Racial disparities in patient selection for liver transplantation: An ongoing challenge

Changes in the liver transplant evaluation process during the early COVID-19 era and the role of telehealth

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted healthcare and led to increased telehealth use. We explored the impact of COVID-19 on liver transplant evaluation (LTE).

AIM

To understand the impact of telehealth on LTE during COVID-19 and to identify disparities in outcomes disaggregated by sociodemographic factors.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who initiated LTE at our center from 3/16/20-3/16/21 (“COVID-19 era”) and the year prior (3/16/19-3/15/20, “pre-COVID-19 era”). We compared LTE duration times between eras and explored the effects of telehealth and inpatient evaluations on LTE duration, listing, and pre-transplant mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-eight patients were included in the pre-COVID-19 era cohort and one hundred and ninety-nine in the COVID-19 era cohort. Twenty-nine percent (58/199) of COVID-19 era initial LTE were telehealth, compared to 0% (0/178) pre-COVID-19. There were more inpatient evaluations during COVID-19 era (40% vs 28%, P < 0.01). Among outpatient encounters, telehealth use for initial LTE during COVID-19 era did not impact likelihood of listing, pre-transplant mortality, or time to LTE and listing. Median times to LTE and listing during COVID-19 were shorter than pre-COVID-19, driven by increased inpatient evaluations. Sociodemographic factors were not predictive of telehealth.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 demonstrates a shift to telehealth and inpatient LTE. Telehealth does not impact LTE or listing duration, likelihood of listing, or mortality, suggesting telehealth may facilitate LTE without negative outcomes.

Socioeconomic Differences in Navigating Access to Lung Transplant

Importance

Inequitable access to transplant in the US is well recognized, yet the nature and extent of upstream disparities in care prior to transplant are unknown.

Objective

To understand patterns of referral for lung transplant by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included adults aged 18 to 80 years with obstructive and restrictive lung disease from a single large-volume transplant center in Cleveland, Ohio, who were diagnosed between January 1, 2006, and May 11, 2023.

Exposures

Neighborhood resources.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the transition to the next stage of the transplant care continuum, death, or a lapse in care. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to account for death as a competing risk, adjusting for age at index encounter (respective to each cohort), diagnosis, and sex as covariates.

Results

This study included 30 050 patients with obstructive and restrictive lung disease with primary care encounters (mean [SD] age, 65 [13] years; 56.1% female), 73 817 with a pulmonary medicine encounter, 4198 undergoing lung transplant evaluation, and 1378 on the lung transplant waiting list. In a multivariable model including age, diagnosis, sex, area deprivation index, and race and ethnicity (including 3.3% Hispanic, 15.2% non-Hispanic Black, and 81.5% non-Hispanic White individuals), patients residing in the least-resourced neighborhoods were 97% more likely to die without transitioning to pulmonary medicine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.97 [95% CI, 1.78-2.17]), 90% more likely to die prior to lung transplant evaluation (HR, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.77-2.04]), 40% more likely to die prior to placement on the waiting list (HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.11-1.76]), and 97% more likely to die prior to transplant (HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.18-3.29]) compared with patients residing in the most-resourced neighborhoods. These patients were also 13% less likely to transition to pulmonary medicine (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.82-0.92]) and 45% less likely to be placed on the waiting list (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.44-0.68]) despite a 69% increased likelihood of transplant evaluation (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.36-2.09]). While non-Hispanic Black patients had lower risks of death across all stages of care, they experienced a 39% lower likelihood of proceeding to lung transplant evaluation (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.51-0.74]). Racial differences in the cumulative incidence of waiting list placement were found, but differences were not consistent across levels of neighborhood resources.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with restrictive and obstructive pulmonary disease, increased mortality risks and decreased likelihood of care escalations for patients who were socioeconomically disadvantaged and for racial and ethnic minority patients were found. These results suggest potential interventions for advancing equitable access to lung transplant.

Health disparities in cirrhosis care and liver transplantation

Morbidity and mortality from cirrhosis are substantial and increasing. Health disparities in cirrhosis and liver transplantation are reflective of inequities along the entire spectrum of chronic liver disease care, from screening and diagnosis to prevention and treatment of liver-related complications. The key populations experiencing disparities in health status and healthcare delivery include racial and ethnic minority groups, sexual and gender minorities, people of lower socioeconomic status and underserved rural communities. These disparities lead to delayed diagnosis of chronic liver disease and complications of cirrhosis (for example, hepatocellular carcinoma), to differences in treatment of chronic liver disease and its complications, and ultimately to unequal access to transplantation for those with end-stage liver disease. Calling out these disparities is only the first step towards implementing solutions that can improve health equity and clinical outcomes for everyone. Multi-level interventions along the care continuum for chronic liver disease are needed to mitigate these disparities and provide equitable access to care.

Ensuring equity in psychosocial risk assessment for solid organ transplantation: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes the different instruments for evaluating the psychosocial health of transplant candidates, the evidence demonstrating how these instruments relate to probability of transplant waitlisting and transplant outcomes, and the critical knowledge gaps that exist in the causal pathway between psychosocial health and clinical transplant trajectory.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current literature reveals that psychosocial assessments are a common reason for racial and ethnic minorities to be denied access to the transplant list. Given evidence that a lack of clinician consensus exists regarding the definition of, importance of, and reproducibility of psychosocial support evaluations, this facet of the holistic evaluation process may create a unique challenge for already vulnerable patient populations. Though recent evidence shows that psychosocial evaluation scores predict select transplant outcomes, these findings remain inconsistent.

SUMMARY

Multiple instruments for psychosocial transplant evaluation exist, though the utility of these instruments remains uncertain. As equity becomes an increasingly urgent priority for the transplant system, rigorous interrogation of the causal pathway between psychosocial health and transplant longevity is still needed.

Lost in Transplantation: Characterizing Racial Gaps in Physician Organ Offer Acceptance

Background

There are known racial disparities in the organ transplant allocation system in the United States. However, prior work has yet to establish if transplant center decisions on offer acceptance-the final step in the allocation process-contribute to these disparities.

Objective

To estimate racial differences in the acceptance of organ offers by transplant center physicians on behalf of their patients.

Design

Retrospective cohort analysis using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) on patients who received an offer for a heart, liver, or lung transplant between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020.

Setting

Nationwide, waitlist-based.

Patients

32,268 heart transplant candidates, 102,823 liver candidates, and 25,780 lung candidates, all aged 18 or older.

Measurements

1) Association between offer acceptance and two race-based variables: candidate race and donor-candidate race match; 2) association between offer rejection and time to patient mortality.

Results

Black race was associated with significantly lower odds of offer acceptance for livers (OR=0.93, CI: 0.88-0.98) and lungs (OR=0.80, CI: 0.73-0.87). Donor-candidate race match was associated with significantly higher odds of offer acceptance for hearts (OR=1.11, CI: 1.06-1.16), livers (OR=1.10, CI: 1.06-1.13), and lungs (OR=1.13, CI: 1.07-1.19). Rejecting an offer was associated with lower survival times for all three organs (heart hazard ratio=1.16, CI: 1.09-1.23; liver HR=1.74, CI: 1.66-1.82; lung HR=1.21, CI: 1.15-1.28).

Limitations

Our study analyzed the observational SRTR dataset, which has known limitations.

Conclusion

Offer acceptance decisions are associated with inequity in the organ allocation system. Our findings demonstrate the additional barriers that Black patients face in accessing organ transplants and demonstrate the need for standardized practice, continuous distribution policies, and better organ procurement.

The role of race and ethnicity in health care crowdfunding: an exploratory analysis

Medical crowdfunding is a key source of financing for individuals facing high out-of-pocket costs, including organ-transplant candidates. However, little is known about racial disparities in campaigning activity and outcomes, or how these relate to access to care. In this exploratory, nationwide, cross-sectional study, we examined racial disparities in campaigning activity across states and the association between US campaigners' race and ethnicity and crowdfunding outcomes using a novel database of organ-transplant-related campaigns, and an algorithm to identify race and ethnicity based on name and geographic location. This analysis suggests that there are racial disparities in individuals' ability to successfully raise requested funds, with Black and Hispanic campaigners fundraising lower amounts and less likely to achieve their monetary goals. We also found that crowdfunding among White, Black, and Hispanic populations exhibits different patterns of activity at the state level, and in relation to race-specific uninsurance and waitlist additions, highlighting potential differences in fundraising need across the 3 groups. Policy efforts should consider not only how inequalities in fundraising ability for associated costs influence accessibility to care but also how to identify clinical need among minorities.

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.

National survey of second opinions for hospitalized patients in need of liver transplantation

Decisions about patient candidacy for liver transplant (LT) can mean the difference between life and death. We surveyed LT centers across the United States to assess their perceptions of and barriers to second-opinion referrals for inpatients declined for transplant. The medical and surgical directors of 100 unique US LT programs that had done >20 LTs in 2021 were surveyed with a 33-item questionnaire including both multiple-choice and free-response questions. The response rate was 60% (60 LT centers) and included 28 larger-volume ( ≥100 LTs in 2021) and 32 smaller-volume (<100 LTs in 2021) programs. The top 3 reasons for inpatient denial for LT included lack of social support (21%), physical frailty (20%), and inadequate remission duration from alcohol use (11%). Twenty-five percent of the programs reported "frequently" facilitating a second opinion for a declined inpatient, 52% of the programs reported "sometimes" doing so, and 7% of the programs reported never doing so. One hundred percent of the programs reported that they receive referrals for second opinions. Twenty-five percent of the programs reported transplanting these referrals frequently (over 20% of the time). Neither program size nor program location statistically impacted the findings. When asked if centers would be in favor of standardizing the evaluation process, 38% of centers would be in favor, 39% would be opposed, and 23% were unsure. The practices and perceptions of second opinions for hospitalized patients evaluated for LT varied widely across the United States. Opportunities exist to improve equity in LT but must consider maintaining individual program autonomy.

Benefit and harm of waiting time in liver transplantation for HCC

Liver transplantation is the most successful treatment for limited-stage HCC. The waiting time for liver transplantation (LT) can be a critical factor affecting the oncological prognosis and outcome of patients with HCC. Efficient strategies to optimize waiting time are essential to maximize the benefits of LT and to reduce the harm of delay in transplantation. The ever-increasing demand for donor livers emphasizes the need to improve the organization of the waiting list for transplantation and to optimize organ availability for patients with and without HCC. Current progress in innovations to expand the donor pool includes the implementation of living donor LT and the use of grafts from extended donors. By expanding selection criteria, an increased number of patients are eligible for transplantation, which necessitates criteria to prevent futile transplantations. Thus, the selection criteria for LT have evolved to include not only tumor characteristics but biomarkers as well. Enhancing our understanding of HCC tumor biology through the analysis of subtypes and molecular genetics holds significant promise in advancing the personalized approach for patients. In this review, the effect of waiting time duration on outcome in patients with HCC enlisted for LT is discussed.

Characterization of social determinants of health of a liver transplant referral population

Disparities exist in referral and access to the liver transplant (LT) waitlist, and social determinants of health (SDOH) are increasingly recognized as important factors driving health inequities, including in LT. The SDOH of potential transplant candidates is therefore important to characterize when designing targeted interventions to promote equity in access to LT. Yet, it is uncertain how a transplant center should approach this issue, characterize SDOH, identify disparities, and use these data to inform interventions. We performed a retrospective study of referrals for first-time, single-organ LT to our center from 2016 to 2020. Addresses were geoprocessed and mapped to the corresponding county, census tract, and census block group to assess their geospatial distribution, identify potential disparities in referrals, and characterize their communities across multiple domains of SDOH to identify potential barriers to evaluation and selection. We identified variability in referral patterns and areas with disproportionately low referrals, including counties in the highest quartile of liver disease mortality (9%) and neighborhoods in the highest quintile of socioeconomic deprivation (17%) and quartile of poverty (21%). Black individuals were also under-represented compared with expected state demographics (12% vs. 18%). Among the referral population, several potential barriers to evaluation and selection for LT were identified, including poverty, educational attainment, access to healthy food, and access to technology. This approach to the characterization of a transplant center's referral population by geographic location and associated SDOH demonstrates a model for identifying disparities in a referral population and potential barriers to evaluation that can be used to inform targeted interventions for disparities in LT access.

Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support for liver transplant evaluation and considerations about fairness: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The use of large-scale data and artificial intelligence (AI) to support complex transplantation decisions is in its infancy. Transplant candidate decision-making, which relies heavily on subjective assessment (ie, high variability), provides a ripe opportunity for AI-based clinical decision support (CDS). However, AI-CDS for transplant applications must consider important concerns regarding fairness (ie, health equity). The objective of this study was to use human-centered design methods to elicit providers' perceptions of AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions.

METHODS

In this multicenter qualitative study conducted from December 2020 to July 2021, we performed semistructured interviews with 53 multidisciplinary liver transplant providers from 2 transplant centers. We used inductive coding and constant comparison analysis of interview data.

RESULTS

Analysis yielded 6 themes important for the design of fair AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions: (1) transparency in the creators behind the AI-CDS and their motivations; (2) understanding how the AI-CDS uses data to support recommendations (ie, interpretability); (3) acknowledgment that AI-CDS could mitigate emotions and biases; (4) AI-CDS as a member of the transplant team, not a replacement; (5) identifying patient resource needs; and (6) including the patient's role in the AI-CDS.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, providers interviewed were cautiously optimistic about the potential for AI-CDS to improve clinical and equitable outcomes for patients. These findings can guide multidisciplinary developers in the design and implementation of AI-CDS that deliberately considers health equity.

Critical interactions between race and the highly granular area deprivation index in liver transplant evaluation

Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation may have important implications on disparities in liver transplant (LT) evaluation. In this retrospective cohort study, we constructed a novel dataset by linking individual patient-level data with the highly granular Area Deprivation Index (ADI), which is advantageous over other neighborhood measures due to: specificity of Census Block-Group (versus Census Tract, Zip code), scoring, and robust variables. Our cohort included 1377 adults referred to our center for LT evaluation 8/1/2016-12/31/2019. Using modified Poisson regression, we tested for effect measure modification of the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) and LT evaluation outcomes (listing, initiating evaluation, and death) by race and ethnicity. Compared to patients with high nSES, those with low nSES were at higher risk of not being listed (aRR = 1.14; 95%CI 1.05-1.22; p < .001), of not initiating evaluation post-referral (aRR = 1.20; 95%CI 1.01-1.42; p = .03) and of dying without initiating evaluation (aRR = 1.55; 95%CI 1.09-2.2; p = .01). While White patients with low nSES had similar rates of listing compared to White patients with high nSES (aRR = 1.06; 95%CI .96-1.17; p = .25), Underrepresented patients from neighborhoods with low nSES incurred 31% higher risk of not being listed compared to Underrepresented patients from neighborhoods with high nSES (aRR = 1.31; 95%CI 1.12-1.5; p < .001). Interventions addressing neighborhood deprivation may not only benefit patients with low nSES but may address racial and ethnic inequities.

Equity factors in pediatric transplant listing: Initial findings from a single center review

BACKGROUND

In order to improve transparency within the patient selection process, a transplant listing advisory committee was formed within the Boston Children's Hospital Pediatric Transplant Center. Its mission is to promote equity in access to organ transplantation by ensuring that the institutional transplant selection criteria are fair, unbiased, and nondiscriminatory. The committee conducts comprehensive case and data review of individual characteristics and reviews in aggregate to identify potential systems bias.

METHODS

Charts for 256 patients evaluated for transplant from 3/2016 to 3/2019 were reviewed. Among these, 64 (25%) patients were declined for transplant. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify demographic variables and vulnerable status factors associated with being declined. Odds ratios (OR) are reported.

RESULTS

Among all patients, median age was 8.5 years and 58% were male. Asian patients were more likely to be declined than White patients (OR = 5.3, Wald p = .007). Socioeconomic factors that affected likelihood of listing decline included concerns for caregivers' ability to manage and understand care requirements (OR = 3.8, p = .011), caregiver employment status (OR = 1.9, p = .042), and use of public assistance programs (OR = 2.2, p = .05). Patients with severe neurodevelopmental delay were more likely to be declined for listing (OR = 3.7, p = .019).

CONCLUSION

This analysis identified areas of potential bias related to race, socioeconomic status, and neurodevelopmental delay where initiatives can be targeted. Advisory committees are an important aspect of evaluating equity in transplant center selection policy and practice.

Multicenter study of racial and ethnic inequities in liver transplantation evaluation: Understanding mechanisms and identifying solutions

Racial and ethnic disparities persist in access to the liver transplantation (LT) waiting list; however, there is limited knowledge about underlying system-level factors that may be responsible for these disparities. Given the complex nature of LT candidate evaluation, a human factors and systems engineering approach may provide insights. We recruited participants from the LT teams (coordinators, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers, dieticians, pharmacists, leadership) at two major LT centers. From December 2020 to July 2021, we performed ethnographic observations (participant-patient appointments, committee meetings) and semistructured interviews (N = 54 interviews, 49 observation hours). Based on findings from this multicenter, multimethod qualitative study combined with the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (a human factors and systems engineering model for health care), we created a conceptual framework describing how transplant work system characteristics and other external factors may improve equity in the LT evaluation process. Participant perceptions about listing disparities described external factors (e.g., structural racism, ambiguous national guidelines, national quality metrics) that permeate the LT evaluation process. Mechanisms identified included minimal transplant team diversity, implicit bias, and interpersonal racism. A lack of resources was a common theme, such as social workers, transportation assistance, non-English-language materials, and time (e.g., more time for education for patients with health literacy concerns). Because of the minimal data collection or center feedback about disparities, participants felt uncomfortable with and unadaptable to unwanted outcomes, which perpetuate disparities. We proposed transplant center-level solutions (i.e., including but not limited to training of staff on health equity) to modifiable barriers in the clinical work system that could help patient navigation, reduce disparities, and improve access to care. Our findings call for an urgent need for transplant centers, national societies, and policy makers to focus efforts on improving equity (tailored, patient-centered resources) using the science of human factors and systems engineering.

Regional and National Trends of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Over the Last Two Decades

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Liver organ shortage remains a major health burden in the US, with more patients being waitlisted than the number of liver transplants (LTs) performed. This study investigated US national and regional trends in living donor LT (LDLT) and identified factors associated with recipient survival.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed LDLT recipients and donors from the United Network Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplant Network database from 1998 until 2019 for clinical characteristics, demographic differences, and survival rate. National and regional trends in LDLT, recipient outcomes, and predictors of survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 223,571 candidates listed for an LT, 57.5% received an organ, of which only 4.2% were LDLTs. Annual adult LDLTs first peaked at 412 in 2001 but experienced a significant decline to 168 by 2009. LDLTs then gradually increased to 445 in 2019. Region 2 had the highest LDLT numbers (n=919), while region 1 had the highest proportion (11.1%). Overall, post-LT mortality was 21.4% among LDLT recipients. Post-LDLT survival rates after 1-, 5-, and 10-years were 92%, 87%, and 70%, respectively. Interval analysis (2004-2019) showed that patients undergoing LDLT in recent years had lower mortality than in earlier years (hazard ratio=0.81, 95% confidence interval=0.75-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Following a substantial decline after a peak in 2001, the number of adult LDLTs steadily increased from 2011 to 2019. However, LDLTs still constitute the minority of the transplant pool in the US. Life-saving policies to increase the use of LDLTs, particularly in regions of high organ demand, should be implemented.

Nephew L. Neighborhood poverty is associated with failure to be waitlisted and death during liver transplantation evaluation

Liver transplantation (LT) is the final step in a complex care cascade. Little is known about how race, gender, rural versus urban residence, or neighborhood socioeconomic indicators impact a patient's likelihood of LT waitlisting or risk of death during LT evaluation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults referred for LT to the Indiana University Academic Medical Center from 2011 to 2018. Neighborhood socioeconomic status indicators were obtained by linking patients' addresses to their census tract defined in the 2017 American Community Survey. Descriptive statistics were used to describe completion of steps in the LT evaluation cascade. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess the factors associated with waitlisting and death during LT evaluation. There were 3454 patients referred for LT during the study period; 25.3% of those referred were waitlisted for LT. There was no difference seen in the proportion of patients from vulnerable populations who progressed to the steps of financial approval or evaluation start. There were differences in waitlisting by insurance type (22.6% of Medicaid vs. 34.3% of those who were privately insured; p < 0.01) and neighborhood poverty (quartile 1 29.6% vs. quartile 4 20.4%; p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, neighborhood poverty was independently associated with waitlisting (odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.82) and death during LT evaluation (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.09). Patients from high-poverty neighborhoods are at risk of failing to be waitlisted and death during LT evaluation.

The chosen and the unchosen: How eligibility for liver transplant influences the lived experiences of patients with advanced liver disease

Advanced liver disease is often uncurable and fatal. Liver transplant is the only curative option for patients with advanced, irreversible liver disease, but the need for new livers far exceeds the supply. Patients with the greatest need as well as the greatest likelihood of benefit, based on a complex array of biomedical and psychosocial considerations, are prioritized for transplant. The opportunity to receive a life-saving surgery no doubt has enormous consequences for patients and their healthcare providers, as does the absence of that opportunity. But these consequences are poorly characterized, especially for patients deemed poor candidates for liver transplant. Through in-depth interviews with patients living with advanced liver disease and the providers who care for them, we explore how eligibility status affects illness experiences, including patients' interactions with clinicians, knowledge about their disease, expectations for the future, and efforts to come to terms with a life-limiting illness. We describe how the clinical and social requirements needed to secure eligibility for liver transplant lend themselves to a clinical and cultural logic that delineates "worthy" and "unworthy" patients. We describe how providers and candidates discuss the possibility of moral redemption for such patients through transplant surgeries, a discourse notably absent among patients not eligible for transplant.

An Analysis of Free-Text Refusals as an Indicator of Readiness to Accept Organ Offers in Liver Transplantation

Racial/ethnic minorities experience higher rates of wait-list mortality and longer waiting times on the liver transplant wait list. We hypothesized that racial/ethnic minorities may encounter greater logistical barriers to maintaining "readiness" on the wait list, as reflected in offer nonacceptance. We identified all candidates who received an organ offer between 2009 and 2018 and investigated candidates who did not accept an organ offer using a free-text refusal reason associated with refusal code 801. We isolated patients who did not accept an organ offer due to "candidate-related logistical reasons" and evaluated their characteristics. We isolated 94,006 "no 801" patients and 677 "with 801 logistical" patients. Common reasons for offer decline among the 677 were 60% "unable to travel/distance," 22% "cannot be contacted," 13% "not ready/unspecified," and 5% "financial/insurance." Compared to "no 801," "with 801 logistical" patients were more likely to be Hispanic (19% vs. 15%, P < 0.01). Multivariate logistic modeling showed Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.76, P < 0.01) and multiracial/other ethnicity (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.08-3.05, P = 0.02) were associated with "with 801 logistical" status. The "with 801 logistical" patients were listed with higher allocation (inclusive of exception points) Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (16 vs. 15, P < 0.01) and remained longer on the wait list (median 428 days vs. 187 days, P < 0.01). Conclusion: In this analysis of wait-list candidates, we isolated 677 patients who declined an organ offer with a free-text reason consistent with a "candidate-related logistical reason." Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics were at 1.44 odds of not accepting organ offers due to logistical reasons. These limited findings motivate further research into interventions that would improve candidates' "readiness" to accept organ offers and may benefit racial/ethnic minorities on the liver-transplantation wait list.

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.

Access to liver transplantation for minority populations in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Racial disparities in access to liver transplantation have been known since the National Transplant Act of 1980. Since the inception of the Final Rule in 2000, the United Network of Organ Sharing has sought to ensure the equitable distribution of donor livers. Despite several measures aimed to improve access for vulnerable populations, disparities in outcomes are still prevalent throughout the liver transplant (LT) evaluation, while on the waitlist, and after liver transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented on the LT list and have an increased waitlist mortality rate compared to Whites. Additionally, Blacks have a significantly higher risk of posttransplant mortality.

SUMMARY

Ongoing efforts are necessary to eliminate inequities in transplant access. Strategies such as policy implementation and increasing diversity in the healthcare workforce may prove efficacious in creating change.

Black Patients Have Unequal Access to Listing for Liver Transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score may have eliminated racial disparities on the waitlist for liver transplantation (LT), but disparities prior to waitlist placement have not been adequately quantified. We aimed to analyze differences in patients who are listed for LT, undergo transplantation, and die from end-stage liver disease (ESLD), stratified by state and race/ethnicity.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We analyzed two databases retrospectively, the Center for Disease Control Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) databases, from 2014 to 2018. We included patients aged 25-64 years who had a primary cause of death of ESLD and were listed for transplant in the CDC WONDER or UNOS database. Our primary outcome was the ratio of listing for LT to death from ESLD-listing to death ratio (LDR). Our secondary outcome was the transplant to listing and transplant to death ratios. Chi-squared and multivariable linear regression evaluated for differences between races/ethnicities. There were 135,367 patients who died of ESLD, 54,734 patients who were listed for transplant, and 26,571 who underwent transplant. Patients were mostly male and White. The national LDR was 0.40, significantly lowest in Black patients (0.30), P < 0.001. The national transplant to listing ratio was 0.48, highest in Black patients (0.53), P < 0.01. The national transplant to death ratio was 0.20, lowest in Black patients (0.16), P < 0.001. States that had an above-mean LDR had a lower transplant to listing ratio but a higher transplant to death ratio. Multivariable analysis confirmed that Black race is significantly associated with a lower LDR and transplant to death ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients face a disparity in access to LT due to low listing rates for transplant relative to deaths from ESLD.

Ethics of Organ Transplantation in Persons with Intellectual Disability

Historically, individuals with intellectual disability and end-stage organ disease were discriminated against by transplant professionals and often excluded from transplantation waitlists. Despite antidiscrimination legislation, some transplant programs continue to include intellectual disability as a relative, if not an absolute, contraindication to listing for an organ; this is true for both pediatric and adult individuals in end-stage organ disease. This commentary opposes the absolute exclusion of patients with intellectual disability and end-stage organ disease from transplantation waitlists provided that the candidates are expected to gain a predefined minimum benefit threshold of life-years and quality-adjusted-life years. Intellectual disability is one of many factors that should be considered in determining transplant eligibility and each candidate should have an individualized interdisciplinary assessment.

A Review of the Current State of Liver Transplantation Disparities

Equity in access is one of the core goals of the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN). However, disparities in liver transplantation have been described since the passage of the National Organ Transplant Act, which established OPTN in the 1980s. During the past few decades, several efforts have been made by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) to address disparities in liver transplantation with notable improvements in many areas. Nonetheless, disparities have persisted across insurance type, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic area, and age. African Americans have lower rates of referral to transplant centers, females have lower rates of transplantation from the liver waiting list than males, and public insurance is associated with worse posttransplant outcomes than private insurance. In addition, pediatric candidates and older adults have a disadvantage on the liver transplant waiting list, and there are widespread regional disparities in transplantation. Given the large degree of inequity in liver transplantation, there is a tremendous need for studies to propose and model policy changes that may make the liver transplant system more just and equitable.

Ethnicity and Insurance-Specific Disparities in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score at Time of Liver Transplant Waitlist Registration and its Impact on Mortality

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Disparities in timely referral to liver transplantation (LT) evaluation persist. We aim to examine race/ethnicity and insurance-specific differences in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at time of waitlist (WL) registration and its impact on WL survival.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated U.S. adults listed for LT using 2005-2018 United Network for Organ Sharing LT registry. Multiple linear regression methods examined factors associated with MELD at listing, and Fine-Gray competing risks regression were used to analyze WL mortality.

RESULTS

Among 144,163 WL registrants (median age = 56 years, 65.3% male, 56.4% private insurance, 23.3% Medicare, 15.7% Medicaid), mean WL MELD at listing was higher in African Americans versus non-Hispanic whites (2.57 points higher, 95%CI: 2.40-2.74, P < 0.001). Compared with patients with private insurance, adjusted mean WL MELD was higher among those with no insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid (P < 0.001 for all). After correcting for differences in MELD at listing, Asians had lower risk of WL death versus non-Hispanic whites (subhazard ratio (SHR): 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-1.00, P = 0.04), but no difference was observed in African Americans or Hispanics. Compared with patients with private insurance, higher risk of WL death was observed in patients with no insurance (SHR: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.14-1.56, P < 0.001), Medicare (SHR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.16-1.25, P < 0.001), or Medicaid (SHR: 1.22, 95%CI: 1.17-1.27, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Higher MELD scores at listing among African Americans did not translate into increased WL mortality. Patients with Medicare, Medicaid, or uninsured had significantly higher WL mortality than privately insured patients, even after correcting for disparities in MELD scores at listing.

Assessment of Incidence of and Surveillance Burden for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Among Patients With Hepatitis C in the Era of Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents

IMPORTANCE

In the US, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), primarily associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, is the fastest rising cause of cancer-related death. Wider use of highly effective direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) substantially reduces the burden of chronic HCV infection, but the subsequent impacts with HCV-associated HCC remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess projected changes in the incidence rate of and surveillance burden for HCC in the era of DAA treatment for HCV.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This decision analytical model study was performed from January 2019 to February 2020, using an individual-level state-transition simulation model to simulate disease progression, screening, and different waves of antiviral treatments for HCV in the US from 2012 to 2040.

INTERVENTIONS

Current clinical management for chronic HCV infection.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Model outcomes were projected temporal trends and age distribution of incident HCC cases and candidates for HCC surveillance among patients with viremia and patients with virologically cured HCV.

RESULTS

The simulation model projected that the annual incidence of HCC among patients with viremia and patients with virologically cured HCV will continue increasing to 24 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 18 000-31 000) cases until 2021. In patients with virologically cured HCV, incident HCC cases are projected to increase from 1000 (95% UI, 500-2100) in 2012 to the peak of 7000 (95% UI, 5000-9600) in 2031 with a subsequent decrease to 6000 (95% UI, 4300-8300) by 2040. The proportion of incident HCC cases that occur in individuals with virologically cured HCV is estimated to increase from 5.3% in 2012 to 45.8% in 2040. The number of candidates for HCC surveillance in the population with virologically cured HCV is projected to increase from 106 000 (95% UI, 70 000-178 000) in 2012 to the peak of 649 000 (95% UI, 512 000-824 000) in 2030 and decrease to 539 000 (95% UI, 421 000-687 000) by 2040, while the proportion of all candidates for surveillance who are virologically cured is estimated to increase from 8.5% to 64.6% during the same period. The average age of HCC incidence and surveillance candidates is estimated to increase from 55 in 2012 to 72 and 71, respectively, by 2040.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this study suggest that the burden of HCC will shift from patients with viremia to patients with virologically cured HCV, and to older populations. Appropriate management may be warranted for early detection of HCC in patients who may no longer be receiving specialty care for liver conditions.