rate: Evidence and Implications

BACKGROUND

We studied the contribution of the economic environment to an individual's decision to donate an organ by examining the relationship between the unemployment rate and the living donation rate.

STUDY DESIGN

We obtained living organ donation data from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) containing 134,138 organ donation events from 1990 through 2016. We obtained monthly unemployment rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from 1990 through 2016, and obtained quarterly real gross domestic product (real GDP) by state from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) from 2005 through 2016. We conducted graphical and statistical analysis with regression modeling using state and time fixed effects.

RESULTS

Descriptive graphical plots suggest that unlike the unemployment rate, the donation rate is non-cyclical over time, implying little association between the two factors. This is conferred by a linear regression model using state and calendar month fixed effects, where we found no significant association between the unemployment and donation rates (95% CI [-0.004, 0.008], interpreted as the change in number of donations per 100,000 people associated with 1% change in the unemployment rate). We also did not find any significant association between the real GDP and the donation rates. Subgroup analysis by sex, race, and age also revealed no significant associations.

CONCLUSIONS

The unemployment rate and the real GDP do not appear to be associated with the living organ donation rate, suggesting that the economic environment may not play a major role in the decision to donate an organ.

Latest developments in living kidney donation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the first successful kidney transplantation 65 years ago was performed with a living donor kidney, the number of living donor kidney transplantations has increased especially during the last 2 decades. The enlargement of living donor programs was made possible by new modes of living donation and by expansion of the living donor pool. At the same time, the long-term risks of kidney donation have been better delineated. In this review, the latest developments on these topics are summarized.

RECENT FINDINGS

While the results of ABO-incompatible living kidney transplantation are superior to those of deceased donor transplantation, recent meta-analyses show a reduced patient and graft survival as compared with ABO compatible transplantation as well as increased risk of severe infection and bleeding. Kidney paired donation programs can be extended by including compatible couples and by advanced donation, although the latter raises ethical concerns. Living donors appear to have a higher risk of end-stage renal disease and this is especially true for obese donors and probably also for black donors with an APOL1 high-risk genotype. The importance of psychosocial outcomes after living kidney donation is increasingly recognized.

SUMMARY

Living donor kidney transplantation remains the optimal treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease. To increase the donor pool, a well developed paired kidney donation program and sufficient reimbursement of costs associated with donation are essential ingredients. Other ways of expanding the donor pool, such as ABO-incompatible transplantation, use of higher risk donors, providing donors with financial incentives and advanced donation are associated with medical, ethical and logistical complications. There should be a careful selection and follow-up of living kidney donors with attention for medical consequences as well as for psychosocial outcomes.

The experience of donating and receiving a kidney: A systematic review of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

The experiences described by people who have undergone kidney transplant are complex. Understanding how donors and recipients experience kidney transplantation can help us to design strategies that provide a more person-centred health care.

OBJECTIVES

To review articles that report the experiences of donors and recipients in the living-donor kidney transplantation process.

METHOD

A systematic review of qualitative studies was carried out. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were used to search for articles published in English, French and Spanish between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included in this review. For recipients, receiving a kidney is a positive experience (positive feelings and significant experience) that also involves certain difficulties and stressors (making a difficult decision, fears and worries). The experience of the donors is positive as they are motivated to improve the life of the recipient. They are committed to donating and use coping strategies as well as experiencing personal growth. On the contrary, being a donor involves certain difficulties and stressors (personal investment, mental, physical and economic impact and overcoming opposition) and a perception of deficiency in the health system (lack of information and attentiveness).

CONCLUSION

Donating and receiving a kidney is a positive experience that involves certain difficulties and a variety of stressors for both the donors and recipients. Moreover, the donors note deficiencies in the health system.

Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Purpose of review:

To review an international guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors and provide a commentary on the applicability of the recommendations to the Canadian donor population.

Sources of information:

We reviewed the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors and compared this guideline to the Canadian 2014 Kidney Paired Donation (KPD) Protocol for Participating Donors.

Methods:

A working group was formed consisting of members from the Canadian Society of Transplantation and the Canadian Society of Nephrology. Members were selected to have representation from across Canada and in various subspecialties related to living kidney donation, including nephrology, surgery, transplantation, pediatrics, and ethics.

Key findings:

Many of the KDIGO Guideline recommendations align with the KPD Protocol recommendations. Canadian researchers have contributed to much of the evidence on donor evaluation and outcomes used to support the KDIGO Guideline recommendations.

Limitations:

Certain outcomes and risk assessment tools have yet to be validated in the Canadian donor population.

Implications:

Living kidney donors should be counseled on the risks of postdonation outcomes given recent evidence, understanding the limitations of the literature with respect to its generalizability to the Canadian donor population.

The need for a living donor wellness program

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Living donation has a tremendous impact in bridging the gap between the shortage of organs and the growing list of transplant candidates but remains underutilized as a percentage of total transplants performed. This review focuses on obesity and social determinants of health as potential barriers to the expansion of living kidney donation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The growing rate of obesity and associated metabolic syndrome make many potential donors unacceptable as donor candidates because of the future risk for developing chronic health conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes. There is also increasing evidence demonstrating socioeconomic differences and racial disparities potentially limit access to living donation in certain populations. These potentially modifiable factors are not exclusive of each other and together serve as significant contributing factors to lower rates of living donation.

SUMMARY

Living donors make sacrifices to provide the gift of life to transplant recipients, despite the potential risks to their own health. Studies describing risk factors to living donation call attention to the overall need for more action to prioritize and promote the health and well being of living donors.

Nonreimbursed Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Case Study From Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Living donors may incur out-of-pocket costs during the donation process. While many jurisdictions have programs to reimburse living kidney donors for expenses, few programs have been evaluated.

METHODS

The Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors was launched in the province of Ontario, Canada in 2008 and reimburses travel, parking, accommodation, meals, and loss of income; each category has a limit and the maximum total reimbursement is $5500 CAD. We conducted a case study to compare donors' incurred costs (out-of-pocket and lost income) with amounts reimbursed by Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors. Donors with complete or partial cost data from a large prospective cohort study were linked to Ontario's reimbursement program to determine the gap between incurred and reimbursed costs (n = 159).

RESULTS

The mean gap between costs incurred and costs reimbursed to the donors was $1313 CAD for out-of-pocket costs and $1802 CAD for lost income, representing a mean reimbursement gap of $3115 CAD. Nondirected donors had the highest mean loss for out-of-pocket costs ($2691 CAD) and kidney paired donors had the highest mean loss for lost income ($4084 CAD). There were no significant differences in the mean gap across exploratory subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reimbursement programs minimize some of the financial loss for living kidney donors. Opportunities remain to remove the financial burden of living kidney donors.

Evolving swaps in transplantation: global exchange, vouchers, liver, and trans-organ paired exchange

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the ongoing organ shortage, several mechanisms to facilitate organ exchanges and expand the scope of living kidney or liver donation have been proposed. Although each addresses at least one barrier to transplantation, these innovative programs raise important ethical, logistical, and regulatory considerations.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review addresses four recent proposals to expand living donor transplantation. For kidney transplantation, we discuss global paired exchange and advanced donation programs ('vouchers') and for liver transplantation, liver paired exchange. Lastly, this review considers trans-organ exchange. We explore the conceptual framework of the exchange, current status, benefits, and concerns for implementation among each of these evolving pathways.

SUMMARY

Through highlighting novel mechanisms in organ exchange, greater awareness, discussion, or support can occur to create more avenues for transplantation. These innovative mechanisms require regulations and safeguards for donors to ensure informed consent, and proper follow-up is maintained.

Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors

In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.