Who gets a lung transplant? Assessing the psychosocial decision-making process for transplant listing

Interitem Psychometric Validation of the Stanford Integrated Assessment for Transplant Scale Among Thoracic Transplant Candidates

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial evaluations are mandatory for transplant listing, however the methodology for creating psychosocial risk stratifications is unclear. The Standford Psychosocial Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant Scale is the most commonly used instrument, however its interitem validity has never been examined.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the interitem validity of a psychosocial assessment tool for transplant candidates among a sample of thoracic transplant candidates.

METHODS

Clinic data consisting of Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant administrations from 173 heart and lung transplant candidates were fit to a partial credit model. Data were subsequently fit to 4 separate partial credit models based on subscale categories, demonstrating the discrimination parameter estimate of each item. Differential item functioning analyses were conducted on the data within each subscale by sex to investigate potential bias produced by each item.

RESULTS

The initial partial credit model using the full scale did not converge, indicating the subscales possibly did not measure the same underlying construct. Subscale discrimination parameter estimates demonstrated that most items were adequately or highly discriminative. The item measuring history of substance use demonstrated poor fit and differential item functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

While the Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant has demonstrated strong potential as a standardized framework for psychosocial assessments in transplant, this study identified some areas for improvement in the scoring system. The subscale scores appeared to show greater construct validity when utilized individually than when aggregated to form a total score. The substance use/abuse/dependence item did not fit well into its respective subscale. Future studies should aim to optimize the scoring system and re-asses its construct validity to improve its accuracy in discriminating between high-risk candidates and those needing psychosocial assistance.

Comparing Kidney Transplant Rates and Outcomes Among Adults With and Without Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Importance

Improving equity in organ transplant access for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is a topic of social discourse in mainstream media, state legislation, and national legislation. However, few studies have compared evaluation rates, transplant rates, and outcomes among adults with and without IDD.

Objective

To compare rates of kidney transplant and transplant-specific outcomes between propensity-score matched groups of adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD [also referred to as end-stage renal disease (ESRD)]) with and without co-occurring IDD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included all Medicare inpatient and outpatient standard analytical files from 2013 through 2020. A total of 1 413 655 adult Medicare beneficiaries with ESKD were identified. Propensity-score matching was used to balance cohorts based on age, sex, race, follow-up duration, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The matched cohorts consisted of 21 384 adults with ESKD (10 692 of whom had IDD) and 1258 kidney transplant recipients (629 of whom had IDD). Data were analyzed between June 1, 2022, and August 1, 2022.

Exposure

IDD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Evaluation for kidney transplant, receipt of kidney transplant, perioperative complications, readmission, mortality, graft rejection, and graft failure.

Results

Of the 21 384 propensity-score matched adults with ESKD, the median (IQR) age was 55 (43-65) years, 39.2% were male, 27.4% were Black, 64.1% were White, and 8.5% identified as another race or ethnicity. After propensity score matching within the ESKD cohort, 633 patients with IDD (5.9%) received a kidney transplant compared with 1367 of adults without IDD (12.8%). Adults with IDD were 54% less likely than matched peers without IDD to be evaluated for transplant (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.43-0.50) and 62% less likely to receive a kidney transplant (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.34-0.42). Among matched cohorts of kidney transplant recipients, rates of perioperative complications, readmission, and graft failure were similar for adults with and without IDD.

Conclusions and Relevance

Using the largest cohort of adult kidney transplant recipients with IDD to date, the study team found that rates of evaluation and transplant were lower despite yielding equivalent outcomes. These data support consideration of adults with IDD for kidney transplant and underscore the urgent need for antidiscrimination initiatives to promote the receipt of equitable care for this population.

Impact of Affect on Lung Transplant Candidate Outcomes

BACKGROUND

We examined the association of adult lung transplant candidates' self-reported affect with transplant-related outcomes, evaluating whether a positive (vs negative) frame of mind might be protective.

METHOD

Consenting waitlisted candidates from 6 centers completed the questionnaires including the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule annually and posttransplant. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association of baseline affect with outcomes of death or delisting. Models were subsequently adjusted for age, marital status, and education.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 169 candidates (77.9% participation). Mean positive affect, negative affect, and positive-to-negative affect ratio (positivity ratio) were similar to expected norms. The scores of the questionnaire did not change significantly over time. Fifteen (8.9%) waitlisted participants died. Candidates who died while waiting had lower positivity ratios compared to those who survived (1.82 vs 2.45; P = .02). A more negative affect was associated with increased death on the waiting list (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.10; P = .021). Conversely, a higher positivity ratio was associated with decreased death while waiting (adjusted OR: 0.45; P = .027).

CONCLUSION

Negative affect may represent a novel risk factor for death on the waitlist. Enhancing positive affect may represent a useful target for psychological optimization in lung transplant candidates.

Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplant (PACT) as a tool for psychological and social evaluation of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients

Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplant (PACT) is a tool originally developed to address psychosocial risks in solid organ transplant recipients and has the potential for application to hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients. In a retrospective cohort study, we reviewed 404 adult allogeneic HCT cases from 2003 to 2014 to identify predictors of adverse psychosocial status as determined by PACT. Final PACT rating was poor/borderline (score 0-1) in 5%, acceptable (score 2) in 22%, good (score 3) in 44%, and excellent (score 4) in 29% recipients. In multivariable regression, higher PACT score was associated with White race (odds ratio [OR] 2.95, P < 0.001), having a related donor (OR 1.61, P = 0.015), and a higher quality of life score (OR 1.22/ 10-point increase in FACT-BMT total score, P < 0.001). PACT score correlated with all quality of life subscales. The final PACT score was associated with non-relapse mortality (HR 0.82/ 1-point increase, p = 0.03) in multivariable analysis that considered patient and disease factors, but not in models that also included transplant-related factors and performance status. PACT score was not associated with overall survival. PACT can be considered as part of a comprehensive psychosocial assessment for identifying patients who may require additional resources around allogeneic HCT.