Major Variation across Local Transplant Centers in Probability of Kidney Transplant for Wait-Listed Patients

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.

High-Functioning Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant System Characteristics: The British Columbia Experience With an Opt-In System

Rationale & Objective

A high level of cooperation between organ procurement organizations and transplant programs may help maximize use of deceased donor kidneys. The practices that are essential for a high functioning organ donation and transplant system remain uncertain. We sought to report metrics of organ donation and transplant performance in British Columbia, Canada, and to assess the association of specific policies and practices that contribute to the system's performance.

Study Design

A retrospective observational study.

Setting & Participants

Referred deceased organ donors in British Columbia were used in the study from January 1, 2016, to December 31 2019.

Exposures

Provincial, organ procurement organization, and center level policies were implemented to improve donor referral and organ utilization.

Outcomes

Assessment of donor and kidney utilization along steps of the critical pathway for organ donation.

Analytical Approach

Deceased donors were classified according to the critical pathway for organ donation and key donation and transplant metrics were identified.

Results

There were 1,948 possible donors referred. Of 1,948, 754 (39%) were potential donors. Of 754 potential donors, 587 (78%) were consented donors. Of 587 consented donors, 480 (82%) were eligible kidney donors. Of 480 eligible kidney donors, 438 (91%) were actual kidney donors. And of 438 actual kidney donors, 432 (99%) were utilized kidney donors. One-year all-cause allograft survival was 95%. Practices implemented to improve the system's performance included hospital donor coordinators, early communication between the organ procurement organization and transplant nephrologists, dedicated organ recovery and implant surgeons, aged-based kidney allocation, and hospital admission of recipients before kidney recovery.

Limitations

Assignment of causality between individual policies and practices and organ donation and utilization is limited in this observational study.

Conclusions

In British Columbia, consent for donation, utilization of donated kidneys, and transplant survival are exceptionally high, suggesting the importance of an integrated deceased donor and kidney transplant service.

Predicting wait time for pediatric kidney transplant: a novel index

BACKGROUND

Over one thousand pediatric kidney transplant candidates are added to the waitlist annually, yet the prospective time spent waiting is unknown for many. Our study fills this gap by identifying variables that impact waitlist time and by creating an index to predict the likelihood of a pediatric candidate receiving a transplant within 1 year of listing. This index could be used to guide patient management by giving clinicians a potential timeline for each candidate's listing based on a unique combination of risk factors.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 3757 pediatric kidney transplant candidates from the 2014 to 2020 OPTN/UNOS database was performed. The data was randomly divided into a training set, comprising two-thirds of the data, and a testing set, comprising one-third of the data. From the training set, univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify significant predictive factors affecting wait times. A predictive index was created using variables significant in the multivariable analysis. The index's ability to predict likelihood of transplantation within 1 year of listing was validated using ROC analysis on the training set. Validation of the index using ROC analysis was repeated on the testing set.

RESULTS

A total of 10 variables were found to be significant. The five most significant variables include the following: blood group, B (OR 0.65); dialysis status (OR 3.67); kidney disease etiology, SLE (OR 0.38); and OPTN region, 5 (OR 0.54) and 6 (OR 0.46). ROC analysis of the index on the training set yielded a c-statistic of 0.71. ROC analysis of the index on the testing set yielded a c-statistic of 0.68.

CONCLUSIONS

This index is a modest prognostic model to assess time to pediatric kidney transplantation. It is intended as a supplementary tool to guide patient management by providing clinicians with an individualized prospective timeline for each candidate. Early identification of candidates with potential for prolonged waiting times may help encourage more living donation including paired donation chains.

Physician Preferences when Selecting Candidates for Lower-Quality Kidney Offers

BACKGROUND

In the United States, more than 50% of kidneys in the lowest 15% quality range (those with Kidney Donor Profile Index >85) are discarded. Studies suggest that using more of these kidneys could benefit patients waiting for a transplant. This study assesses the trade-offs physicians make when selecting recipients for lower-quality kidneys.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to surgeons and nephrologists in the United States who are involved in kidney acceptance decisions. The DCE presented kidneys that varied in terms of Kidney Donor Profile Index, expected cold ischemia time, donor age, pump parameters, serum creatinine levels, glomerulosclerosis, donor diabetes status, and whether donation was made after circulatory death. Candidate characteristics included recipients' age, diabetes history, time on dialysis, ejection fraction, HLA mismatch, calculated panel reactive antibody, and Karnofsky performance score. Regression analysis was used to estimate acceptability weights associated with kidney and recipient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 108 physicians completed the DCE. The likelihood of acceptance was significantly lower with deterioration of kidney quality, expected cold ischemia time at transplantation, and missing biopsy and pump information. Acceptance was prioritized for patients who were higher on the waiting list, younger recipients, those who have spent less time on dialysis, and those without a history of diabetes. Performance status (Karnofsky score) and calculated panel reactive antibody also had a statistically significant but smaller association. Finally, ejection fraction had a marginally significant association, and HLA match had no significant association with the acceptance of marginal kidneys. A group of respondents were found to be primarily concerned about cold ischemia time.

CONCLUSIONS

In this DCE, physicians considered the recipient characteristics that inform expected post-transplant survival score when they decided whether to accept a marginal kidney for a given recipient.

Disparities in Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Among Young Patients Without Medical Comorbidities

Importance

Disparities in kidney transplant referral and waitlisting contribute to disparities in kidney disease outcomes. Whether these differences are rooted in population differences in comorbidity burden is unclear.

Objective

To examine whether disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting were present among a young, relatively healthy cohort of patients unlikely to have medical contraindications to kidney transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used the US Renal Data System Registry to identify patients with end-stage kidney disease who initiated dialysis between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2019. Patients who were older than 40 years, received a preemptive transplant, were preemptively waitlisted, or had documented medical comorbidities other than hypertension or smoking were excluded, yielding an analytic cohort of 52 902 patients. Data were analyzed between March 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023.

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Kidney transplant waitlisting after dialysis initiation.

Results

Of 52 902 patients (mean [SD] age, 31 [5] years; 31 132 [59%] male; 3547 [7%] Asian/Pacific Islander, 20 782 [39%] Black/African American, and 28 006 [53%] White) included in the analysis, 15 840 (30%) were waitlisted for a kidney transplant within 1 year of dialysis initiation, 11 122 (21%) were waitlisted between 1 and 5 years after dialysis initiation, and 25 940 (49%) were not waitlisted by 5 years. Patients waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation were more likely to be male, to be White, to be employed full time, and to have had predialysis nephrology care. There were large state-level differences in the proportion of patients waitlisted within 1 year (median, 33%; range, 15%-58%). In competing risk regression, female sex (adjusted subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.94), Hispanic ethnicity (SHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80), and Black race (SHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68) were all associated with lower waitlisting after dialysis initiation. Unemployment (SHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.45-0.48) and part-time employment (SHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77) were associated with lower waitlisting compared with full-time employment, and more than 1 year of predialysis nephrology care, compared with none, was associated with greater waitlisting (SHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.46-1.56).

Conclusions and Relevance

This retrospective cohort study found that fewer than one-third of patients without major medical comorbidities were waitlisted for a kidney transplant within 1 year of dialysis initiation, with sociodemographic disparities in waitlisting even in this cohort of young, relatively healthy patients unlikely to have a medical contraindication to transplantation. Transplant policy changes are needed to increase transparency and address structural barriers to waitlist access.

Population Characteristics and Organ Procurement Organization Performance Metrics

Importance

In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule updating the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) Conditions for Coverage. This rule evaluates OPO performance based on an unadjusted donation rate and an age-adjusted transplant rate; however, neither considers other underlying population differences.

Objective

To evaluate whether adjusting for age and/or area deprivation index yields the same tier assignments as the cause, age, and location consistent (CALC) tier used by CMS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study examined the performance of 58 OPOs from 2018 to 2020 across the entire US. A total of 12 041 778 death records were examined from the 2017 to 2020 National Center for Health Statistics' Restricted Vital Statistics Detailed Multiple Cause of Death files; 399 530 of these met the definition of potential deceased donor. Information about 42 572 solid organ donors from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was also used. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2017 to December 2020.

Exposure

Area deprivation of donation service areas and age of potential donors.

Main Outcome and Measures

OPO performance as measured by donation and transplant rates.

Results

A total of 399 530 potential deceased donors and 42 572 actual solid donor organs were assigned to 1 of 58 OPOs. Age and ADI adjustment resulted in 19.0% (11 of 58) to 31.0% (18 of 58) reclassification of tier ratings for the OPOs, with 46.6% of OPOs (27 of 58) changing tier ranking at least once during the 3-year period. Between 6.9% (4 of 58) and 12.1% (7 of 58) moved into tier 1 and up to 8.6% (5 of 58) moved into tier 3.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study of population characteristics and OPO performance metrics found that adjusting for area deprivation and age significantly changed OPO measured performance and tier classifications. These findings suggest that underlying population characteristics may alter processes of care and characterize donation and transplant rates independent of OPO performance. Risk adjustment accounting for population characteristics warrants consideration in prospective policy and further evaluation of quality metrics.

Regional Differences in Waiting Times for Kidney Transplantation in Germany

BACKGROUND

In order to achieve short ischemia times between organ donation and transplantation, regional organ allocation has been assigned priority in the development of allocation rules for kidney transplantation. It is unclear whether this leads to differences in regional waiting times in Germany.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study over a 24-month observation period was conducted, including all patients who received a kidney-only graft allocated via the standard Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) (n = 1487) or the Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) (n = 566). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to investigate differences in waiting times across the regions (ETKAS) or subregions (ESP) as defined by the German Organ Procurement Organization (DSO). Associations between the number of regionally procured kidneys (n = 1444) and regional waiting times were investigated.

RESULTS

In ETKAS, the median waiting time was 8.9 years (interquartile range [IQR] 6.7-10.6); in ESP, it was 3.9 (2.4 -5.3) years. Compared with the reference region with the shortest waiting time, waiting times in other regions were 0.6 to 1.7 years longer in ETKAS and 1.3 to 4.4 years longer in ESP. The ratio of the number of patients on the waiting list for a particular region to the number of organs donated in that region was associated with the waiting time in ETKAS (R2 = 0.70). In ESP, this association was markedly less pronounced (R2 = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

In Germany, waiting times depend strongly on the region where a patient is listed for kidney transplantation, especially in ESP. These findings call the current allocation algorithms into question and imply a need for suitable modification.

Characterization of Transplant Center Decisions to Allocate Kidneys to Candidates With Lower Waiting List Priority

Importance

Allocation of deceased donor kidneys is meant to follow a ranked match-run list of eligible candidates, but transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization have full discretion to decline offers for higher-priority candidates and accept them for lower-ranked candidates at their center.

Objective

To describe the practice and frequency of transplant centers placing deceased donor kidneys with candidates who are not the highest rank at their center according to the allocation algorithm.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used 2015 to 2019 organ offer data from US transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization, following candidates for transplant events from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were deceased kidney donors with a single match-run and at least 1 kidney transplanted locally and adult, first-time, kidney-only transplant candidates receiving at least 1 offer for a locally transplanted deceased donor kidney. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022 to March 28, 2023.

Exposure

Demographic and clinical characteristics of donors and recipients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome of interest was kidney transplantation into the highest-priority candidate (defined as transplanted after zero declines for local candidates in the match-run) vs a lower-ranked candidate.

Results

This study assessed 26 579 organ offers from 3136 donors (median [IQR] age, 38 [25-51] years; 2903 [62%] men) to 4668 recipients. Transplant centers skipped their highest-ranked candidate to place kidneys further down the match-run for 3169 kidneys (68%). These kidneys went to a median (IQR) of the fourth- (third- to eighth-) ranked candidate. Higher kidney donor profile index (KDPI; higher score indicates lower quality) kidneys were less likely to go to the highest-ranked candidate, with 24% of kidneys with KDPI of at least 85% going to the top-ranked candidate vs 44% of KDPI 0% to 20% kidneys. When comparing estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) scores between the skipped candidates and the ultimate recipients, kidneys were placed with recipients with both better and worse EPTS than the skipped candidates, across all KDPI risk groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of local kidney allocation at isolated transplant centers, we found that centers frequently skipped their highest-priority candidates to place kidneys further down the allocation prioritization list, often citing organ quality concerns but placing kidneys with recipients with both better and worse EPTS with nearly equal frequency. This occurred with limited transparency and highlights the opportunity to improve the matching and offer algorithm to improve allocation efficiency.

Kidney organ allocation: reducing discards

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The donation and kidney transplant system in the United States is challenged with reducing the number of kidneys that are procured for transplant but ultimately discarded. That number can reach 20% of donated kidneys each year.

RECENT FINDINGS

The reasons for these discards, in the face of overwhelming demand, are multiple.

SUMMARY

The authors review the data supporting a number of potential causes for high discard rates as well as provide potential solutions to the problem.

The real unmet need: A multifactorial approach for identifying sensitized kidney candidates with low access to transplant

BACKGROUND

At the start of 2020, the kidney waiting list consisted of 2526 candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) of 99.9% or greater, a cohort demonstrated in published research to have meaningfully lower than average access to transplantation even under the revised kidney allocation system (KAS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of US kidney registrations using data from the OPTN [Reference (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/about-data/)]. The period-prevalent study cohort consisted of US kidney-alone registrations who waited at least 1 day between April 1, 2016, when HLA DQ-Alpha and DP-Beta unacceptable antigen data became available in OPTN data collection, to December 31, 2019. Poisson rate regression was used to model deceased donor kidney transplant rates per active year waiting and using an offset term to account for differential at-risk periods. Median time to transplant was estimated for each IRR group using the Kaplan-Meier method. Sensitivity analyses were included to address geographic variation in supply-to-demand ratios and differences in dialysis time or waiting time.

RESULTS

In this study, we found 1597 additional sensitized (CPRA 50-<99.9%) candidates with meaningfully lower than average access to transplant when simultaneously taking into account CPRA and other factors. In combination with CPRA, candidate blood type, Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score (EPTS), and presence of other antibody specificities beyond those in the current, 5-locus CPRA were found to influence the likelihood of transplant.

CONCLUSION

In total, this suggests approximately 4100 sensitized candidates are on the waiting list who represent a community of disadvantaged patients who may benefit from progressive therapies and interventions to facilitate incompatible transplantation. Though associated with higher risks, such interventions may nevertheless be more attractive than remaining on dialysis with the associated accumulation of mortality risk over time.

Early Effect of the Circular Model of Kidney Allocation in the United States

BACKGROUND

In March 2021, the United States implemented a new kidney allocation system (KAS250) for deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT), which eliminated the donation service area-based allocation and replaced it with a system on the basis of distance from donor hospital to transplant center within/outside a radius of 250 nautical miles. The effect of this policy on kidney discards and logistics is unknown.

METHODS

We examined discards, donor-recipient characteristics, cold ischemia time (CIT), and delayed graft function (DGF) during the first 9 months of KAS250 compared with a pre-KAS250 cohort from the preceding 2 years. Changes in discards and CIT after the onset of COVID-19 and the implementation of KAS250 were evaluated using an interrupted time-series model. Changes in allocation practices (biopsy, machine perfusion, and virtual cross-match) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Post-KAS250 saw a two-fold increase in kidneys imported from nonlocal organ procurement organizations (OPO) and a higher proportion of recipients with calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 81%-98% (12% versus 8%; P <0.001) and those with >5 years of pretransplant dialysis (35% versus 33%; P <0.001). CIT increased (mean 2 hours), including among local OPO kidneys. DGF was similar on adjusted analysis. Discards after KAS250 did not immediately change, but we observed a statistically significant increase over time that was independent of donor quality. Machine perfusion use decreased, whereas reliance on virtual cross-match increased, which was associated with shorter CIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Early trends after KAS250 show an increase in transplant access to patients with cPRA>80% and those with longer dialysis duration, but this was accompanied by an increase in CIT and a suggestion of worsening kidney discards.

Referral and Evaluation for Kidney Transplantation Following Implementation of the 2014 National Kidney Allocation System

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The national kidney allocation system (KAS) implemented in December 2014 in the United States redefined the start of waiting time from the time of waitlisting to the time of kidney failure. Waitlisting has declined post-KAS, but it is unknown if this is due to transplant center practices or changes in dialysis facility referral and evaluation. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the 2014 KAS policy change on referral and evaluation for transplantation among a population of incident and prevalent patients with kidney failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

37,676 incident (2012-2016) patients in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina identified within the US Renal Data System at 9 transplant centers and followed through December 2017. A prevalent population of 6,079 patients from the same centers receiving maintenance dialysis in 2012 but not referred for transplantation in 2012.

EXPOSURE

KAS era (pre-KAS vs post-KAS).

OUTCOME

Referral for transplantation, start of transplant evaluation, and waitlisting.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Multivariable time-dependent Cox models for the incident and prevalent population.

RESULTS

Among incident patients, KAS was associated with increased referrals (adjusted HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]) and evaluation starts among those referred (adjusted HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.10-1.21]), decreased overall waitlisting (adjusted HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.65-0.76]), and lower rates of active waitlisting among those evaluated compared to the pre-KAS era (adjusted HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.90]). Among the prevalent population, KAS was associated with increases in overall waitlisting (adjusted HR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.15-2.63]) and active waitlisting among those evaluated (adjusted HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.16-3.49]), but had no significant impact on referral or evaluation starts among those referred.

LIMITATIONS

Limited to 3 states, residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

In the southeastern United States, the impact of KAS on steps to transplantation was different among incident and prevalent patients with kidney failure. Dialysis facilities referred more incident patients and transplant centers evaluated more incident patients after implementation of KAS, but fewer evaluated patients were placed onto the waitlist. Changes in dialysis facility and transplant center behaviors after KAS implementation may have influenced the observed changes in access to transplantation.

The New Distance-Based Kidney Allocation System: Implications for Patients, Transplant Centers, and Organ Procurement Organizations

Purpose of Review

The goal of deceased donor kidney allocation policy is to provide objective prioritization for donated kidneys, and policy has undergone a series of revisions in the past decade in attempt to achieve equity and utility in access to kidney transplantation. Most recently, to address geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation, the Kidney Allocation System changed to a distance-based allocation system—colloquially termed “KAS 250”—moving away from donor service areas as the geographic basis of allocation. We review the early impact of this policy change on access to transplant for patients, and on complexity of organ allocation and transplantation for transplant centers and organ procurement organizations.

Recent Findings

Broader sharing of kidneys has increased complexity of the allocation system, as transplant centers and OPOs now interact in larger networks. The increased competition resulting from this system, and the increased operational burden on centers and OPOs resulting from greater numbers of organ offers, may adversely affect organ utilization. Preliminary results suggest an increase in transplant rate overall but a trend toward higher kidney discard and increased cold ischemia time.

Summary

The KAS 250 allocation policy changed the geographic basis of deceased donor kidney distribution in a manner that is intended to reduce geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation. Close monitoring of this policy’s impact on patients, transplant center behavior, and process measures is critical to the aim of maximizing access to transplant while achieving transplant equity.

Perpetuating Disparity: Failure of the Kidney Transplant System to Provide the Most Kidney Transplants to Communities With the Greatest Need

BACKGROUND

The burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and kidney transplant rates vary significantly across the United States. This study aims to examine the mismatch between ESKD burden and kidney transplant rates from a perspective of spatial epidemiology.

METHODS

US Renal Data System data from 2015 to 2017 on incident ESKD and kidney transplants per 1000 incident ESKD cases was analyzed. Clustering of ESKD burden and kidney transplant rates at the county level was determined using local Moran's I and correlated to county health scores. Higher percentile county health scores indicated worse overall community health.

RESULTS

Significant clusters of high-ESKD burden tended to coincide with clusters of low kidney transplant rates, and vice versa. The most common cluster type had high incident ESKD with low transplant rates (377 counties). Counties in these clusters had the lowest overall mean transplant rate (61.1), highest overall mean ESKD incidence (61.3), and highest mean county health scores percentile (80.9%, P <0.001 vs all other cluster types). By comparison, counties in clusters with low ESKD incidence and high transplant rates (n=359) had the highest mean transplant rate (110.6), the lowest mean ESKD incidence (28.9), and the lowest county health scores (20.2%). All comparisons to high-ESKD/low-transplant clusters were significant at P value <0.001.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant mismatch between kidney transplant rates and ESKD burden, where areas with the greatest need had the lowest transplant rates. This pattern exacerbates pre-existing disparities, as disadvantaged high-ESKD regions already suffer from worse access to care and overall community health, as evidenced by the highest county health scores in the study.

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.

Access to kidney transplantation among pediatric candidates with prior solid organ transplants in the United States

BACKGROUND

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates require timely access to transplant to optimize growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We studied access to transplant for pediatric candidates with prior organ transplants.

METHODS

We used US registry data to identify pediatric kidney transplant candidates added to the waiting list 2015-2019 and used competing risk regression to study the association between prior transplant status and probability of receiving a kidney transplant, treating wait-list removal and death as competing events.

RESULTS

Of 4962 pediatric kidney transplant candidates included, 89% had no prior transplant and 11% had received a prior organ transplant (kidney 87%, liver 5%, heart 5%). Prior transplant recipients were older at listing (median 15 vs. 12 years) and more likely to have PRA≥98% (22% vs. 0.3%) (both p < .001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of candidates from each group who were preemptively wait-listed. Unadjusted competing risk regression showed a lower risk of kidney transplant after wait-listing among candidates with prior organ transplant (HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.47-0.59, p < .001). This association remained significant after adjusting for candidate characteristics (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.63-0.83, p < .001). Among deceased donor kidney recipients, median KDPI was similar between groups, but recipients with prior transplants were more likely to receive kidneys from donors with hypertension (4% vs. 1%, p = .01) and donors after cardiac death (11% vs. 4%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates with prior organ transplants have reduced access to transplant after wait-listing. Allocation system changes are needed to improve timely access to transplant for this vulnerable group.

Listing at non-local transplant centers is associated with increased access to deceased donor kidney transplantation

The ability of kidney transplant candidates to travel outside of their usual place of care varies by sociodemographic factors, potentially exacerbating disparities in access. We used Transplant Referral Regions (TRRs) to overcome previous methodological barriers of using geographic distance to assess the characteristics and outcomes of patients listed for kidney transplant at centers in neighboring TRR or beyond neighboring TRRs. Among listed kidney transplant candidates, 20.9% traveled to a neighbor and 5.6% beyond a neighbor. A higher proportion of travelers were White, had some college education, and lived in ZIP codes with lower poverty. Travel to a neighbor was associated with a 7% increase in likelihood of deceased donor transplant (cHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.09) and traveling beyond a neighbor with a 19% increase (cHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.24). Travelers had similar rates of living donor transplant and waitlist mortality as patients who did not travel; those who traveled beyond a neighbor had slightly lower posttransplant mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). In conclusion, the ability to travel outside of the recipient's assigned TRR increases access to transplantation and improves long-term survival.

Kidney Organ Allocation System: How to Be Fair

Transplantation is a life-saving medical intervention that unfortunately is constrained by scarcity of available organs. An ideal system for allocating organs should seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It also must be fair and not disadvantage certain populations. However, policies aimed at reducing disparities also must be balanced with considerations of utility (graft outcomes), cost, efficiency, and any adverse effects on organ utilization. Here, we discuss the ethical challenges of creating a fair and equitable organ allocation system, focusing on the principles governing deceased donor kidney transplant waitlists around the world. The kidney organ allocation systems in the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong are used as illustrations.

Examining utilization of kidneys as a function of procurement performance

Questions have arisen around new metrics for organ procurement organizations (OPO) due to the perception that low-performing OPOs may be limited by local centers' acceptance of marginal organs. We reviewed 2013-2019 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OTPN) and National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS) data to explore the relationship between objectively measured OPO performance and utilization of deceased donor kidneys. We found that although donor recovery declined with rising age and kidney donor profile index (KDPI), OPO performance differences were evident within each age/KDPI group. By contrast, the number of discards per donor did not vary with OPO performance. Centers in donor service areas (DSAs) with lower-performing OPOs had higher local utilization and greater import of high-KDPI kidneys than did those with higher-performing OPOs. Lower rates of donor availability relative to waitlist additions may contribute to observed center acceptance behavior. Differences in center-level performance were highly visible in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) organ acceptance metrics, while SRTR OPO metrics did not detect large or persistent variation in procurement performance. Cumulatively, our findings suggest that objective measures of procurement performance can inform discussions of organ utilization, allowing for alignment of metrics in all elements of the procurement-transplantation system.

Evolving Metrics of Quality for Kidney Transplant Candidates: Transplant Center Variability in Delisting and 1-Year Mortality

BACKGROUND

Management of patients on the kidney transplant waitlist lacks oversight, and transplant centers can delist candidates without consequence. To better understand between-center differences in waitlist management, we examined delisting rates and mortality after delisting within 3 years of removal from the kidney transplant waitlist.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients of adults listed for deceased donor kidney transplant in 2015 and followed until the end of 2018. Patients of interest were those delisted for reasons other than transplant, death, or transfer. Centers were excluded if they had fewer than 20 waitlisted patients per year. We calculated probability of delisting and death after delisting using multivariable competing risk models.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 14.2% of patients were delisted. The median probability of delisting within 3 years, adjusted for center-level variability, was 7.0% (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.9% to 10.6%). Median probability of death was 58.2% (IQR: 40% to 73.4%). There was no meaningful correlation between probability of delisting and death (τ = -0.05, p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in the rate of death after delisting across kidney transplant centers. Likelihood of transplant is extremely important to candidates, and improved data collection efforts are needed to inform whether current delisting practices are successfully removing patients who could not meaningfully benefit from transplant, or whether certain populations may benefit from remaining on the list and maintaining eligibility.

Association of transplant center market concentration and local organ availability with deceased donor kidney utilization

Although there is a shortage of kidneys available for transplantation, many transplantable kidneys are not procured or are discarded after procurement. We investigated whether local market competition and/or organ availability impact kidney procurement/utilization. We calculated the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for deceased donor kidney transplants (2015-2019) for 58 US donation service areas (DSAs) and defined 4 groups: HHI ≤ 0.32 (high competition), HHI = 0.33-0.51 (medium), HHI = 0.53-0.99 (low), and HHI = 1 (monopoly). We calculated organ availability for each DSA as the number kidneys procured per incident waitlisted candidate, grouped as: <0.42, 0.42-0.69, >0.69. Characteristics of procured organs were similar across groups. In adjusted logistic regression, the HHI group was inconsistently associated with composite export/discard (reference: high competition; medium: OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11-1.20; low 1.01, 0.96-1.06; monopoly 1.19, 1.13-1.26) and increasing organ availability was associated with export/discard (reference: availability <0.42; 0.42-0.69: OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.30-1.40; >0.69: OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.73-1.93). When analyzing each endpoint separately, lower competition was associated with higher export and only market monopoly was weakly associated with lower discard, whereas higher organ availability was associated with export and discard. These results indicate that local organ utilization is more strongly influenced by the relative intensity of the organ shortage than by market competition between centers.

Deceased donor kidneys allocated out of sequence by organ procurement organizations

Deceased donor kidney allocation follows a ranked match-run of potential recipients. Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) are permitted to deviate from the mandated match-run in exceptional circumstances. Using match-run data for all deceased donor kidney transplants (Ktx) in the US between 2015 and 2019, we identified 1544 kidneys transplanted from 933 donors with an OPO-initiated allocation exception. Most OPOs (55/58) used this process at least once, but 3 OPOs performed 64% of the exceptions and just 2 transplant centers received 25% of allocation exception Ktx. At 2 of 3 outlier OPOs these transplants increased 136% and 141% between 2015 and 2019 compared to only a 35% increase in all Ktx. Allocation exception donors had less favorable characteristics (median KDPI 70, 41% with history of hypertension), but only 29% had KDPI ≥ 85% and the majority did not meet the traditional threshold for marginal kidneys. Allocation exception kidneys went to larger centers with higher offer acceptance ratios and to recipients with 2 fewer priority points-equivalent to 2 less years of waiting time. OPO-initiated exceptions for kidney allocation are growing increasingly frequent and more concentrated at a few outlier centers. Increasing pressure to improve organ utilization risks increasing out-of-sequence allocations, potentially exacerbating disparities in access to transplantation.

Center variations in patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation

There are no established regulations governing patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) transplantation, creating the potential for significant center-level variations in clinical practice.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (STAR) file, we examined practice trends and variations in patient selection for SHK at the center level between January 1, 2004 and March 31, 2019.

RESULTS

Overall, SHK is becoming more common with most centers performing heart transplants also performing SHK. Among patients who underwent heart transplant who were receiving dialysis, the rate of SHK varied from 22% to 86% at the center level. Among patients not on dialysis, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of patients receiving SHK varied between 19 and 59 mL/min/1.73 m² . When adjusting for other factors, the odds of SHK varied 57-fold between the highest and lowest SHK performing centers.

CONCLUSION

Variation in SHK at the center level suggests the need for national guidelines around the selection of patients for SHK.

Keys to Driving Implementation of the New Kidney Care Models

Contemporary nephrology practice is heavily weighted toward in-center hemodialysis, reflective of decisions on infrastructure and personnel in response to decades of policy. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative seeks to transform care for patients and providers. Under the initiative’s framework, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has launched two new care models that align patient choice with provider incentives. The mandatory ESRD Treatment Choices model requires participation by all nephrology practices in designated Hospital Referral Regions, randomly selecting 30% of all Hospital Referral Regions across the United States for participation, with the remaining Hospital Referral Regions serving as controls. The voluntary Kidney Care Choices model offers alternative payment programs open to nephrology practices throughout the country. To help organize implementation of the models, we developed Driver Diagrams that serve as blueprints to identify structures, processes, and norms, and generate intervention concepts. We focused on two goals that are directly applicable to nephrology practices and central to the incentive structure of the ESRD Treatment Choices and Kidney Care Choices: (1) increasing utilization of home dialysis, and (2) increasing the number of kidney transplants. Several recurring themes became apparent with implementation. Multiple stakeholders from assorted backgrounds are needed. Communication with primary care providers will facilitate timely referrals, education, and comanagement. Nephrology providers (nephrologists, nursing, dialysis organizations, others) must lead implementation. Patient engagement at nearly every step will help achieve the aims of the models. Advocacy with federal and state regulatory agencies will be crucial to expanding home dialysis and transplantation access. Although the models hold promise to improve choices and outcomes for many patients, we must be vigilant that they not do reinforce existing disparities in health care or widen known racial, socioeconomic, or geographic gaps. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative has the potential to usher in a new era of value-based care for nephrology.

Impact of Extending Eligibility for Reinstatement of Waiting Time After Early Allograft Failure: A Decision Analysis

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The shortage of deceased donor kidneys identified for potential transplantation in the United States is exacerbated by a high proportion of deceased donor kidneys being discarded after procurement. We estimated the impact of a policy proposal aiming to increase organ utilization by extending eligibility for waiting time reinstatement for recipients experiencing early allograft failure after transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Decision analysis informed by clinical registry data.

SETTING & POPULATION

We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to identify 76,044 deceased-donor kidneys procured in the United States from 2013 to 2017, 80% of which were transplanted and 20% discarded.

INTERVENTION

Extend waiting time reinstatement for recipients experiencing allograft failure from the current 90 days to 1 year after transplantation.

OUTCOME

Net impact to the waitlist, defined as the estimated number of additional transplants minus estimated increase in waiting list reinstatements.

MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME

We estimated (1) the number of additional deceased donor kidneys that would be transplanted if there was a 5%-25% relative reduction in discards, and (2) the number of recipients who would regain waiting time under a 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month reinstatement policy.

RESULTS

Reinstating a waiting time for recipients experiencing allograft failure up to 1 year after transplantation yielded more additional transplants than growth in additions to the waiting list for all model assumptions except the combination of a very low relative reduction in discards (5%) and a very high failure rate of transplanted kidneys that would previously have been discarded (≥5 times the rate of currently transplanted kidneys).

LIMITATIONS

Lack of empirical evidence supporting the proposed impact of such a policy change.

CONCLUSIONS

A policy change reinstating waiting time for deceased donor kidneys recipients with allograft failure up to 1 year after transplantation should explored as a decision science-based intervention to improve organ utilization.

Managing Patients with Failing Kidney Allograft: Many Questions Remain

Patients who receive a kidney transplant commonly experience failure of their allograft. Transplant failure often comes with complex management decisions, such as when and how to wean immunosuppression and start the transition to a second transplant or to dialysis. These decisions are made in the context of important concerns about competing risks, including sensitization and infection. Unfortunately, the management of the failed allograft is, at present, guided by relatively poor-quality data and, as a result, practice patterns are variable and suboptimal given that patients with failed allografts experience excess morbidity and mortality compared with their transplant-naive counterparts. In this review, we summarize the management strategies through the often-precarious transition from transplant to dialysis, highlighting the paucity of data and the critical gaps in our knowledge that are necessary to inform the optimal care of the patient with a failing kidney transplant.

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.

Initial Home Dialysis Is Increased for Rural Patients by Accessing Urban Facilities

Background

The 240,000 rural patients with end stage kidney disease in the United States have less access to nephrology care and higher mortality than those in urban settings. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative aims to increase the use of home renal replacement therapy. Little is known about how rural patients access home dialysis and the availability and quality of rural dialysis facilities.

Methods

Incident dialysis patients in 2017 and their facilities were identified in the United States Renal Data System. Facility quality and service availability were analyzed with descriptive statistics. We assessed the availability of home dialysis methods, depending on rural versus urban counties, and then we used multivariate logistic regression to identify the likelihood of rural patients with home dialysis as their initial modality and the likelihood of rural patients changing to home dialysis within 90 days. Finally, we assessed mortality after dialysis initiation on the basis of patient home location.

Results

Of the 97,930 dialysis initiates, 15,310 (16%) were rural. Rural dialysis facilities were less likely to offer home dialysis (51% versus 54%, P<0.001). Although a greater proportion of rural patients (9% versus 8%, P<0.001) were on home dialysis, this was achieved by traveling to urban facilities to obtain home dialysis (OR=2.74, P<0.001). After adjusting for patient and facility factors, rural patients had a higher risk of mortality (HR=1.06, P=0.004).

Conclusions

Despite having fewer facilities that offer home dialysis, rural patients were more often on home dialysis methods because they traveled to urban facilities, representing an access gap. Even if rural patients accessed home dialysis at urban facilities, rural patients still suffered worse mortality. Future dialysis policy should address this access gap to improve care and overall mortality for rural patients.

Declined Offers for Deceased Donor Kidneys Are Not an Independent Reflection of Organ Quality

Background

Deceased donor kidney offers are frequently declined multiple times before acceptance for transplantation, despite significant organ shortage and long waiting times. Whether the number of times a kidney has been declined, reflecting cumulative judgments of clinicians, is associated with long-term transplant outcomes remains unclear.

Methods

In this national, retrospective cohort study of deceased donor kidney transplants in the United States from 2008 to 2015 (n=78,940), we compared donor and recipient characteristics and short- and long-term graft and patient survival outcomes grouping by the sequence number at which the kidney was accepted for transplantation. We compared outcomes for kidneys accepted within the first seven offers in the match-run, after 8-100 offers, and for hard-to-place kidneys distinguishing those requiring >100 and >1000 offers before acceptance.

Results

Harder-to-place kidneys had lower donor quality and higher rates of delayed graft function (46% among kidneys requiring >1000 offers before acceptance versus 23% among kidneys with ≤7 offers). In unadjusted models, later sequence groups had higher hazard of all-cause graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and patient mortality; however, these associations were attenuated after adjusting for Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI). After adjusting for donor factors already taken into consideration during allocation, and recipient factors associated with long-term outcomes, graft, and patient survival outcomes were not significantly different for the hardest-to-place kidneys compared with the easiest-to-place kidneys, with the exception of death-censored graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.16, 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.28).

Conclusion

Late sequence offers may represent missed opportunities for earlier successful transplant for the higher-priority waitlisted candidates for whom the offers were declined.

Geographic disparities in transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Final Rule clearly states that geography should not be a determinant of a chance of a potential candidate being transplanted. There have been multiple concerns about geographic disparities in patients in need of solid organ transplantation. Allocation policy adjustments have been designed to address these concerns, but there is little evidence that the disparities have been solved. The purpose of this review is to describe the main drivers of geographic disparities in solid organ transplantation and how allocation policy changes and other potential actions could impact these inequalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Geographical disparities have been reported in kidney, pancreas, liver, and lung transplantation. Organ Procurement and Transplant Network has modified organ allocation rules to underplay geography as a key determinant of a candidates' chance of receiving an organ. Thus, heart, lung, and more recently liver and Kidney Allocation Systems have incorporated broader organ sharing to reduce geographical disparities. Whether these policy adjustments will indeed eliminate geographical disparities are still unclear.

SUMMARY

Modern allocation policy focus in patients need, regardless of geography. Innovative actions to further reduce geographical disparities are needed.

Greater complexity and monitoring of the new Kidney Allocation System: Implications and unintended consequences of concentric circle kidney allocation on network complexity

The deceased donor kidney allocation system in the United States has undergone several rounds of iterative changes, but these changes were not explicitly designed to address the geographic variation in access to transplantation. The new allocation system, expected to start in December 2020, changes the definition of "local allocation" from the Donation Service Area to 250 nautical mile circles originating from the donor hospital. While other solid organs have adopted a similar approach, the larger number of both kidney transplant centers and transplant candidates is likely to have different consequences. Here, we discuss the incredible increase in complexity in allocation, discuss some of the likely intended and unintended consequences, and propose metrics to monitor the new system.

Association between Longer Travel Distance for Transplant Care and Access to Kidney Transplantation and Graft Survival in the United States

BACKGROUND

Transplant candidates may gain an advantage by traveling to receive care at a transplant center that may have more favorable characteristics than their local center. Factors associated with longer travel distance for transplant care and whether the excess travel distance (ETD) is associated with access to transplantation or with graft failure are unknown.

METHODS

This study of adults in the United States wait-listed for kidney transplantation in 1995-2015 used ETD, defined as distance a patient traveled beyond the nearest transplant center for initial waiting list registration. We used linear regression to examine patient and center characteristics associated with ETD and Fine-Gray models to examine the association between ETD (modeled as a spline) and time to deceased or living donor transplantation or graft failure.

RESULTS

Of 373,365 patients, 11% had an ETD≥50 miles. Traveling excess distance was more likely among patients who were of non-Black race or those whose nearest transplant center had lower annual living donor transplant volume. At an ETD of 50 miles, we observed a lower likelihood of deceased donor transplantation (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.84 to 0.87) but higher likelihood of living donor transplantation (SHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.16) compared with those who received care at their nearest center. ETD was weakly associated with higher risk of graft failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who travel excess distances for transplant care have better access to living donor but not deceased donor transplantation and slightly higher risk of graft failure. Traveling excess distances is not clearly associated with better outcomes, especially if living donors are unavailable.

Trends and impact on cold ischemia time and clinical outcomes using virtual crossmatch for deceased donor kidney transplantation in the United States

For assessing human leukocyte antigen compatibility in deceased donor kidney transplantation, virtual crossmatch is used as an alternative to physical crossmatch and has potential to reduce cold ischemia time. The 2014 United States kidney allocation system prioritized highly sensitized candidates but led to increased shipping of kidneys. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we evaluated changes in virtual crossmatch use with the new allocation policy and the impact of virtual crossmatch use on cold ischemia time and transplant outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult deceased donor kidney recipients in the United States (2011-2018) transplanted with either 9,632 virtual or 71,839 physical crossmatches. Before allocation change, only 9% of transplants were performed relying on a virtual crossmatch. After the 2014 allocation change, this increased by 2.4%/year so that 18% transplants in 2018 were performed with just a virtual crossmatch. There was significant variation in virtual crossmatch use among transplant regions (range 0.7-36%) and higher use was noted among large volume centers. Compared to physical crossmatches, virtual crossmatches were significantly associated with shorter cold ischemia times (mean 15.0 vs 16.5 hours) and similar death-censored graft loss and mortality (both hazard ratios HR 0.99) at a median follow-up of 2.9 years. Thus, our results show that virtual crossmatch is an attractive strategy for shortening cold ischemia time without negatively impacting transplant outcomes. Hence, strategies to optimize use and reduce practice variation may allow for maximizing benefits from virtual crossmatch.