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

Expanding the access to kidney transplantation: Strategies for kidney transplant programs

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.

Mitigating Health Disparities in Transplantation Requires Equity, Not Equality

Despite decades of research and evidence-based mitigation strategies, disparities in access to transplantation persist for all organ types and in all stages of the transplant process. Although some strategies have shown promise for alleviating disparities, others have fallen short of the equity goal by providing the same tools and resources to all rather than tailoring the tools and resources to one's circumstances. Innovative solutions that engage all stakeholders are needed to achieve equity regardless of race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, or geography. Mitigation of disparities is paramount to ensure fair and equitable access for those with end-stage disease and to preserve the trust of the public, upon whom we rely for their willingness to donate organs. In this overview, we present a summary of recent literature demonstrating persistent disparities by stage in the transplant process, along with policies and interventions that have been implemented to combat these disparities and hypotheses for why some strategies have been more effective than others. We conclude with future directions that have been proposed by experts in the field and how these suggested strategies may help us finally arrive at equity in transplantation.

Effect of a Novel Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Patient Access to Kidney Transplant and Living Kidney Donation: The EnAKT LKD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have the best chance for a longer and healthier life if they receive a kidney transplant. However, many barriers prevent patients from receiving a transplant.

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent intervention designed to target several barriers that prevent eligible patients from completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, superiority, cluster randomized clinical trial included all 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. These programs provide care for patients with advanced CKD (patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis).

Interventions

Using stratified, covariate-constrained randomization, allocation of the CKD programs at a 1:1 ratio was used to compare the multicomponent intervention vs usual care for 4.2 years. The intervention had 4 main components, (1) administrative support to establish local quality improvement teams; (2) transplant educational resources; (3) an initiative for transplant recipients and living donors to share stories and experiences; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by administrative leaders.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the rate of steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant. Each patient could complete up to 4 steps: step 1, referred to a transplant center for evaluation; step 2, had a potential living donor contact a transplant center for evaluation; step 3, added to the deceased donor waitlist; and step 4, received a transplant from a living or deceased donor.

Results

The 26 CKD programs (13 intervention, 13 usual care) during the trial period included 20 375 potentially transplant-eligible patients with advanced CKD (intervention group [n = 9780 patients], usual-care group [n = 10 595 patients]). Despite evidence of intervention uptake, the step completion rate did not significantly differ between the intervention vs usual-care groups: 5334 vs 5638 steps; 24.8 vs 24.1 steps per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.15).

Conclusions and Relevance

This novel multicomponent intervention did not significantly increase the rate of completed steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Improving access to transplantation remains a global priority that requires substantial effort.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03329521.

Race, Age, and Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Among Patients Receiving Incident Dialysis in the United States

Rationale & Objective

Patients with kidney failure from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to the transplant waitlist relative to White and younger patients. Although racial disparities in the waitlisting group have declined after the 2014 kidney allocation system change, whether there is intersectionality of race and age in waitlisting access is unknown.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting & Participants

439,455 non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black US adults initiating dialysis between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the United States Renal Data System, and followed through 2020.

Exposures

Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black) and age group (18-29, 30-49, 50-64, and 65-80 years).

Outcomes

Placement on the United Network for Organ Sharing deceased donor waitlist.

Analytical Approach

Age- and race-stratified waitlisting rates were compared. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, censored for death, examined the association between race and waitlisting, and included interaction term for race and age.

Results

Over a median follow-up period of 1 year, the proportion of non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients waitlisted was 20.7% and 20.5%, respectively. In multivariable models, non-Hispanic Black patients were 14% less likely to be waitlisted (aHR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Relative differences between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients were different by age group. Non-Hispanic Black patients were 27%, 12%, and 20% less likely to be waitlisted than non-Hispanic White patients for ages 18-29 years (aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86), 50-64 (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98), and 65-80 years (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), respectively, but differences were attenuated among patients aged 30-49 years (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.02).

Limitations

Race and ethnicity data is physician reported, residual confounding, and analysis is limited to non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients.

Conclusions

Racial disparities in waitlisting exist between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals and are most pronounced among younger patients with kidney failure. Results suggest that interventions to address inequalities in waitlisting may need to be targeted to younger patients with kidney failure.

Plain-Language Summary

Research has shown that patients from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to transplant waitlisting relative to White and younger patients; nevertheless, how age impacts racial disparities in waitlisting is unknown. We compared waitlisting between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients with incident kidney failure, within age strata, using registry data for 439,455 US adults starting dialysis (18-80 years) during 2015-2019. Overall, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to be waitlisted and relative differences between the two racial groups differed by age. After adjusting for patient-level factors, the largest disparity in waitlisting was observed among adults aged 18-29 years. These results suggest that interventions should target younger adults to reduce disparities in access to kidney transplant waitlisting.

A Nominal Group Technique Study of Patients Who Identify as Black or African American and Access to Renal Transplantation

Introduction: Completion of the renal transplant evaluation has been associated with several barriers for patients who identify as Black or African American. This study sought to prioritize barriers to and motivators of completing the renal transplant evaluation. Methods/Approach: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a nominal group technique were used to generate priority scores. Transplant professionals (N = 23) were recruited from 9 transplant centers in the Mid-Atlantic, Mid-Western, and Southeastern parts of the United States. Black or African American identifying renal patients (N = 30) diagnosed with end-stage kidney disease were recruited from 1 transplant center in the Mid-Atlantic region. Findings: Priority scores were created to assess the quantitative data of participant rankings of top barriers and motivators. The most significant barriers identified by both patients and transplant professionals comprised financial constraints, insurance issues, difficulty navigating the healthcare system, transportation difficulties, and multiple health problems. Facilitators consisted of family/social support, transplant education, patient navigators, comprehensive insurance, and physician repertoire and investment. A qualitative description of the ranked factors resulted in themes classified as intrapersonal, health, socioeconomic, transplant-specific healthcare, and general healthcare. Conclusion: These findings provided vital information to transplant centers nationwide about assessing the influences of renal transplant evaluation completion. Achieving equity in access to transplantation for Black or African American renal patients requires multilayered approaches.

Perspectives of a proposed patient navigator programme for people with chronic kidney disease in rural communities: Report from national workshops

AIMS

People who live in rural areas have reduced access to appropriate and timely healthcare, leading to poorer health outcomes than their metropolitan-based counterparts. The aims of the workshops were to ascertain participants' perspectives on barriers to access to dialysis and transplantation, to identify and prioritize the roles of a rural patient navigator, to discuss the acceptability and feasibility of implementing this role and identify possible outcomes that could be used to measure the success of the programme in a clinical trial.

METHODS

Rural patients (n = 19), their caregivers (n = 5) and health professionals (n = 18) from Australia participated in three workshops. We analysed the data using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified four themes related to access to dialysis and transplantation: overwhelmed by separate and disconnected health systems, unprepared for emotional toll and isolation, lack of practical support and inability to develop trust and rapport. Four themes related to the role of the patient navigator programme: valuing lived experience, offering cultural expertise, requiring a conduit, and flexibility of the job description. The key roles prioritized by participants were psychological support and networking, provision/consolidation of education, and provision of practical support.

CONCLUSION

Rural patients, caregivers and health professionals believed that programmes that include navigators with lived experience of dialysis and kidney transplantation and cultural expertise, especially for Aboriginal Australians, may have the potential to improve patient experiences in accessing healthcare.

Patient Navigators for CKD and Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review

Rationale & Objective

To what degree and how patient navigators improve clinical outcomes for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and kidney failure is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to summarize patient navigator program design, evidence, and implementation in kidney disease.

Study Design

A search strategy was developed for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluated the impact of navigators on outcomes in the setting of CKD and kidney failure. Articles were identified from various databases. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and identified those meeting the inclusion criteria.

Setting & Participants

Patients with CKD or kidney failure (in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, home hemodialysis, or kidney transplantation).

Selection Criteria for Studies

Studies that compared patient navigators with a control, without limits on size, duration, setting, or language. Studies focusing solely on patient education were excluded.

Data Extraction

Data were abstracted from full texts and risk of bias was assessed.

Analytical Approach

No meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Of 3,371 citations, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria including 14 original studies. Navigators came from various healthcare backgrounds including nursing (n=6), social worker (n=2), medical interpreter (n=1), research (n=1), and also included kidney transplant recipients (n=2) and non-medical individuals (n=2). Navigators focused mostly on education (n=9) and support (n = 6). Navigators were used for patients with CKD (n=5), peritoneal dialysis (n=2), in-center hemodialysis (n=4), kidney transplantation (n=2), but not home hemodialysis. Navigators improved transplant workup and listing, peritoneal dialysis utilization, and patient knowledge.

Limitations

Many studies did not show benefits across other outcomes, were at a high risk of bias, and none reported cost-effectiveness or patient-reported experience measures.

Conclusions

Navigators improve some health outcomes for CKD but there was heterogeneity in their structure and function. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate navigator program efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Association between social determinants of health and rates of liver transplantation in individuals with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study evaluated the association between neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) and liver transplantation (LT) among patients with cirrhosis who have universal access to health care.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study from 2000-2019 using administrative health care data from Ontario, Canada. Adults aged 18-70 years with newly decompensated cirrhosis and/or HCC were identified using validated coding. The associations between five neighborhood level SDOH quintiles and LT were assessed with multivariate Fine-Gray competing risks regression to generate subdistribution HRs (sHRs) where death competes with LT. Overall, n = 38,719 individuals formed the cohort (median age 57 years, 67% male), and n = 2788 (7%) received LT after a median of 23 months (interquartile range 3-68). Due to an interaction, results were stratified by sex. After multivariable regression and comparing those in the lowest versus highest quintiles, individuals living in the most materially resource-deprived areas (female sHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.76; male sHR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64), most residentially unstable neighborhoods (female sHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.75; male sHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.49-0.65), and lowest-income neighborhoods (female sHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.7; male sHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67) had ~40% reduced subhazard for LT (p < 0.01 for all). No associations were found between neighborhoods with the most diverse immigrant or racial minority populations or age and labor force quintiles and LT.

CONCLUSIONS

This information highlights an urgent need to evaluate how SDOH influence rates of LT, with the overarching goal to develop strategies to overcome inequalities.

A Population Health Approach to Transplant Access: Challenging the Status Quo

Transplant referral and evaluation are critical steps to waitlisting yet remain an elusive part of the transplant process. Despite calls for more data collection on pre-waitlisting steps, there are currently no national surveillance data to aid in understanding the causes and potential solutions for the extreme variation in access to transplantation. As population health scientists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and ethicists we submit that the transplant community has an obligation to better understand disparities in transplant access as a first necessary step to effectively mitigating these inequities. Our position is grounded in a population health approach, consistent with several new overarching national policy and quality initiatives. The purpose of this Perspective is to (1) provide an overview of how a population health approach should inform current multisystem policies impacting kidney transplantation and demonstrate how these efforts could be enhanced with national data collection on pre-waitlisting steps; (2) demonstrate the feasibility and concrete next steps for pre-waitlisting data collection; and (3) identify potential opportunities to use these data to implement effective population-level interventions, policies, and quality measures to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

Health Disparities in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD) in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) occurs at conception and is often diagnosed decades prior to kidney failure. Nephrology care and transplantation access should be independent of race and ethnicity. However, institutional racism and barriers to health care may affect patient outcomes in ADPKD. We sought to ascertain the effect of health disparities on outcomes in ADPKD by examining age at onset of kidney failure and access to preemptive transplantation and transplantation after dialysis initiation.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Retrospective cohort analyses of adults with ADPKD in the United States Renal Data System from January 2000 to June 2018 were merged to US Census income data and evaluated by self-reported race and ethnicity. Age at kidney failure was analyzed in a linear model, and transplant rates before and after dialysis initiation were analyzed in logistic and proportional hazards models in Black and Hispanic patients with ADPKD compared with White patients with ADPKD.

RESULTS

A total of 41,485 patients with ADPKD were followed for a median of 25 (interquartile range, 5-54) months. Mean age was 56±12 years; 46% were women, 13% were Black, and 10% were Hispanic. Mean ages at kidney failure were 55±13, 53±12, and 57±12 years for Black patients, Hispanic patients, and White patients, respectively. Odds ratios for preemptive transplant were 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.38) for Black patients and 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.56) for Hispanic patients compared with White patients. Transplant after dialysis initiation was 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.64) for Black patients and 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.83) for Hispanic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Black and Hispanic patients with ADPKD reach kidney failure earlier and are less likely to receive a kidney transplant preemptively and after initiating dialysis compared with White patients with ADPKD.

The Kidney Transplant Equity Index: Improving Racial and Ethnic Minority Access to Transplantation

OBJECTIVES

To develop a scalable metric which quantifies kidney transplant (KT) centers' performance providing equitable access to KT for minority patients, based on the individualized pre-listing prevalence of End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Racial and ethnic disparities for access to transplant in patients with ESRD are well described; however, variation in care among KT centers remains unknown. Furthermore, no mechanism exists that quantifies how well a KT center provides equitable access to KT for minority patients with ESRD.

METHODS

From 2013-2018, custom datasets from the United States Renal Data System and United Network for Organ Sharing were merged to calculate the Kidney Transplant Equity Index (KTEI), defined as: the number of minority patients transplanted at a center relative to the prevalence of minority patients with ESRD in each center's health service area. Markers of socioeconomic status (SES) and recipient outcomes were compared between high and low KTEI centers.

RESULTS

249 transplant centers performed 111,959 KTs relative to 475,914 non-transplanted patients with ESRD. High KTEI centers performed more KTs for Black (105.5 vs. 24, P<0.001), Hispanic (55.5 vs. 7, P<0.001), and American Indian (1.0 vs. 0.0, P<0.001) patients than low KTEI centers. In addition, high KTEI centers transplanted more patients with higher unemployment (52 vs. 44, P<0.001), worse social deprivation (53 vs. 46, P<0.001), and lower educational attainment (52 vs. 43, P<0.001). While providing increased access to transplant for minority and low SES populations, high KTEI centers had improved patient survival (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

The KTEI is the first metric to quantify minority access to KT incorporating the pre-listing ESRD prevalence individualized to transplant centers. KTEIs uncover significant national variation in transplant practices and identify highly equitable centers. This novel metric should be used to disseminate best practices for minority and low socioeconomic patients with ESRD.

Kidney transplant candidacy evaluation and waitlisting practices in the United States and their association with access to transplantation

There are limited data on the degree of variability in practices surrounding prioritization of referrals for transplant evaluation and criteria for transplant candidacy and their association with transplantation rates. We surveyed transplant programs across the United States between January 2020 and May 2020 to determine current pre-transplantation practices. We examined the relation between these reported practices and the outcomes of waitlisted patients at responding programs between January 2015 and March 2021 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We used adjusted Cox models with random effects to accommodate clustering by program. Primary outcomes included living or deceased donor transplantation. Of 172 surveyed programs, 90 participated. Substantial variations were noted in when the candidacy evaluation began (13% reported when eGFR was <30 mL/min/1.73 m² and 17% reported no set policy) and the approach to pre-transplantation cardiac workup (multi-modality [58%], stress echocardiogram [20%]). Using adjusted models, a program policy of using other measures of body habitus to determine transplant candidacy rather than requiring patients to meet a body mass index (BMI) threshold of ≤35 kg/m² (reference group) for candidacy was associated with a higher hazard of living donor transplantation (HR 1.83 [95% CI 1.10-3.03]). Pre-transplant practices vary substantially across the United States, and select practices were associated with transplantation rates.

Cognitive impairment and kidney transplantation- underestimated, underrecognized but clinically relevant problem

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects the crosstalk between organs in the body and vast majority of studies were devoted to the interactions between the kidneys and the cardiovascular system. As of today, there is more evidence of the kidney and the central nervous system connections.

SUMMARY

Indeed, CKD and in particular dialysis therapy is linked to the increased prevalence of neurological complications, such as cerebrovascular disorders, movement disorders, cognitive impairment, and depression. Both traditional cardiovascular risk factors (such as diabetes, hypertension, and lipid disorders), non-traditional risk factors (such as uremic toxins, anemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism) may predispose CKD patients to neurological disorders. Likewise, cognitive problems occur more commonly in kidney transplant recipients, regardless of age, than in the general population, but the prevalence is still understudied. Cognitive impairment is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization, mortality, decreased quality of life or health care costs in kidney transplant recipients. Here, we review (i) the potential clinical impact of kidney transplantation on cerebrovascular and neurological complications, (ii) evaluation of patients with cognitive impairment for kidney transplantation (iii) the potential impact cognitive impairment on waitlisted and transplanted patients on patient care, and (iv) unmet medical needs.

KEY MESSAGES

• Cognitive impairment in kidney transplant recipients is underestimated, underrecognized but clinically relevant problem. • The screening for cognitive declines after kidney transplantation is not yet a routine practice. • Several prospective and cross-sectional studies reported improvement across some of the assessed cognitive domains after transplantation.

Pretransplant Patient Education in Solid-organ Transplant: A Narrative Review

Education for pretransplant, solid-organ recipient candidates aims to improve knowledge and understanding about the transplant process, outcomes, and potential complications to support informed, shared decision-making to reduce fears and anxieties about transplant, inform expectations, and facilitate adjustment to posttransplant life. In this review, we summarize novel pretransplant initiatives and approaches to educate solid-organ transplant recipient candidates. First, we review approaches that may be common to all solid-organ transplants, then we summarize interventions specific to kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplant. We describe evidence that emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary approaches to transplant education. We also summarize initiatives that consider online (eHealth) and mobile (mHealth) solutions. Finally, we highlight education initiatives that support racialized or otherwise marginalized communities to improve equitable access to solid-organ transplant. A considerable amount of work has been done in solid-organ transplant since the early 2000s with promising results. However, many studies on education for pretransplant recipient candidates involve relatively small samples and nonrandomized designs and focus on short-term surrogate outcomes. Overall, many of these studies have a high risk of bias. Frequently, interventions assessed are not well characterized or they are combined with administrative and data-driven initiatives into multifaceted interventions, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of the education component on outcomes. In the future, well-designed studies rigorously assessing well-defined surrogate and clinical outcomes will be needed to evaluate the impact of many promising initiatives.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States

Background

Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes.

Results

Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant.

Conclusions

This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-021-01616-x.

Early steps to kidney transplantation among persons with HIV and end-stage renal disease in ESRD network 6

INTRODUCTION

End-stage renal disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in persons with HIV (PWH). Limited data exist on access to kidney transplantation for this population.

METHODS

A dataset inclusive of incident dialysis patients between 2012 and 2016 with follow-up through December 2017 that identifies PWH and the general dialysis population of Network 6 (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina) was created through merging the United States Renal Data System with the southeastern early transplant access registry. Early steps to kidney transplantation and patient and dialysis facility-level characteristics that serve as barriers to transplantation were described.

RESULTS

Twenty-three thousand four hundred fourteen patients were identified; 469 were PWH. Compared to non-HIV individuals, PWH were younger (49 vs. 58 years, p < 0.001), predominantly Black (87% vs. 56% p < 0.001) and male (72% vs. 56% p < 0.001). PWH were less likely to be referred to kidney transplant within 1 year of starting dialysis (36% vs. 41% p < 0.001) and waitlisted within 1 year of evaluation-start (14% vs. 30%, p = 0.05). PWH (vs. non-PWH) waited longer for referral, evaluation-start, and waitlisting and in multivariable analysis; HIV positivity was associated with a lower probability of referral (hazard ratios [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.62-0.80), evaluation (HR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.55-0.80), and waitlisting (HR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.20-0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted interventions are needed to improve access to kidney transplants, particularly in waitlisting, for PWH.

A Dialysis Center Educational Video Intervention Increases Patient Self-Efficacy and Kidney Transplant Evaluations

Introduction: The optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease is renal transplant. However, only 1 in 5 (21.5%) patients nationwide receiving dialysis are on a transplant waitlist. Factors associated with patients not initiating a transplant evaluation are complex and include patient specific factors such as transplant knowledge and self-efficacy. Research Question: Can a dialysis center-based educational video intervention increase dialysis patients' transplant knowledge, self-efficacy, and transplant evaluations initiated? Design: Dialysis patients who had not yet completed a transplant evaluation were provided a transplant educational video while receiving hemodialysis. Patients' transplant knowledge, self-efficacy to initiate an evaluation, and dialysis center rates of transplant referral and evaluation were assessed before and after this intervention. Results: Of 340 patients approached at 14 centers, 252 (74%) completed the intervention. The intervention increased transplant knowledge (Likert scale 1 to 5: 2.53 [0.10] vs 4.62 [0.05], P < .001) and transplant self-efficacy (2.55 [0.10] to 4.33 [0.07], P < .001. The incidence rate per 100 patient years of transplant evaluations increased 85% (IRR 1.85 [95% CI: 1.02, 3.35], P = .0422) following the intervention. The incidence rates of referrals also increased 56% (IRR 1.56 [95% CI: 1.03, 2.37], P = .0352), while there was a nonsignificant 47% increase in incidence rates of waitlist entries (IRR 1.47 [95% CI: 0.45, 4.74], P = .5210). Conclusion: This dialysis center-based video intervention provides promising preliminary evidence to conduct a large-scale randomized controlled trial to test its effectiveness in increasing self-efficacy of dialysis patients to initiate a transplant evaluation.

Kidney Transplant Evaluation and Listing: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Multimedia Education for Patients

Background

Patient knowledge gaps about the evaluation and waitlisting process for kidney transplantation lead to delayed and incomplete testing, which compromise transplant access. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel video education approach to empower patients to proceed with the transplant evaluation and listing process and to increase their knowledge and motivation.

Material/Methods

We developed 2 theory-informed educational animations about the kidney transplantation evaluation and listing process with input from experts in transplantation and communication, 20 candidates/recipients, 5 caregivers, 1 anthropologist, 3 community advocates, and 36 dialysis or transplant providers. We then conducted an online pre-post study with 28 kidney transplantation candidates to measure the acceptability and feasibility of the 2 videos to improve patients’ evaluation and listing knowledge, understanding, and concerns.

Results

Compared with before intervention, the mean knowledge score increased after intervention by 38% (5.7 to 7.9; P<0.001). Increases in knowledge effect size were large across age group, health literacy, education, technology access, and duration of pretransplant dialysis. The proportion of positive responses increased from before to after animation viewing for understanding the evaluation process (25% to 61%; P=0.002) and waitlist placement (32% to 86%; P<0.001). Concerns about list placement decreased (32% to 7%; P=0.039). After viewing the animations, >90% of responses indicated positive ratings on trusting the information, comfort level with learning, and engagement.

Conclusions

In partnership with stakeholders, we developed 2 educational animations about kidney transplant evaluation and listing that were positively received by patients and have the potential to improve patient knowledge and understanding and reduce patient concerns.

Your Path to Transplant: A randomized controlled trial of a tailored expert system intervention to increase knowledge, attitudes, and pursuit of kidney transplant

Individually tailoring education over time may help more patients, especially racial/ethnic minorities, get waitlisted and pursue deceased and living donor kidney transplant (DDKT and LDKT, respectively). We enrolled 802 patients pursuing transplant evaluation at the University of California, Los Angeles Transplant Program into a randomized education trial. We compared the effectiveness of Your Path to Transplant (YPT), an individually tailored coaching and education program delivered at 4 time points, with standard of care (SOC) education on improving readiness to pursue DDKT and LDKT, transplant knowledge, taking 15 small transplant-related actions, and pursuing transplant (waitlisting or LDKT rates) over 8 months. Survey outcomes were collected prior to evaluation and at 4 and 8 months. Time to waitlisting or LDKT was assessed with at least 18 months of follow-up. At 8 months, compared to SOC, the YPT group demonstrated increased LDKT readiness (47% vs 33%, P = .003) and transplant knowledge (effect size [ES] = 0.41, P < .001). Transplant pursuit was higher in the YPT group (hazard ratio: 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.79, P = .002). A focused, coordinated education effort can improve transplant-seeking behaviors and waitlisting rates. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02181114.

Racial Disparities in Eligibility for Preemptive Waitlisting for Kidney Transplantation and Modification of eGFR Thresholds to Equalize Waitlist Time

BACKGROUND

Patients may accrue wait time for kidney transplantation when their eGFR is ≤20 ml/min. However, Black patients have faster progression of their kidney disease compared with White patients, which may lead to disparities in accruable time on the kidney transplant waitlist before dialysis initiation.

METHODS

We compared differences in accruable wait time and transplant preparation by CKD-EPI estimating equations in Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort participants, on the basis of estimates of kidney function by creatinine (eGFR_cr), cystatin C (eGFR_cys), or both (eGFR_cr-cys). We used Weibull accelerated failure time models to determine the association between race (non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic White) and time to ESKD from an eGFR of ≤20 ml/min per 1.73 m². We then estimated how much higher the eGFR threshold for waitlisting would be required to achieve equity in accruable preemptive wait time for the two groups.

RESULTS

By eGFR_cr, 444 CRIC participants were eligible for waitlist registration, but the potential time between eGFR ≤20 ml/min per 1.73 m² and ESKD was 32% shorter for Blacks versus Whites. By eGFR_cys, 435 participants were eligible, and Blacks had 35% shorter potential wait time compared with Whites. By the eGFR_cr-cys equation, 461 participants were eligible, and Blacks had a 31% shorter potential wait time than Whites. We estimated that registering Blacks on the waitlist as early as an eGFR of 24-25 ml/min per 1.73 m² might improve racial equity in accruable wait time before ESKD onset.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies allowing for waitlist registration at higher GFR levels for Black patients compared with White patients could theoretically attenuate disparities in accruable wait time and improve racial equity in transplant access.

Social Determinants of Health and Race Disparities in Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Black patients have a higher incidence of kidney failure but lower rate of deceased- and living-donor kidney transplantation compared with White patients, even after taking differences in comorbidities into account. We assessed whether social determinants of health (e.g., demographics, cultural, psychosocial, knowledge factors) could account for race differences in receiving deceased- and living-donor kidney transplantation.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Via medical record review, we prospectively followed 1056 patients referred for kidney transplant (2010-2012), who completed an interview soon after kidney transplant evaluation, until their kidney transplant. We used multivariable competing risk models to estimate the cumulative incidence of receipt of any kidney transplant, deceased-donor transplant, or living-donor transplant, and the factors associated with each outcome.

RESULTS

Even after accounting for social determinants of health, Black patients had a lower likelihood of kidney transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.99) and living-donor transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.95), but not deceased-donor transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.26). Black race, older age, lower income, public insurance, more comorbidities, being transplanted before changes to the Kidney Allocation System, greater religiosity, less social support, less transplant knowledge, and fewer learning activities were each associated with a lower probability of any kidney transplant. Older age, more comorbidities, being transplanted before changes to the Kidney Allocation System, greater religiosity, less social support, and fewer learning activities were each associated with a lower probability of deceased-donor transplant. Black race, older age, lower income, public insurance, higher body mass index, dialysis before kidney transplant, not presenting with a potential living donor, religious objection to living-donor transplant, and less transplant knowledge were each associated with a lower probability of living-donor transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

Race and social determinants of health are associated with the likelihood of undergoing kidney transplant.

Maintaining Equity and Access: Successful Implementation of a Virtual Kidney Transplantation Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Maintaining access to kidney transplantation during a pandemic is a challenge, particularly for centers that serve a large rural and minority patient population with an additional burden of travel. The aim of this article was to describe our experience with the rollout and use of a virtual pretransplantation evaluation platform to facilitate ongoing transplant waitlisting during the early peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of the process improvement project implemented to continue the evaluation of potential kidney transplantation candidates and ensure waitlist placement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Operational metrics include transplantation volume per month, referral volume per month, pretransplantation patients halted before completing an evaluation per month, evaluations completed per month, and patients waitlisted per month.

RESULTS

Between April and September 2020, a total of 1,258 patients completed an evaluation. Two hundred and forty-seven patients were halted during this time period before completing a full evaluation. One hundred and fifty-two patients were presented at selection and 113 were placed on the waitlist. In addition, the number of patients in the active referral phase was able to be reduced by 46%. More evaluations were completed within the virtual platform (n = 930 vs n = 880), yielding similar additions to the waitlist in 2020 (n = 282) vs 2019 (n = 308) despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The virtual platform allowed continued maintenance of a large kidney transplantation program despite the inability to have in-person visits. The value of this platform will likely transform our approach to the pretransplantation process and provides an additional valuable method to improve patient equity and access to transplantation.

Examining barriers to timely waitlisting for kidney transplantation for Indigenous Australians in Central Australia

BACKGROUND

Indigenous Australians are disproportionately affected by end stage kidney disease. Despite this, they face significant delays being assessed and waitlisted for kidney transplant.

AIMS

To examine the kidney transplant waitlisting process in our region, to compare the workup process between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous patients, and identify major sources of delay.

METHODS

We analysed the records of all patients being treated by our service who were on the kidney transplant waitlist between January 2017 and June 2018. Between-group differences were used to compare the time between commencement of dialysis and completion of each component of assessment. Patients who had more than 1 year between commencement of dialysis and waitlisting were further analysed for major sources of delay.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were included (20 Indigenous Australians and 5 non-Indigenous). The median time to waitlisting for transplant after commencing dialysis was significantly longer in the Indigenous group (1215 vs 264 days, P = 0.032). Indigenous Australian patients waited longer before commencing the transplant assessment process and before completing dental assessment, tissue typing and review by the transplant nephrologist and surgeon. Five patients (two Indigenous Australians, three non-Indigenous) were waitlisted within 1 year of commencing dialysis. Among the remaining 20 patients, cardiac and systems issues were the two most common major sources of delay.

CONCLUSION

Indigenous Australian patients face significant delays accessing the kidney transplant waitlist. Cardiac assessment and systems issues are prominent sources of delay and efforts to address these areas may help to improve equity of access to kidney transplantation.

Does Racial Disparity in Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Persist After Accounting for Social Determinants of Health?

BACKGROUND

African Americans (AA) have lower rates of kidney transplantation (KT) compared with Whites (WH), even after adjusting for demographic and medical factors. In this study, we examined whether the racial disparity in KT waitlisting persists after adjusting for social determinants of health (eg, cultural, psychosocial, and knowledge).

METHODS

We prospectively followed a cohort of 1055 patients who were evaluated for KT between 3 of 10 to 10 of 12 and followed through 8 of 18. Participants completed a semistructured telephone interview shortly after their first KT evaluation appointment. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson chi-square tests to examine race differences in the baseline characteristics. We then assessed racial differences in the probability of waitlisting while accounting for all predictors using cumulative incidence curves and Fine and Gray proportional subdistribution hazards models.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the baseline characteristics between non-Hispanic AA and non-Hispanic WH. AA were 25% less likely (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.96) to be waitlisted than WH even after adjusting for medical factors and social determinants of health. In addition, being older, having lower income, public insurance, more comorbidities, and being on dialysis decreased the probability of waitlisting while having more social support and transplant knowledge increased the probability of waitlisting.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial disparity in kidney transplant waitlisting persisted even after adjusting for medical factors and social determinants of health, suggesting the need to identify novel factors that impact racial disparity in transplant waitlisting. Developing interventions targeting cultural and psychosocial factors may enhance equity in access to transplantation.

Barriers to kidney transplantation in ESKD

Kidney transplantation is the ideal treatment option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Since there is clear mortality benefit to receiving a transplant regardless of comorbidities and age, the gold standard of care should focus on attaining kidney transplantation and minimizing, or better yet eliminating, time on dialysis. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of patients with ESKD receive a kidney transplant. Several barriers to kidney transplantation have been identified. Barriers can largely be grouped into three categories: patient-related, physician/provider-related, and system-related. Several barriers fall into multiple categories and play a role at various levels within the healthcare system. Acknowledging and understanding these barriers will allow transplant centers and dialysis facilities to make the necessary interventions to mitigate these disparities, optimize the transplant evaluation process, and improve patient outcomes. This review will discuss these barriers and potential interventions to increase access to kidney transplantation.

An opt-out model for kidney transplant referral: The time has come

Disparities that affect equity in access to kidney transplantation for patients with kidney failure have been well described. Many robust clinical trials have tested the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disparities and equilibrate access to kidney transplantation. Moreover, policy changes have been enacted to achieve the same aims. Despite these efforts, rates of kidney transplant waitlisting within the first year of end-stage kidney disease have remained unchanged over the past 2 decades, while incident rates of end-stage kidney disease have climbed. Because prior interventions have not durably increased transplant access, disruptive change is clearly needed. The Advancing American Kidney Health Executive Order sets bold goals to transform kidney care for patients and caregivers. In this spirit, we discuss an Opt-Out for Transplant Referral Model as a compelling solution to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

Association of Socioeconomic Status and Comorbidities with Racial Disparities during Kidney Transplant Evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Black patients referred for kidney transplantation have surpassed many obstacles but likely face continued racial disparities before transplant. The mechanisms that underlie these disparities are unclear. We determined the contributions of socioeconomic status (SES) and comorbidities as mediators to disparities in listing and transplant.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We studied a cohort (n=1452 black; n=1561 white) of patients with kidney failure who were referred for and started the transplant process (2009-2018). We estimated the direct and indirect effects of SES (self-reported income, education, and employment) and medical comorbidities (self-reported and chart-abstracted) as mediators of racial disparities in listing using Cox proportional hazards analysis with inverse odds ratio weighting. Among the 983 black and 1085 white candidates actively listed, we estimated the direct and indirect effects of SES and comorbidities as mediators of racial disparities on receipt of transplant using Poisson regression with inverse odds ratio weighting.

RESULTS

Within the first year, 876 (60%) black and 1028 (66%) white patients were waitlisted. The relative risk of listing for black compared with white patients was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.69 to 0.83); after adjustment for SES and comorbidity, the relative risk was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.97). The proportion of the racial disparity in listing was explained by SES by 36% (95% CI, 26% to 57%), comorbidity by 44% (95% CI, 35% to 61%), and SES with comorbidity by 58% (95% CI, 44% to 85%). There were 409 (42%) black and 496 (45%) white listed candidates transplanted, with a median duration of follow-up of 3.9 (interquartile range, 1.2-7.1) and 2.8 (interquartile range, 0.8-6.3) years, respectively. The incidence rate ratio for black versus white candidates was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.96); SES and comorbidity did not explain the racial disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

SES and comorbidity partially mediated racial disparities in listing but not for transplant.

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.

Association of sociocultural factors with initiation of the kidney transplant evaluation process

Although research shows that minorities exhibit higher levels of medical mistrust, perceived racism, and discrimination in healthcare settings, the degree to which these underlying sociocultural factors preclude end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients from initiating kidney transplant evaluation is unknown. We telephone surveyed 528 adult ESRD patients of black or white race referred for evaluation to a Georgia transplant center (N = 3) in 2014-2016. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between sociocultural factors and evaluation initiation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics. Despite blacks (n = 407) reporting higher levels of medical mistrust (40.0% vs 26.4%, P < .01), perceived racism (55.5% vs 18.2%, P < .01), and experienced discrimination (29.0% vs 15.7%, P < .01) than whites (n = 121), blacks were only slightly less likely than whites to initiate evaluation (49.6% vs 57.9%, P = .11). However, after adjustment, medical mistrust (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.91), experienced discrimination (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.95), and perceived racism (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.92) were associated with lower evaluation initiation. Results suggest that sociocultural disparities exist in early kidney transplant access and occur despite the absence of a significant racial disparity in evaluation initiation. Interventions to reduce disparities in transplantation access should target underlying sociocultural factors, not just race.

Patient Navigation: Addressing Social Challenges in Dialysis Patients

Members of racial and ethnic minority groups make up nearly 50% of US patients with end-stage kidney disease and face a disproportionate burden of socioeconomic challenges (ie, low income, job insecurity, low educational attainment, housing instability, and communication challenges) compared with non-Hispanic whites. Patients with end-stage kidney disease who face social challenges often have poor patient-centered and clinical outcomes. These challenges may have a negative impact on quality-of-care performance measures for dialysis facilities caring for primarily minority and low-income patients. One path toward improving outcomes for this group is to develop culturally tailored interventions that provide individualized support, potentially improving patient-centered, clinical, and health system outcomes by addressing social challenges. One such approach is using community-based culturally and linguistically concordant patient navigators, who can serve as a bridge between the patient and the health care system. Evidence points to the effectiveness of patient navigators in the provision of cancer care and, to a lesser extent, caring for people with chronic kidney disease and those who have undergone kidney transplantation. However, little is known about the effectiveness of patient navigators in the care of patients with kidney failure receiving dialysis, who experience a number of remediable social challenges.

Limited health literacy and adverse outcomes among kidney transplant candidates

More than one-third of US adults have limited health literacy, putting them at risk of adverse clinical outcomes. We evaluated the prevalence of limited health literacy among 1578 adult kidney transplant (KT) candidates (May 2014-November 2017) and examined its association with listing for transplant and waitlist mortality in this pilot study. Limited health literacy was assessed at KT evaluation by using a standard cutoff score ≤5 on the Brief Health Literacy Screen (score range 0-12, lower scores indicate worse health literacy). We used logistic regression and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to identify risk factors for limited health literacy and to quantify its association with listing and waitlist mortality. We found that 8.9% of candidates had limited health literacy; risk factors included less than college education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.86-4.43), frailty (aOR = 1.85, 95% CI:1.22-2.80), comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index [1-point increase] aOR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20), and cognitive impairment (aOR = 3.45, 95% CI: 2.20-5.41) after adjusting for age, sex, race, and income. Candidates with limited health literacy had a 30% (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.91) decreased likelihood of listing and a 2.42-fold (95% CI: 1.16- to 5.05-fold) increased risk of waitlist mortality. Limited health literacy may be a salient mechanism in access to KT; programs to aid candidates with limited health literacy may improve outcomes and reduce disparities.

Impact of Navigators on First Visit to a Transplant Center, Waitlisting, and Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many patients with ESKD face barriers in completing the steps required to obtain a transplant. These eight sequential steps are medical suitability, interest in transplant, referral to a transplant center, first visit to center, transplant workup, successful candidate, waiting list or identify living donor, and receive transplant. This study sought to determine the effect of navigators on helping patients complete these steps.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Our study was a cluster randomized, controlled trial involving 40 hemodialysis facilities and four transplant centers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. Four trained kidney transplant recipients met regularly with patients on hemodialysis at 20 intervention facilities, determined their step in the transplant process, and provided tailored information and assistance in completing that step and subsequent steps. Patients at 20 control facilities continued to receive usual care. Primary study outcomes were waiting list placement and receipt of a deceased or living donor transplant. An exploratory outcome was first visit to a transplant center.

RESULTS

Before the trial, intervention (1041 patients) and control (836 patients) groups were similar in the proportions of patients who made a first visit to a transplant center, were placed on a waiting list, and received a deceased or living donor transplant. At the end of the trial, intervention and control groups were also similar in first visit (16.1% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 5.5%), waitlisting (16.3% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2% to 6.1%), deceased donor transplantation (2.8% versus 2.2%; difference, 0.6%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 2.1%), and living donor transplantation (1.2% versus 1.0%; difference, 0.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 1.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of trained kidney transplant recipients as navigators did not increase first visits to a transplant center, waiting list placement, and receipt of deceased or living donor transplants.