Education Priorities and What Matters to Those Considering Living Kidney Donation

INTRODUCTION

Although informed consent content elements are prescribed in detailed regulatory guidance, many live kidney donors describe feeling underprepared and under informed. The goal of this pilot study was to explore the educational components needed to support an informed decision-making process for living kidney donors.

METHODS/APPROACH

A qualitative description design was conducted with thematic analysis of 5 focus groups with 2 cohorts: living kidney donor candidates (n = 11) and living kidney donors (n = 8).

FINDINGS

The educational components needed to engage in an informed decision-making process were: 1) contingent upon, and motivated by, personal circumstances; 2) supported through explanation of risks and benefits; 3) enhanced by understanding the overall donation experience; and 4) personalized by talking to another donor.

DISCUSSION

Tailoring education to meet the needs for fully informed decision-making is essential. Current education requirements, as defined by regulatory bodies, remain challenging to transplant teams attempting to ensure fully informed consent of living kidney donor candidates. Information on the emotional, financial, and overall life impact is needed, along with acknowledgement of relational ties driving donor motivations and the hoped-for recipient outcomes. Discussion of care practices, and access to peer mentoring may further strengthen the informed decision-making process.

Care of international living kidney donor candidates in the United States: A survey of contemporary experience, practice, and challenges

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group.

Best practices to optimize utilization of the National Living Donor Assistance Center for the financial assistance of living organ donors

Living organ donors face direct costs when donating an organ, including transportation, lodging, meals, and lost wages. For those most in need, the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) provides reimbursement to defray travel and subsistence costs associated with living donor evaluation, surgery, and follow-up. While this program currently supports 9% of all US living donors, there is tremendous variability in its utilization across US transplant centers, which may limit patient access to living donor transplantation. Based on feedback from the transplant community, NLDAC convened a Best Practices Workshop on August 2, 2018, in Arlington, VA, to identify strategies to optimize transplant program utilization of this valuable resource. Attendees included team members from transplant centers that are high NLDAC users; the NLDAC program team; and Advisory Group members. After a robust review of NLDAC data and engagement in group discussions, the workgroup identified concrete best practices for administrative and transplant center leadership involvement; for individuals filing NLDAC applications at transplant centers; and to improve patient education about potential financial barriers to living organ donation. Multiple opportunities were identified for intervention to increase transplant programs' NLDAC utilization and reduce financial burdens inhibiting expansion of living donor transplantation in the United States.

A Case-Based Analysis of Whether Living Related Donors Listed for Transplant Share ESRD Causes with Their Recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two recent studies reported increased risk of ESRD after kidney donation. In both, the majority of ESRD was seen in those donating to a relative. Confounding this observation is that, in the absence of donation, relatives of those with ESRD are at increased risk for ESRD. Understanding the pathogenesis and risk factors for postdonation ESRD is critical for both donor selection and counseling.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We hypothesized that if familial relationship was an important consideration in pathogenesis, the donor and linked recipient would share ESRD etiology. We obtained information from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) on all living kidney donors subsequently waitlisted for a kidney transplant in the United States between January 1, 1996 and November 30, 2015, to determine (1) the donor-recipient relationship and (2) whether related donor-recipient pairs had similar causes of ESRD.

RESULTS

We found that a significant amount of information, potentially available at the time of listing, was not reported to the OPTN. Of 441 kidney donors listed for transplant, only 169 had information allowing determination of interval from donation to listing, and only 99 (22% of the total) had information on the donor-recipient relationship and ESRD etiology. Of the 99 donors, 87 were related to their recipient. Strikingly, of the 87, only a minority (23%) of donor-recipient pairs shared ESRD etiology. Excluding hypertension, only 8% shared etiology.

CONCLUSIONS

A better understanding of ESRD in donors requires complete and detailed data collection, as well as a method to capture all ESRD end points. This study highlights the absence of critical information that is urgently needed to provide a meaningful understanding of ESRD after kidney donation. We found that of living related donors listed for transplant, where both donor and recipient cause of ESRD is recorded, only a minority share ESRD etiology with their recipient.

Long-Term Non-End-Stage Renal Disease Risks After Living Kidney Donation

Despite generally positive outcomes and high rates of satisfaction, living kidney donors are at risk for both medical and psychosocial problems. In this review, the authors summarize non-end-stage renal disease (ESRD) risks for donors and describe limitations to the data. We review the evidence of medical risks (e.g. increased cardiovascular disease and mortality, preeclampsia) and psychosocial risks (e.g. mood disturbance, financial burden). We then discuss the evidence of differential risks among subsets and the impact of postdonation events (e.g. development of diabetes). Collectively, available evidence indicates the following. (1) Recognizing the importance of non-ESRD risks has been overshadowed by analyses of the reported risk of ESRD. This imbalance should be remedied. (2) There is little quantification of the true contribution of donation to medical and psychosocial outcomes. (3) Most studies, to date, have been retrospective, with limited sample sizes and diversity and with less-than-ideal controls for comparison of outcomes. (4) Many postdonation events (diabetes and hypertension) can now be reasonably predicted, and their association with adverse outcomes can be quantified. (5) Mechanisms and systems need to be implemented to evaluate and care for donors who develop medical and/or psychosocial problems. (6) Costs to donors are a significant burden, and making donation financially neutral should be a priority.

Barriers to the use of a federal travel grant by living kidney donors

Living organ donation involves significant out-of-pocket costs, which burden donor candidates and may be an obstacle to donation. There is a single US grant (the National Living Donor Assistance Center-NLDAC) to cover live donor travel costs. Although there may be center-specific variability in grant utilization, prospective donors-and their intended recipients-must also meet eligibility criteria. In fact, the NLDAC grant is used by <10% of US live donors annually. We studied 154 consecutive kidney donor clinic evaluations (November 1, 2014-August 30, 2015) to determine eligibility and usage patterns during the evaluation process. Of these, 63 (41%) were local, had travel benefits, or declined. Of the remaining 91 prospective donors who might have benefited from grant support, only 29 (32%) obtained the grant. The other 62 (68%) did not meet eligibility screening. The major reason prospective donors were ineligible was that the recipient's household income was outside the required means test (ie, >300% of the federal poverty level) (n=51; 82%). The remaining exclusions (n=11; 18%) included being a nondirected donor, not meeting residency requirements, and "other." Expanding NLDAC eligibility criteria-by broadening the recipient means test or by taking steps to eliminate it from the NLDAC charter-would reduce financial burdens associated with live donation.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Education Outside of Transplant Centers about Live Donor Transplantation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) offers better quality of life and clinical outcomes, including patient survival, compared with remaining on dialysis or receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant. Although LDKT education within transplant centers for both potential recipients and living donors is very important, outreach and education to kidney patients in settings other than transplant centers and to the general public is also critical to increase access to this highly beneficial treatment. In June 2014, the American Society of Transplantation's Live Donor Community of Practice, with the support of 10 additional sponsors, convened a consensus conference to determine best practices in LDKT, including a workgroup focused on developing a set of recommendations for optimizing outreach and LDKT education outside of transplant centers. Members of this workgroup performed a structured literature review, conducted teleconference meetings, and met in person at the 2-day conference. Their efforts resulted in consensus around the following recommendations. First, preemptive transplantation should be promoted through increased LDKT education by primary care physicians and community nephrologists. Second, dialysis providers should be trained to educate their own patients about LDKT and deceased donor kidney transplantation. Third, partnerships between community organizations, organ procurement organizations, religious organizations, and transplant centers should be fostered to support transplantation. Fourth, use of technology should be improved or expanded to better educate kidney patients and their support networks. Fifth, LDKT education and outreach should be improved for kidney patients in rural areas. Finally, a consensus-driven, evidence-based public message about LDKT should be developed. Discussion of the effect and potential for implementation around each recommendation is featured, particularly regarding reducing racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to LDKT. To accomplish these recommendations, the entire community of professionals and organizations serving kidney patients must work collaboratively toward ensuring accurate, comprehensive, and up-to-date LDKT education for all patients, thereby reducing barriers to LDKT access and increasing LDKT rates.

The independent living donor advocate: a guidance document from the American Society of Transplantation's Living Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP)

The independent living donor advocate (ILDA) serves a mandated and supportive role in the care of the living organ donor, yet qualifications and role requirements are not clearly defined. Guidance comes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Conditions for Transplant Center Participation and interpretive guidelines, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Policy and CMS and OPTN site surveys, yet interpretation of regulations varies. Herein, the AST Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) offers seven recommendations to clarify and optimize the ILDA role: (a) the ILDA must have a certain skill set rather than a specific profession, (b) the ILDA must be educated and demonstrate competence in core knowledge components, (c) the ILDA's primary role is to assess components of informed consent, (d) centers must develop a transparent system to define ILDA independence, (e) the ILDA should have a reporting structure outside the transplant center, (f) the ILDA's role should be integrated throughout the donor care continuum, (g) the ILDA role should include a narrow "veto power." We address controversies in ILDA implementation, and offer pathways to maximize benefits and minimize limitations of approaches that may each meet regulatory requirements but confer different practice benefits. We propose a research agenda to explore the impact of the ILDA.