A Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Clinical Research Protocol of a Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

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.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned.

RESULTS

Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs.

CONCLUSION

Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

Variation in Kidney Transplant Referral Across Chronic Kidney Disease Programs in Ontario, Canada

Background

Eligible patients with kidney failure should have equal access to kidney transplantation. Transplant referral is the first crucial step toward receiving a kidney transplant; however, studies suggest substantial variation in the rate of kidney transplant referral across regions. The province of Ontario, Canada, has a public, single-payer health care system with 27 regional chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs. The probability of being referred for kidney transplant may not be equal across CKD programs.

Objective

To determine whether there is variability in kidney transplant referral rates across Ontario's CKD programs.

Design

Population-based cohort study using linked administrative health care databases from January 1, 2013, to November 1, 2016.

Setting

Twenty-seven regional CKD programs in the province of Ontario, Canada.

Patients

Patients approaching the need for dialysis (advanced CKD) and patients receiving maintenance dialysis (maximum follow-up: November 1, 2017).

Measurements

Kidney transplant referral.

Methods

We calculated the 1-year unadjusted cumulative probability of kidney transplant referral for Ontario's 27 CKD programs using the complement of Kaplan-Meier estimator. We calculated standardized referral ratios (SRRs) for each CKD program, using expected referrals from a 2-staged Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for patient characteristics in the first stage. Standardized referral ratios with a value less than 1 were below the provincial average (maximum possible follow-up of 4 years 10 months). In an additional analysis, we grouped CKD programs according to 5 geographic regions.

Results

Among 8641 patients with advanced CKD, the 1-year cumulative probability of kidney transplant referral ranged from 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2%-3.7%) to 21.0% (95% CI: 17.5%-25.2%) across the 27 CKD programs. The adjusted SRR ranged from 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1-0.4) to 4.2 (95% CI: 2.1-7.5). Among 6852 patients receiving maintenance dialysis, the 1-year cumulative probability of transplant referral ranged from 6.4% (95% CI: 4.0%-10.2%) to 34.5% (95% CI: 29.5%-40.1%) across CKD programs. The adjusted SRR ranged from 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1-0.3) to 1.8 (95% CI: 1.6-2.1). When we grouped CKD programs according to geographic region, we found that patients residing in Northern regions had a substantially lower 1-year cumulative probability of transplant referral.

Limitations

Our cumulative probability estimates only captured referrals within the first year of advanced CKD or maintenance dialysis initiation.

Conclusions

There is marked variability in the probability of kidney transplant referral across CKD programs operating in a publicly funded health care system.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Quebec: A Qualitative Case Study of Health System Barriers and Facilitators

Background

Patients with kidney failure represent a major public health burden, and living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for these patients. Current work to optimize LDKT delivery to patients has focused on microlevel interventions and has not addressed interdependencies with meso and macro levels of practice.

Objective

We aimed to learn from a health system with historically low LDKT performance to identify facilitators and barriers to LDKT. Our specific aims were to understand how LDKT delivery is organized through interacting macro, meso, and micro levels of practice and identify what attributes and processes of this health system facilitate the delivery of LDKT to patients with kidney failure and what creates barriers.

Design

We conducted a qualitative case study, applying a complex adaptive systems approach to LDKT delivery, that recognizes health systems as being made up of dynamic, nested, and interconnected levels, with the patient at its core.

Setting

The setting for this case study was the province of Quebec, Canada.

Participants

Thirty-two key stakeholders from all levels of the health system. This included health care professionals, leaders in LDKT governance, living kidney donors, and kidney recipients.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 32 key stakeholders and a document review were undertaken between February 2021 and December 2021. Inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes.

Results

Overall, we identified strong links between system attributes and processes and LDKT delivery, and more barriers than facilitators were discerned. Barriers that undermined access to LDKT included fragmented LDKT governance and expertise, disconnected care practices, limited resources, and regional inequities. Some were mitigated to an extent by the intervention of a program launched in 2018 to increase LDKT. Facilitators driven by the program included advocacy for LDKT from individual member(s) of the care team, dedicated resources, increased collaboration, and training opportunities that targeted LDKT delivery at multiple levels of practice.

Limitations

Delineating the borders of a "case" is a challenge in case study research, and it is possible that some perspectives may have been missed. Participants may have produced socially desirable answers.

Conclusions

Our study systematically investigated real-world practices as they operate throughout a health system. This novel approach has cross-disciplinary methodological relevance, and our findings have policy implications that can help inform multilevel interventions to improve LDKT.

Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD): Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) is a quality improvement intervention designed to enhance access to kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. We conducted a cluster-randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of the intervention versus usual care on completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.

OBJECTIVE

To prespecify the statistical analysis plan for the EnAKT LKD trial.

DESIGN

The EnAKT LKD trial is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized, superiority, clinical trial. Randomization was performed at the level of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (the "clusters").

SETTING

Twenty-six CKD programs in Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

More than 10 000 patients with advanced CKD (ie, patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis) with no recorded contraindication to receiving a kidney transplant.

METHODS

The trial data (including patient characteristics and outcomes) will be obtained from linked administrative health care databases (the "registry"). Stratified covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 26 CKD programs (1:1) to provide the intervention or usual care from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021 (4.17 years). CKD programs in the intervention arm received the following: (1) support for local quality improvement teams and administrative needs; (2) tailored education and resources for staff, patients, and living kidney donor candidates; (3) support from kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by program leaders.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome is completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant, where up to 4 unique steps per patient will be considered: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) a potential living kidney donor begins their evaluation at a transplant center to donate a kidney to the patient, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant waitlist, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor.

ANALYSIS PLAN

Using an intent-to-treat approach, the primary outcome will be analyzed using a patient-level constrained multistate model adjusting for the clustering in CKD programs.

TRIAL STATUS

The EnAKT LKD trial period is November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report the results once the data for the trial period is available in linked administrative health care databases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The EnAKT LKD trial is registered with the U.S. National Institute of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT03329521 available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03329521).

STATISTICAL ANALYTIC PLAN

Version 1.0 August 26, 2022.

Impact of having potential living donors on ethnic/racial disparities in access to kidney transplantation

Racial/ethnic disparities persist in patients' access to living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). This study assessed the impact of having available potential living donors (PLDs) on candidates' receipt of a kidney transplant (KT) and LDKT at two KT programs. Using data from our clinical trial of waitlisted candidates (January 1, 2014-December 31, 2019), we evaluated Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White (NHW) KT candidates' number of PLDs. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the impact of PLDs on transplantation (KT vs. no KT; for KT recipients, LDKT vs. deceased donor KT). A total of 847 candidates were included, identifying as Hispanic (45.8%) or NHW (54.2%). For Site A, both Hispanic (adjusted OR = 2.26 [95% CI 1.13-4.53]) and NHW (OR = 2.42 [1.10-5.33]) candidates with PLDs completing the questionnaire were more likely to receive a KT. For Site B, candidates with PLDs were not significantly more likely to receive KT. Among KT recipients at both sites, Hispanic (Site A: OR = 21.22 [2.44-184.88]; Site B: OR = 25.54 [7.52-101.54]), and NHW (Site A: OR = 37.70 [6.59-215.67]; Site B: OR = 15.18 [5.64-40.85]) recipients with PLD(s) were significantly more likely to receive a LDKT. Our findings suggest that PLDs increased candidates' likelihood of KT receipt, particularly LDKT. Transplant programs should help candidates identify PLDs early in transplant evaluation.

Using Administrative Health Care Databases to Identify Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease With No Recorded Contraindication to Receiving a Kidney Transplant

Background

Administrative health care databases can be efficiently analyzed to describe the degree to which patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have access to kidney transplantation. Measures of access to transplantation are better represented when restricting to only those patients eligible to receive a kidney transplant. The way administrative data can be used to assess kidney transplant eligibility in the absence of clinical data has not been well described.

Objective

To demonstrate a method that uses administrative health care databases to identify patients with ESKD who have no recorded contraindication to receiving a kidney transplant.

Design and setting

Population-based cohort study using linked administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada.

Patients

Adult patients with ESKD approaching the need for dialysis (predialysis) or receiving maintenance dialysis between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2015 in Ontario, Canada.

Measurements

Recipient of a kidney-only or kidney-pancreas transplant.

Methods

We assessed more than 80 baseline characteristics, including demographic information, comorbidities, kidney-specific characteristics, and referral and listing criteria for kidney transplantation. We compared these characteristics between patients who did and did not receive a kidney transplant.

Results

We included 23 642 patients with ESKD (11 195 who were predialysis and 12 447 receiving maintenance dialysis). Over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (25th, 75th percentile: 1.3, 5.6), 3215 (13.6%) received a kidney-only or kidney-pancreas transplant. Of the studied characteristics available in administrative databases, >97% of patients with one or more of these characteristics did not receive a kidney transplant during follow-up: ESKD-modified Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥7 (a higher score represents greater comorbidity), home oxygen use, age above 75 years, dementia, living in a long-term care facility, receiving at least one physician house call in the past year, and a combination of select malignancies (ie, lung, lymphoma, cervical, colorectal, liver, active multiple myeloma, and bladder cancer). Using these combined criteria reduced the total number of patients from 23 642 to 12 539 with no recorded contraindications to transplant (a 47% reduction), while the proportion who received a kidney transplant changed from 13.6% (denominator of 23 642) to 24.9% (denominator of 12 539).

Limitations

Administrative databases are unable to capture all the complexities of determining transplant eligibility.

Conclusion

We identified several criteria available within administrative health care databases that can be used to identify patients with ESKD who have no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant. These criteria could be applied when reporting measures of access to kidney transplantation that require knowledge of transplant eligibility.

Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating peer support in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease care: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Peer support complements traditional models of chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through sharing of peer experiences, pragmatic advice, and resources to enhance chronic kidney disease self-management and decision-making. As peer support is variably offered and integrated into multi-disciplinary CKD care, we aimed to characterize healthcare providers' experiences and views on peer support provision for people with non-dialysis-dependent CKD within Canada.

METHODS

In this concurrent mixed methods study, we used a self-administered online survey to collect information from multi-disciplinary CKD clinic providers (e.g., nurses, nephrologists, allied health professionals) on peer support awareness, program characteristics and processes, perceived value, and barriers and facilitators to offering peer support in CKD clinics. Results were analyzed descriptively. We undertook semi-structured interviews with a sample of survey respondents to elaborate on perspectives about peer support in CKD care, which we analyzed using inductive, content analysis.

RESULTS

We surveyed 113 providers from 49 clinics. Two thirds (66%) were aware of formal peer support programs, of whom 19% offered in-house peer support through their clinic. Peer support awareness differed by role and region, and most referrals were made by social workers. Likert scale responses suggested a high perceived need of peer support for people with CKD. Top cited barriers to offering peer support included lack of peer support access and workload demands, while facilitators included systematic clinic processes for peer support integration and alignment with external programs. Across 18 interviews, we identified themes related to peer support awareness, logistics, and accessibility and highlighted a need for integrated support pathways.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest variability in awareness and availability of peer support among Canadian multi-disciplinary CKD clinics. An understanding of the factors influencing peer support delivery will inform strategies to optimize its uptake for people with advanced CKD.

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.

Protocol for a Process Evaluation of the Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Many patients who would benefit from a kidney transplant never receive one. The Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial is testing whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention, provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care), can help patients with CKD with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant complete more steps toward receiving a transplant (primary outcome of the trial). The EnAKT LKD intervention has 4 components: (1) quality Improvement teams and administrative support, (2) improved transplant education for patients and healthcare providers, (3) access to support and (4) program-level performance monitoring.

Objective:

To conduct a process evaluation of the EnAKT LKD quality improvement intervention to determine if the components were delivered, received, and enacted as designed (fidelity), and if the intervention addressed intended barriers (mechanisms of change).

Design:

A mixed-methods process evaluation informed by new practice implementation and theories of behavior change.

Setting:

Chronic kidney disease programs in Ontario, Canada, began receiving the EnAKT LKD intervention on November 1, 2017 and will continue to receive it until December 31, 2021. The process evaluation (interviews and surveys) will occur alongside the trial, between December 2020 to May 2021.

Participants:

Healthcare providers (eg, dialysis nurses, nephrologists, members of the multi-care kidney clinic team) at Ontario’s 27 CKD programs.

Methods:

We will survey and interview healthcare providers at each CKD program, and complete an intervention implementation checklist. Quantitative data from the surveys and the intervention implementation checklist will assess fidelity to the intervention, while quantitative and qualitative data from surveys and interviews will provide insight into the mechanisms of change.

Limitations:

The long trial period may result in poor participant recall.

Conclusion:

This process evaluation will enhance interpretation of the trial findings, guide improvements in the intervention components, and inform future implementation.

Trial registration:

Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.