Empowering inclusivity: improving readability of living kidney donation information with ChatGPT

Background

Addressing disparities in living kidney donation requires making information accessible across literacy levels, especially important given that the average American adult reads at an 8th-grade level. This study evaluated the effectiveness of ChatGPT, an advanced AI language model, in simplifying living kidney donation information to an 8th-grade reading level or below.

Methods

We used ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to modify 27 questions and answers from Donate Life America, a key resource on living kidney donation. We measured the readability of both original and modified texts using the Flesch-Kincaid formula. A paired t-test was conducted to assess changes in readability levels, and a statistical comparison between the two ChatGPT versions was performed.

Results

Originally, the FAQs had an average reading level of 9.6 ± 1.9. Post-modification, ChatGPT 3.5 achieved an average readability level of 7.72 ± 1.85, while ChatGPT 4.0 reached 4.30 ± 1.71, both with a p-value <0.001 indicating significant reduction. ChatGPT 3.5 made 59.26% of answers readable below 8th-grade level, whereas ChatGPT 4.0 did so for 96.30% of the texts. The grade level range for modified answers was 3.4-11.3 for ChatGPT 3.5 and 1-8.1 for ChatGPT 4.0.

Conclusion

Both ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 effectively lowered the readability grade levels of complex medical information, with ChatGPT 4.0 being more effective. This suggests ChatGPT's potential role in promoting diversity and equity in living kidney donation, indicating scope for further refinement in making medical information more accessible.

Antiobesity pharmacotherapy to facilitate living kidney donation

Obesity is a chronic, relapsing disease that increases the risks of living kidney donation; at the same time, transplant centers have liberalized body mass index constraints for donors. With the increasing number of antiobesity medications available, the treatment of obesity with antiobesity medications may increase the pool of potential donors and enhance donor safety. Antiobesity medications are intended for long-term use given the chronic nature of obesity. Cessation of treatment can be expected to lead to weight regain and increase the risk of comorbidity rebound/development. In addition, antiobesity medications are meant to be used in conjunction with-rather than in replacement of-diet and physical activity optimization. Antiobesity medication management includes selecting medications that may ameliorate any coexisting medical conditions, avoiding those that are contraindicated in such conditions, and being sensitive to any out-of-pocket expenses that may be incurred by the potential donor. A number of questions remain regarding who will and should shoulder the costs of long-term obesity treatment for donors. In addition, future studies are needed to quantify the degree of weight loss and duration of weight loss maintenance needed to normalize the risk of adverse kidney outcomes relative to comparable nondonors and lower-weight donors.

Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report

Purpose of program

A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day.

Sources of information

The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics.

Methods

Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions.

Key findings

The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic.

Limitations

Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward.

Implications

This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

The Ultrasound Renal Stress Test for the Assessment of Functional Renal Reserve in Kidney Transplantation: A Pilot Study in Living Donors

In the evolving landscape of nephrology and kidney transplants, assessing renal functional reserve (RFR) in living kidney donors is essential for ensuring donor safety and successful transplantation. This study explores the use of the Intra-Parenchymal Renal Resistive Index Variation (IRRIV) test, a novel non-invasive method, to measure RFR in living donors. Our observational study included 11 participants undergoing living kidney donations, evaluated using the IRRIV-based Renal Stress Test (RST) before and 12 months post-nephrectomy. The study demonstrated significant changes in creatinine and eGFR CKD-EPI levels post-donation, with an average creatinine rise from 69 to 97 µmol/L and a reduction in eGFR from 104 to 66 mL/min/1.73 m2. These variations align with the expected halving of nephron mass post-nephrectomy and the consequent recruitment of RFR and hyperfiltration in the remaining nephrons. This pilot study suggests that the IRRIV-based RST is a practical, safe, and reproducible tool, potentially revolutionizing the assessment of RFR in living kidney donors, with implications for broader clinical practice in donor eligibility evaluation, even in borderline renal cases. Furthermore, it confirms the feasibility of RST in living kidney donors and allows us to assess the sample size in 48 donors for a future study.

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to Living Kidney Donation Within a Sociotechnical Systems Framework

The objective of this study was to investigate factors influencing one's decision to become a live kidney donor under the framework of sociotechnical systems, by expanding the focus to include larger organizational influences and technological considerations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with live kidney donors who donated through University of Louisville Health, Trager Transplant Center, a mid-scale transplant program, in the years 2017 through 2019. The interview transcripts were analyzed for barriers and facilitators to live kidney donation within a sociotechnical system. The most salient facilitators included: having an informative, caring, and available care team; the absence of any negative external pressure toward donating; donating to a family or friend; and the ability to take extra time off work for recovery. The most recurrent barriers included: short/medium-term (<1 year) negative health impacts because of donation; the need to make minor lifestyle changes (e.g., less alcohol consumption) after donation; and mental health deterioration stemming from the donation process. The sociotechnical systems framework promotes a balanced system comprised of social, technical, and environmental subsystems. Assessing the facilitators and barriers from the sociotechnical system perspective revealed the importance of and opportunities for developing strategies to promote integration of technical subsystem, such as social media apps and interactive AI platforms, with social and environmental subsystems to enable facilitators and reduce barriers effectively.

Clinical relevance of the living kidney donor profile index in Korean kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was developed in the United States to predict graft outcomes based on donor characteristics. However, there are significant differences in donor demographics, access to transplantation, proportion of ABO incompatibility, and posttransplant mortality in Asian countries compared with the United States.

METHODS

We evaluated the clinical relevance of the LKDPI score in a Korean kidney transplant cohort by analyzing 1860 patients who underwent kidney transplantation between 2000 and 2019. Patients were divided into three groups according to LKDPI score: <0, 1-19.9, and ≥20.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 119 months, 232 recipients (12.5%) experienced death-censored graft loss, and 98 recipients (5.3%) died. High LKDPI scores were significantly associated with increased risk of death-censored graft loss independent of recipient characteristics (LKDPI 1-19.9: HR 1.389, 95% CI 1.036-1.863; LKDPI ≥20: HR 2.121, 95% CI 1.50-2.998). High LKDPI score was also significantly associated with increased risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection and impaired graft renal function. By contrast, overall patient survival rates were comparable among the LKDPI groups.

CONCLUSION

High LKDPI scores were associated with an increased risk of death-censored graft loss, biopsy-proven acute rejection, and impaired graft renal function among a Korean kidney transplant cohort.

Pregnancy in Living Kidney Donors: An Evidence-Based Review

Purpose of review

To review the current studies and guidelines on the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in female kidney donors.

Recent findings

Living kidney donors include a significant amount of young women of child-bearing age. Safety and possible risks of pregnancy after donation are a concern for female kidney donor candidates. Many current studies indicate a higher risk of preeclampsia in women after kidney donation. Considering the increasing number of living kidney donors, the maternal outcomes of living kidney donation is an active area of research.

Summary

Guidelines and consensus statements on the risk of pregnancy in living kidney donors recommend close monitoring of blood pressure, weight gain, and proteinuria during pregnancy. Current studies indicate an increased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in living kidney donors. Counseling and informing donor candidates about the possible risks is important.

Lithium and the living kidney donor: Science or stigma?

Nearly 10 000 people are removed from the kidney transplant waiting list each year either due to becoming too ill for transplant or due to death. Live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) provides superior outcomes and survival benefit relative to deceased donor transplant, but the number of LDKT has decreased over the past few years. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that transplant centers employ evaluation processes that safely maximize LDKT. Decisions about donor candidacy should be based on the best available data, rather than on processes prone to bias. Here, we examine the common practice of declining potential donors based solely on treatment with lithium. We conclude that the risk of end-stage renal disease related to lithium treatment is comparable to other generally accepted risks in LDKT. We present this viewpoint to specifically challenge the carte blanche exclusion of individuals taking lithium and highlight the importance of using the best available data relevant to any risk factor, rather than relying on biases, when evaluating potential living kidney donors.

Sociodemographic Drivers of Donor and Recipient Gender Disparities in Living Kidney Donation in Australia

Background

Females account for 60% of all living kidney donors worldwide. We defined the proportion of female to male donors for living donor kidney transplantation stratified by recipient gender, and explored the factors associated with female kidney donation.

Methods

Data from the ANZDATA (Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation) and ANZOD (Australian and New Zealand Organ Donor) registries (2002-2019) were used to identify the sociodemographic characteristics and their interactions associated with living donation from female donors. We derived the predicted probabilities from adjusted logistic models using marginal means.

Results

Of 3523 living donor pairs, 2203 (63%) recipients were male, and 2012 (57%) donors were female. Male recipients were more likely to receive kidneys from female donors than male donors. Donor and recipient sex association was modified by donor-recipient relationship (P < 0.01), with sensitivity analysis suggesting that spousal donor-recipient pairs drive this interaction. Older recipients residing in regional or remote areas were more likely to receive kidneys from female donors compared with those from major cities (aged ≥60 years: 0.67 [0.63-0.71] vs. aged <60 years: 0.57 [0.53-0.60]).

Conclusions

Factors associated with female donation include recipient sex, with spousal donors contributing to the interaction between recipient gender and donor-recipient relationship. Recipient age and location of residence have interactive effects on the likelihood of living donor transplantation from female donors.

Eliminating financial disincentives to living kidney donation - a call to action

The incidence of end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States (US) is increasing each year. The lone curative treatment for ESRD remains kidney transplantation. Despite the demonstrated medical and economic benefits, living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) only accounts for a small number of kidney transplantations each year. Direct and indirect costs exist that disincentivize potential living kidney donors from coming forward, such as the cost of travel and lodging, risk of death, potential loss of income due to an extended recovery time, and the inability to donate to a relative in the future if needed. Herein, we advocate for policy changes that make living kidney donation (LKD) a financially neutral process thereby incentivizing increased LDKT and mitigating the kidney donor shortage.

Long-Term Kidney and Maternal Outcomes After Pregnancy in Living Kidney Donors

For counseling it is important to know if pregnancy after Living Kidney Donation (LKD) affects long-term outcomes of the mono-kidney and the mother. Therefore, we performed a retrospective multicenter study in women ≤45 years who donated their kidney between 1981 and 2017. Data was collected via questionnaires and medical records. eGFR of women with post-LKD pregnancies were compared to women with pre-LKD pregnancies or nulliparous. eGFR before and after pregnancy were compared in women with post-LKD pregnancies. Pregnancy outcomes post-LKD were compared with pre-LKD pregnancy outcomes. 234 women (499 pregnancies) were included, of which 20 with pre- and post-LKD pregnancies (68) and 26 with only post-LKD pregnancies (59). Multilevel analysis demonstrated that eGFR was not different between women with and without post-LKD pregnancies (p = 0.23). Furthermore, eGFR was not different before and after post-LKD pregnancy (p = 0.13). More hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) occurred in post-LKD pregnancies (p = 0.002). Adverse fetal outcomes did not differ. We conclude that, despite a higher incidence of HDP, eGFR was not affected by post-LKD pregnancy. In line with previous studies, we found an increased risk for HDP after LKD without affecting fetal outcome. Therefore, a pregnancy wish alone should not be a reason to exclude women for LKD.

Exploring Staff Attitudes Towards Unspecified Kidney Donors in the United Kingdom: Results From the BOUnD Study

Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) has made substantial contributions to the UK living donor programme. Nevertheless, some transplant professionals are uncomfortable with these individuals undergoing surgery. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the attitudes of UK healthcare professionals towards UKD. An opportunistic sample was recruited through the Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation (BOUnD) study covering six UK transplant centres: three high volume and three low volume centres. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study provided comprehensive coverage of the UK transplant community, involving 59 transplant professionals. We identified five themes: staff's conception of the ethics of UKD; presence of the known recipient in the donor-recipient dyad; need for better management of patient expectations; managing visceral reactions about the "typical" unspecified kidney donor; complex attitudes toward a promising new practice. This is the first in-depth qualitative study of attitudes of transplant professionals towards UKD. The data uncovered findings with strong clinical implications for the UKD programme, including the need for a uniform approach towards younger candidates that is adhered to by all transplant centres, the need to equally extend the rigorous assessment to both specified and unspecified donors, and a new approach to managing donor expectations.

The 3-Step Model of informed consent for living kidney donation: a proposal on behalf of the DESCaRTES Working Group of the European Renal Association

Living donation challenges the ethical principle of non-maleficence in that it exposes healthy persons to risks for the benefit of someone else. This makes safety, informed consent (IC) and education a priority. Living kidney donation has multiple benefits for the potential donor, but there are also several known short- and long-term risks. Although complete standardization of IC is likely to be unattainable, studies have emphasized the need for a standardized IC process to enable equitable educational and decision-making prospects for the prevention of inequities across transplant centers. Based on the Three-Talk Model of shared decision making by Elwyn et al., we propose a model, named 3-Step (S) Model, where each step coincides with the three ideal timings of the process leading the living donor to the decision to pursue living donation: prior to the need for kidney replacement therapy (team talk); at the local nephrology unit or transplant center, with transplant clinicians and surgeons prior to evaluations start (option talk); and throughout evaluation, after having learned about the different aspects of donation, especially if there are second thoughts or doubts (decision talk). Based on the 3-S Model, to deliver conceptual and practical guidance to nephrologists and transplant clinicians, we provide recommendations for standardization of the timing, content, modalities for communicating risks, and assessment of understanding prior to donation. The 3-S Model successfully allows an integration between standardization and individualization of IC, enabling a person-centered approach to potential donors. Studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-S Model in kidney transplant clinical practice.

A Comparison of Recalled Pain Memory Following Living Kidney Donation Between Directed and non-Directed, Altruistic Donors

Introduction: Pain following donor nephrectomy for living kidney donation is common. In Israel, non-directed, altruistic donations account for 45% of all kidney transplants. Design: This cross-sectional, retrospective survey included 2 groups of donors derived from the data of Israel Transplant, namely directed and non-directed, altruistic donors, who donated between 2015 to 2018. The degree of recalled pain memory post-surgery was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale at 5 time points: immediately post-surgery, after 1 week, 1 month and 3 months post-surgery and in the month preceding completion of the questionnaire. In addition, continued requirement for analgesics for more than one-month post-surgery, the degree of interference with daily activities in the month preceding the questionnaire and the recalled time to return to full-time employment were also noted. Results: In total, 246 (131 directed and 115 non-directed, altruistic) donors were included in the study. Non-directed, altruistic donors reported statistically significantly lower degrees of recalled pain memory at all time points, a lower requirement for prolonged analgesic use and less recalled interference with daily activities due to pain. In addition, these donors recalled returning significantly earlier to full-time employment. Finally, no significant differences in the degree of recalled pain memory were noted for directed donors according to their relation to the recipient, apart from donation to a spouse. Conclusion: These unique findings, if validated in a prospective study, could provide important information to potential non-directed, altruistic donors regarding the expected level of post-surgical pain and their return to full-time employment.

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.

The Living Kidney Donor Safety Study: Protocol of a Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Living kidney donation is considered generally safe in healthy individuals; however, there is a need to better understand the long-term effects of donation on blood pressure and kidney function.

Objectives

To determine the risk of hypertension in healthy, normotensive adults who donate a kidney compared with healthy, normotensive non-donors with similar indicators of baseline health. We will also compare the 2 groups on the rate of decline in kidney function, the risk of albuminuria, and changes in health-related quality of life.

Design Participants and Setting

Prospective cohort study of 1042 living kidney donors recruited before surgery from 17 transplant centers (12 in Canada and 5 in Australia) between 2004 and 2014. Non-donor participants (n = 396) included relatives or friends of the donor, or donor candidates who were ineligible to donate due to blood group or cross-match incompatibility. Follow-up will continue until 2021, and the main analysis will be performed in 2022. The anticipated median (25th, 75th percentile, maximum) follow-up time after donation is 7 years (6, 8, 15).

Measurements

Donors and non-donors completed the same schedule of measurements at baseline and follow-up (non-donors were assigned a simulated nephrectomy date). Annual measurements were obtained for blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), albuminuria, patient-reported health-related quality of life, and general health.

Outcomes

Incident hypertension (a systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg or receipt of anti-hypertensive medication) will be adjudicated by a physician blinded to the participant's donation status. We will assess the rate of change in eGFR starting from 12 months after the nephrectomy date and the proportion who develop an albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol (≥30 mg/g) in follow-up. Health-related quality of life will be assessed using the 36-item RAND health survey and the Beck Anxiety and Depression inventories.

Limitations

Donation-attributable hypertension may not manifest until decades after donation.

Conclusion

This prospective cohort study will estimate the attributable risk of hypertension and other health outcomes after living kidney donation.

Disqualification of Donor and Recipient Candidates From the Living Kidney Donation Program: Experience of a Single-Center in Germany

Background

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with a superiority of graft survival after living kidney donation (LKD) compared to deceased donation. However, a large part of potential donors and recipients are ineligible for LKD. Here, we analyze the leading causes for disqualification of potential living donor-recipient pairs from the LKD program and the health-related consequences for ESKD patients excluded from the LKD program in a German transplant center.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective cohort study we evaluated all candidates (potential donors and recipients) presenting for assessment of LKD from 2012 to 2020 at our transplant center. Thereby we focused on candidates excluded from the LKD program. Main reasons for disqualification were categorized as medical (donor-related), psychosocial, immunological, recipient-related, and unknown.

Results

Overall, 601 donor-recipient pairs were referred to our transplant center for LKD assessment during the observation time. Out of those, 326 (54.2%) discontinued the program with 52 (8.7%) dropouts and 274 (45.6%) donor-recipient pairs being ineligible for LKD. Donor-related medical contraindications were the main reason for disqualification [139 out of 274 (50.7%) potential donors] followed by recipient-related contraindications [60 out of 274 (21.9%) of potential donor-recipient pairs]. Only 77 out of 257 (29.9%) potential recipients excluded from the LKD program received a kidney transplant afterward with a median waiting time of 2 (IQR: 1.0–4.0) years. Overall, 18 (7.0%) ESKD patients initially declined for LKD died in this period.

Conclusion

A large percentage of donor-recipient pairs are disqualified from the German LKD program, mostly due to medical reasons related to the donor and with partly severe consequences for the potential recipients. For these, alternative solutions that promptly enable kidney transplantation are essential for improving patient quality of life and survival.

Prediction of measured GFR after living kidney donation from pre-donation parameters

BACKGROUND

One of the challenges in living kidney donor screening is to estimate remaining kidney function after donation. Here we developed a new model to predict post-donation measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from pre-donation serum creatinine, age and sex.

METHODS

In the prospective development cohort (TransplantLines, n = 511), several prediction models were constructed and tested for accuracy, precision and predictive capacity for short- and long-term post-donation 125I-iothalamate mGFR. The model with optimal performance was further tested in specific high-risk subgroups (pre-donation eGFR <90 mL/min/1.73 m2, a declining 5-year post-donation mGFR slope or age >65 years) and validated in internal (n = 509) and external (Mayo Clinic, n = 1087) cohorts.

RESULTS

In the development cohort, pre-donation estimated GFR (eGFR) was 86 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m2 and post-donation mGFR was 64 ± 11 mL/min/1.73 m2. Donors with a pre-donation eGFR ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2 (present in 43%) had a mean post-donation mGFR of 69 ± 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 5% of these donors reached an mGFR <55 mL/min/1.73 m2. A model using pre-donation serum creatinine, age and sex performed optimally, predicting mGFR with good accuracy (mean bias 2.56 mL/min/1.73 m2, R2 = 0.29, root mean square error = 11.61) and precision [bias interquartile range (IQR) 14 mL/min/1.73 m2] in the external validation cohort. This model also performed well in donors with pre-donation eGFR <90 mL/min/1.73 m2 [bias 0.35 mL/min/1.73 m2 (IQR 10)], in donors with a negative post-donation mGFR slope [bias 4.75 mL/min/1.73 m2 (IQR 13)] and in donors >65 years of age [bias 0.003 mL/min/1.73 m2 (IQR 9)].

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a novel post-donation mGFR prediction model based on pre-donation serum creatinine, age and sex.

Journey to Transplant: Developing a social support network counselling intervention to improve kidney transplantation

Context

Kidney transplant is superior to dialysis for the treatment of end‐stage kidney disease, but accessing transplant requires high patient engagement to overcome barriers. We sought to develop an educational counselling intervention for patients along with their social support networks to help patients access the waiting list.

Methods

Utilizing an Intervention Mapping approach, we established a conceptual framework to develop a behavioural intervention that can be reproduced across kidney transplant centres. The approach includes needs assessment, identifying behavioural determinants and process objectives and integrating targeted behavioural change theory.

Results

The Intervention Mapping process resulted in the development of a group counselling session, titled Journey to Transplant (JtT). This intervention was designed for kidney transplant candidates along with members of their social support networks and guided by a transplant healthcare professional. The session begins with standardized educational information to improve knowledge and normalize emotional barriers to transplant. This education is followed by a tailored counselling intervention, including the presentation of the individual patient's calculated likely outcomes on the kidney transplant waiting list. Finally, JtT incorporates patient and support network goal setting to address the specific barriers for that patient in accessing kidney transplantation.

Conclusion

A systematic Intervention Mapping approach to develop the JtT intervention helps ensure the intervention is efficacious, acceptable and feasible for transplant centres to implement. JtT engages the patient's social support network, targeting known barriers to transplant and utilizing established behaviour change theory to motivate concrete actions to improve the likelihood of kidney transplantation.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study includes a patient and family advisory committee comprised of kidney transplant candidates and their family members to guide the final language and content of the intervention guide, and the conduct of the implementation and pilot testing of the intervention. However, patients and family members were not involved in the intervention mapping development process itself described in this manuscript, which was informed by focus group data from patient and family study participants.

Impact of Social Vulnerability on Access to Educational Programming Designed to Enhance Living Donation

INTRODUCTION

Transplant candidate participation in the Living Donor Navigator Program is associated with an increased likelihood of achieving living donor kidney transplantation; yet not every transplant candidate participates in navigator programming.

RESEARCH QUESTION

We sought to assess interest and ability to participate in the Living Donor Navigator Program by the degree of social vulnerability.

DESIGN

Eighty-two adult kidney-only candidates initiating evaluation at our center provided Likert-scaled responses to survey questions on interest and ability to participate in the Living Donor Navigator Program. Surveys were linked at the participant-level to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index and county health rankings and overall social vulnerability and subthemes, individual barriers, telehealth capabilities/ knowledge, interest, and ability to participate were assessed utilizing nonparametric Wilcoxon ranks sums tests, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Participants indicating distance as a barrier to participation in navigator programming lived approximately 82 miles farther from our center. Disinterested participants lived in areas with the highest social vulnerability, higher physical inactivity rates, lower college education rates, and higher uninsurance (lack of insurance) and unemployment rates. Similarly, participants without a computer, who never heard of telehealth, and who were not encouraged to participate in telehealth resided in areas of highest social vulnerability.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest geography combined with being from under-resourced areas with high social vulnerability was negatively associated with health care engagement. Geography and poverty may be surrogates for lower health literacy and fewer health care interactions.

Dissolving Disincentives to Living Kidney Donation

Despite barriers and disincentives to living kidney donation, a record-setting number of living donor transplants (6,867) were performed in 2019. Additionally, there was a 24% increase in living donor kidney transplants from 2014-2019. These increases are welcome, yet the supply has not kept up with the demand, and the kidney transplant waiting list continues to grow. Innovative solutions are necessary to overcome disincentives to living kidney donation and increase the number of donors. The authors propose changing laws and rules to reimburse donors for all expenses related to donating a kidney; informing them of all the options of donation, including directed, non-directed, paired exchange, remote, and advanced donation; informing them of programs that transplant centers provide, including whether or not the center participates in the National Kidney Registry Donor Shield program; educating each donor about their personal risk; and dispelling misinformation they may have about living kidney donation. Implementing these measures will require a national, standard approach because there is variability between the states in relation to work leave and financial incentives for living donation.

Impact of Perioperative Complications on Living Kidney Donor Health-Related Quality of Life and Mental Health: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study

Background:

Although living kidney donation is safe, some donors experience perioperative complications.

Objective:

This study explored how perioperative complications affected donor-reported health-related quality of life, depression, and anxiety.

Design:

This research was a conducted as a prospective cohort study.

Setting:

Twelve transplant centers across Canada.

Patients:

A total of 912 living kidney donors were included in this study.

Measurements:

Short Form 36 health survey, Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory.

Methods:

Living kidney donors were prospectively enrolled predonation between 2009 to 2014. Donor perioperative complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Mental and physical health-related quality of life was assessed with the 3 measurements; measurements were taken predonation and at 3- and 12-months postdonation.

Results:

Seventy-four donors (8%) experienced a perioperative complication; most were minor (n = 67 [91%]), and all minor complications resolved before hospital discharge. The presence (versus absence) of a perioperative complication was associated with lower mental health-related quality of life and higher depression symptoms 3-month postdonation; neither of these differences persisted at 12-month. Perioperative complications were not associated with any changes in physical health-related quality of life or anxiety 3-month postdonation.

Limitations:

Minor complications may have been missed and information on complications postdischarge were not collected. No minimal clinically significant change has been defined for kidney donors across the 3 measurements.

Conclusions:

These findings highlight a potential opportunity to better support the psychosocial needs of donors who experience perioperative complications in the months following donation.

Trial registration:

NCT00319579 and NCT00936078.

The Effect of Psychiatric History on Pain and Related Outcomes Among Living Kidney Donors

INTRODUCTION

Living donor transplantation of kidneys accounts for one quarter of transplants performed in the United States. Careful screening of psychiatric history is a standard part of the donor evaluation. Little is known about the impact of psychiatric history on post-donation course and pain experience.

RESEARCH QUESTION

This study investigated whether psychiatric history was associated with pain and related outcomes among living kidney donors.

DESIGN

A retrospective medical record review was conducted of 75 living kidney donors who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. All donor candidates completed a psychological evaluation and were approved for donation by a multidisciplinary committee. History of psychiatric diagnosis and psychiatric medication use were obtained from donors' psychological evaluation reports. Data on pain and related outcomes (ie, history of prescribed pain medication, post-donation pain, opioid use, length of hospital stay, post-donation emergency department visits), as well as demographic and donation-related characteristics were also abstracted from medical records.

RESULTS

Psychiatric history, including current or historical psychiatric diagnosis or psychiatric medication use, in living kidney donors who were evaluated and approved for donation by a transplant psychologist was not associated with greater perceived pain, greater use of opioid pain medication in the post-operative period, longer hospital stays, or more frequent post-donation emergency department visits.

DISCUSSION

The findings demonstrate that carefully screened donors with a psychiatric history have comparable pain-related outcomes as donors without a psychiatric history. This study highlights the importance of the pre-donation psychological evaluation in promoting positive postdonation outcomes through careful selection of donor candidates.

In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program

Background

Live donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the best option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, this may not be the best option if a patient's donor is older and considerably smaller in weight. Patient (A) with a less than ideal donor (Donor A) might enter into a live donor paired exchange (LDPE) program with the hopes of swapping for a better-quality organ. A second patient (B) who is in the LDPE may or may not benefit from this exchange with Donor A.

Methods

This medical decision analysis examines the conditions that favor Patient A entering into the LDPE compared to directly accepting a kidney from their intended donor, as well as the circumstances where Patient B also benefits by accepting a lower-quality organ.

Results

Under select circumstances, a paired exchange could benefit both Patients A and B. For example, a 30-year-old Patient A with a lower-quality donor might gain _1.201.52_1.84 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by entering into a LDPE for a better-quality kidney, whereas a 60-year-old Patient B might gain _0.931.03_1.13 QALYs by accepting Donor A's kidney rather than waiting longer in the LDPE. The net benefit (or loss) of entering the LDPE differs by recipient age, donor organ quality, likelihood of Patient B being transplanted in LDPE, and likelihood of Patient A finding an ideal donor in the LDPE.

Conclusion

This study shows there are ways to increase live donor utilization and effectiveness that require further research and potentially changes to the LDPE process.

A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19

Introduction

A critical question facing transplant programs is whether, when, and how to safely accept living kidney donors (LKDs) who have recovered from COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the study is to understand current practices related to accepting these LKDs.

Methods

We surveyed US transplant programs from 3 September through 3 November 2020. Center level and participant level responses were analyzed.

Results

A total of 174 respondents from 115 unique centers responded, representing 59% of US LKD programs and 72.4% of 2019 and 72.5% of 2020 LKD volume (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network-OPTN 2021). In all, 48.6% of responding centers had received inquiries from such LKDs, whereas 44.3% were currently evaluating. A total of 98 donors were in the evaluation phase, whereas 27.8% centers had approved 42 such donors to proceed with donation. A total of 50.8% of participants preferred to wait >3 months, and 91% would wait at least 1 month from onset of infection to LD surgery. The most common reason to exclude LDs was evidence of COVID-19−related AKI (59.8%) even if resolved, followed by COVID-19−related pneumonia (28.7%) and hospitalization (21.3%). The most common concern in accepting such donors was kidney health postdonation (59.2%), followed by risk of transmission to the recipient (55.7%), donor perioperative pulmonary risk (41.4%), and donor pulmonary risk in the future (29.9%).

Conclusion

Practice patterns for acceptance of COVID-19−recovered LKDs showed considerable variability. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to guide optimal practices to ensure safety of accepting such donors. Long-term close follow-up of such donors is warranted.

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

Background:

Many patients with kidney failure will live longer and healthier lives if they receive a kidney transplant rather than dialysis. However, multiple barriers prevent patients from accessing this treatment option.

Objective:

To determine if a quality improvement intervention provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care) enables more patients with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant to complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.

Design:

This protocol describes a pragmatic 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, cluster-randomized clinical trial—the Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) trial.

Setting:

All 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, with a trial start date of November 1, 2017. The original end date of March 31, 2021 (3.4 years) has been extended to December 31, 2021 (4.1 years) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants:

During the trial, the 26 CKD programs are expected to care for more than 10 000 adult patients with CKD (including patients approaching the need for dialysis and patients receiving dialysis) with no recorded contraindications to a kidney transplant.

Intervention:

Programs were randomly allocated to provide a quality improvement intervention or usual care. The intervention has 4 main components: (1) local quality improvement teams and administrative support; (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.

Primary Outcome:

The primary outcome is the number of key steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant analyzed at the cluster level (CKD program). The following 4 unique steps per patient will be counted: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) at least one living kidney donor candidate contacts a transplant center for an intended recipient and completes a health history questionnaire to begin their evaluation, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant wait list, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor.

Planned Primary Analysis:

Study data will be obtained from Ontario’s linked administrative healthcare databases. An intent-to-treat analysis will be conducted comparing the primary outcome between randomized groups using a 2-stage approach. First stage: residuals are obtained from fitting a regression model to individual-level variables ignoring intervention and clustering effects. Second stage: residuals from the first stage are aggregated at the cluster level as the outcome.

Limitations:

It may not be possible to isolate independent effects of each intervention component, the usual care group could adopt intervention components leading to contamination bias, and the relatively small number of clusters could mean the 2 arms are not balanced on all baseline prognostic factors.

Conclusions:

The EnAKT LKD trial will provide high-quality evidence on whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention helps patients complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.

Trial registration:

Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.

Renal function outcomes and kidney biopsy features of living kidney donors with hypertension

BACKGROUND

The medium- to long-term outcomes of living kidney donors with hypertension compared to normotensive donors are not well understood, especially with the recent changes in hypertension guidelines.

METHODS

We studied a cohort of 950 living kidney donors using different definitions of hypertension based on either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg thresholds and based on either office or ambulatory blood pressure readings. Microstructural features on kidney biopsy at the time of donation were compared using different definitions of hypertension.

RESULTS

After adjusting for years of follow-up, age, sex, and baseline eGFR, hypertension (by any definition) did not significantly predict an eGFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 m² at a median follow-up of 10 years postdonation, though there was a borderline association with ambulatory blood pressure ≥ 130/80 mmHg predicting a 40% decline in eGFR (OR = 1.53, 1.00-2.36; p = .051). Proteinuria was predicted by office blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg and by nondipper profile on nocturnal ambulatory blood pressure measurements. At the time of donation, larger glomeruli and arterial hyalinosis on biopsy were associated with hypertension defined by either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg (by office or ambulatory measurements). Nocturnal nondipper status was associated with larger glomeruli size but not arteriolar hyalinosis when compared to dippers.

CONCLUSIONS

In programs that accept donors with controlled hypertension, various definitions of hypertension are associated with histological findings in the donated kidney, but none predict a clinically significant decline in kidney function 10 years after donation. These data support allowing healthy individuals with controlled hypertension to donate a kidney. However, donors with office hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and nondippers (regardless of hypertension status) are at greater long-term risk for proteinuria, and particularly for these donors, longer follow-up is warranted.

Cannabis and Cigarette Use Before and After Living Kidney Donation

Background:

It is unclear whether kidney donation leads to lifestyle changes in terms of cannabis and cigarette use.

Objective:

To describe cigarette and cannabis use before and after kidney donation and to determine their associations with lifestyle and clinical factors.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

The Living Kidney Donor program in the Champlain Local Health Integration Network at The Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa, Canada.

Patients:

The study included 178 living kidney donors who donated between January 2009 and December 2018.

Measurements:

Donors were screened for cannabis and cigarette use by telephone interview. Their clinical characteristics and changes in kidney function before and after donation were recorded.

Methods:

Cannabis and cigarette use before and after kidney donation were compared using chi-square test. Risk factors associated with their use was examined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to examine the association of cannabis and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation (CKD-EPI) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at donation and at last follow-up. T-test was used to examine the association of cigarette smoking and CKD-EPI eGFR at donation and at last follow-up.

Results:

Among 305 donors, 262 met inclusion criteria and 178 participated (mean of 4.7 ± 2.9 years from kidney donation). Cannabis and cigarette use were reported by 5% (9 of 178) and 13% (23 of 178) at donation. After donation, 8% (14 of 178) and 5% (9 of 178) started cannabis and cigarettes, respectively; 74% (17 of 23) of smokers remained smokers after donation and 88% (53 of 60) who quit smoking before donation did not restart after donation. In multivariate analysis, non-married/common-in-law status was associated with cannabis use (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.11; P = .04). There was no difference in eGFR pre- or post-donation among cannabis or cigarette users.

Limitations:

The single-center study design limits generalizability. Social desirability bias may have affected survey responses and cigarette smoking was not quantified.

Conclusions:

Cannabis and cigarette use was uncommon in the studied population and was not associated with remaining kidney function. Cannabis use increased post-donation. Most smokers remained smokers after donation and most donors who quit smoking before donation did not restart after donation. This warrants education and support for potential donors who smoke, to quit smoking prior to donation to reduce risks of cardiovascular and end-stage kidney disease.

Trial Registration:

Not applicable as this is not a clinical trial.

The relationship between marijuana use and psychosocial variables in living kidney donor candidates

BACKGROUND

We investigate whether marijuana use in living kidney donor candidates is associated with psychosocial risk factors that place donors at higher risk for adverse outcomes and the unique associations between marijuana use and donor candidacy.

METHODS

Medical records of 757 living kidney donor candidates were reviewed. Patients were grouped into marijuana users/abstainers; demographic, psychiatric, and substance use variables were compared. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the independent association of marijuana use on committee approval for donation.

RESULTS

Marijuana use was associated with lack of health insurance, legal history, lower education level, active and history of substance use disorder, active psychiatric disorder, history of multiple psychiatric diagnoses, and history of suicidality. Marijuana users were also more likely to be young, male, unmarried, and less likely to be approved for donation by the multidisciplinary selection committee. This latter association persisted in multivariate models.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to show that marijuana use is associated with psychosocial factors that could impact behavioral adherence following kidney donation, while reducing chances of committee approval for kidney donation. Special attention to potential overlay between psychosocial risk factors and marijuana use should be considered when evaluating kidney donors, particularly in context of increasingly legal use.

Quantifying Risk Tolerance Among Potential Living Kidney Donors With the Donor-Specific Risk Questionnaire

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Enhanced informed consent tools improve patient engagement. A novel visual aid measured potential donors' risk tolerance to postdonation kidney failure and assessed if the closeness of the relationship to the intended recipient altered willingness to accept risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of donor evaluations at the time of enrollment into a longitudinal mixed-methods study between November 2014 and February 2016.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Three US kidney transplant centers. English-speaking adults presenting for in-person living kidney donor evaluation.

EXPOSURE

Closeness of the relationship between the potential living donor and intended recipient.

OUTCOME

Willingness to accept postdonation kidney failure.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The Donor-Specific Risk Questionnaire, a dot matrix visual diagram, was used to measure willingness to accept kidney failure risk. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between risk acceptance and data from social science instruments, which measured donors' perceived closeness with the recipient. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically per grounded theory.

RESULTS

307 participants (response rate: 86%) completed testing. 96% indicated a willingness to accept a risk of kidney failure of 0.9% or greater. Those who were older (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]), women (OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31-0.93]), and Black (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08-0.76]) were less likely to be in the medium versus low willingness to accept risk group. Closeness of the relationship to the recipient was independently associated with greater risk acceptance (for every 1-point greater closeness score, odds ratios for being in the medium and high willingness to accept risk groups were 1.21 [95% CI, 1.03-1.41] and 2.42 [95% CI, 1.53-3.82] compared with being in the low willingness to accept risk group). With the exception of parental relationships, biological linkages were not associated with accepting higher kidney failure risk.

LIMITATIONS

First demonstration of visual aid that used one risk estimate of kidney failure provided to all participants. Risk estimates were not customized to different demographic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Relationship closeness was independently associated with a greater willingness to accept postdonation kidney failure. Visual aids can provide transplant teams with individualized donor perspectives on risk thresholds and can potentially facilitate greater patient-centered care for living donors.

African Americans' discussions about living-donor kidney transplants with family or friends: Who, what, and why not?

BACKGROUND

Although discussions with family or friends can improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), they remain an understudied step in the LDKT process.

METHODS

Among 300 African American transplant candidates, we examined how sociodemographic, clinical, LDKT-related, and psychosocial characteristics related to the occurrence of LDKT discussions with family or friends. We also analyzed the relation between discussion occurrence and donor activation on transplant candidates' behalves (at least one donor inquiry or completed donor evaluation in the medical record). We assessed associations of discussion characteristics (context, content, and perceptions) with donor activation among discussants, and we identified discussion barriers among non-discussants.

RESULTS

Most candidates (90%) had discussed LDKT. Only family functioning was statistically significantly associated with discussion occurrence. Specifically, family dysfunction was associated with 62% lower odds of discussion than family function. Family functioning, discussion occurrence, and different discussion characteristics were statistically significantly related to donor activation. The most prevalent discussion barrier was never having thought about discussing LDKT.

CONCLUSIONS

Family functioning affected the likelihood of discussing LDKT, and family functioning, discussion occurrence, and discussion characteristics were associated with donor activation. Advancing understanding of how family functioning and LDKT discussions affect progression to LDKT may benefit interventions to increase LDKT.

Practicing With Uncertainty: Kidney Transplantation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic required transplant nephrologists, surgeons, and care teams to make decisions about the full spectrum of transplant program operations and clinical practices in the absence of experience or data. Initially, across the country, there was a reduction in kidney transplant procedures and a striking pause in the conduct of living donation and living-donor transplant surgeries. Aspects of candidate evaluation and follow-up rapidly converted to telehealth. Months into the pandemic, much has been learned from experiences worldwide, yet many questions remain. In this Perspective, we reflect on some of the practice decisions made by the transplant community in the initial response to the pandemic and consider lessons learned, including those related to the risks, benefits, and logistical considerations of proceeding with versus delaying deceased-donor transplantation, living donation, and living-donor transplantation during the pandemic. We review the evolution of therapeutic strategies for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and their use in transplant recipients, current consensus related to immunosuppression management in infected transplant recipients, and emerging information on vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. We share our thoughts on research priorities, discuss the areas in which we are still practicing with uncertainty, and look ahead to the next phase of the pandemic response.

Kidney Microstructural Features at the Time of Donation Predict Long-term Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease in Living Kidney Donors

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether microstructural features on a kidney biopsy specimen obtained during kidney transplant surgery predict long-term risk of chronic kidney disease in the donor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied kidney donors from May 1, 1999, through December 31, 2018, with a follow-up survey for the results of recent blood pressure and kidney function tests (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] and proteinuria). If not recently available, blood pressure and eGFRs were requested from a local clinic. Microstructural features on kidney biopsy at the time of donation were assessed as predictors of hypertension and kidney function after adjusting for years of follow-up, baseline age, sex, and clinical predictors.

RESULTS

There were 807 donors surveyed a mean 10.5 years after donation. An eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 in 6.4% (43/673) of donors was predicted by larger glomerular volume per standard deviation (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.04) and nephron number below the age-specific 5th percentile (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.31 to 8.72). An eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in 42.5% (286/673) of donors was not predicted by any microstructural feature. Residual eGFR (postdonation/predonation eGFR) was predicted by nephron number below the age-specific 5th percentile (difference, -6.07%; 95% CI, -10.24% to -1.89%). Self-reported proteinuria in 5.1% (40/786) of donors was predicted by larger glomerular volume (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.86). Incident hypertension in 18.8% (119/633) of donors was not predicted by any microstructural features.

CONCLUSION

Low nephron number for age and larger glomeruli are important microstructural predictors for long-term risk of chronic kidney disease after living kidney donation.

An International survey on living kidney donation and transplant practices during the COVID-19 pandemic

The scope of the impact of the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID‐19) pandemic on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) practices across the world is not well‐defined. We received survey responses from 204 transplant centers internationally from May to June 2020 regarding the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on LDKT practices. Respondents represented 16 countries on five continents. Overall, 75% of responding centers reported that LDKT surgery was on hold (from 67% of North American centers to 91% of European centers). The majority (59%) of centers reported that new donor evaluations were stopped (from 46% of North American centers to 86% of European centers), with additional 23% of centers reporting important decrease in evaluations. Only 10% of centers reported slight variations on their evaluations. For the centers that continued donor evaluations, 40% performed in‐person visits, 68% by video, and 42% by telephone. Center concerns for donor (82%) and recipient (76%) safety were the leading barriers to LDKT during the pandemic, followed by patients concerns (48%), and government restrictions (46%). European centers reported more barriers related to staff limitations while North and Latin American centers were more concerned with testing capacity and insufficient resources including protective equipment. As LDKT resumes, 96% of the programs intend to screen donor and recipient pairs for coronavirus infection, most of them with polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal swab samples. The COVID‐19 pandemic has had broad impact on all aspects of LDKT practice. Ongoing research and consensus‐building are needed to guide safe reopening of LDKT programs.

Investigating Ethnic Disparity in Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation in the UK: Patient-Identified Reasons for Non-Donation among Family Members

There is ethnic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplants in the UK. This study asked kidney patients from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups why members of their family were not able to be living kidney donors. Responses were compared with responses from White individuals. This questionnaire-based mixed-methods study included adults transplanted between 1/4/13–31/3/17 at 14 UK hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate why relatives could not donate, selecting all options applicable from: Age; Health; Weight; Location; Financial/Cost; Job; Blood group; No-one to care for them after donation. A box entitled ‘Other—please give details’ was provided for free-text entries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse the association between the likelihood of selecting each reason for non-donation and the participant’s self-reported ethnicity. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. In total, 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). There was strong evidence that Black, Asian and minority ethnic group individuals were more likely than White people to indicate that family members lived too far away to donate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.30–4.58), were prevented from donating by financial concerns (aOR = 2.95, 95% CI 2.02–4.29), were unable to take time off work (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18–3.02), were “not the right blood group” (aOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.35–2.01), or had no-one to care for them post-donation (aOR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.60–5.35). Four qualitative themes were identified from responses from Black, Asian and minority ethnic group participants: ‘Burden of disease within the family’; ‘Differing religious interpretations’; ‘Geographical concerns’; and ‘A culture of silence’. Patients perceive barriers to living kidney donation in the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population. If confirmed, these could be targeted by interventions to redress the observed ethnic inequity.

Survey of US Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation Practices in the COVID-19 Era

INTRODUCTION

The scope of the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) practices is not well defined.

METHODS

We surveyed US transplant programs to assess practices, strategies, and barriers to living LDKT during the COVID-19 pandemic. After institutional review board approval, the survey was distributed from 9 May 2020 to 30 May 2020 by e-mail and postings to professional society list-servs. Responses were stratified based on state COVID-19 cumulative incidence levels.

RESULTS

Staff at 118 unique centers responded, representing 61% of US living donor recovery programs and 75% of LKDT volume in the prepandemic year. Overall, 66% reported that LDKT surgery was on hold (81% in "high" vs. 49% in "low" COVID-19 cumulative incidence states). A total of 36% reported that evaluation of new donor candidates had paused, 27% reported that evaluations were very much decreased (>0% to <25% typical), and 23% reported that evaluations were moderately decreased (25% to <50% typical). Barriers to LDKT surgery included program concerns for donor (85%) and recipient (75%) safety, patient concerns (56%), elective case restrictions (47%), and hospital administrative restrictions (48%). Programs with higher local COVID-19 cumulative incidence reported more barriers related to staff and resource diversion. Most centers continuing donor evaluations used remote strategies (video, 82%; telephone, 43%). As LDKT resumes, all programs will screen for COVID-19, although timeframe and modalities will vary. Recommendations for presurgical self-quarantine are also variable.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad impacts on LDKT practice. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to reduce barriers, to guide optimal practices, and to support safe restoration of LDKT across centers.

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

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

Implementing culturally competent transplant care and implications for reducing health disparities: A prospective qualitative study

Background

Despite available evidence‐based interventions that decrease health disparities, these interventions are often not implemented. Northwestern Medicine's^® Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP) is a culturally and linguistically competent intervention designed to reduce disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) among Hispanics/Latinos. The HKTP was introduced in two transplant programs in 2016 to evaluate its effectiveness.

Objective

This study assessed barriers and facilitators to HKTP implementation preparation.

Methods

Interviews and group discussions were conducted with transplant stakeholders (ie administrators, nurses, physicians) during implementation preparation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview design and qualitative analysis.

Results

Forty‐four stakeholders participated in 24 interviews and/or 27 group discussions. New factors, not found in previous implementation preparation research in health‐care settings, emerged as facilitators and barriers to the implementation of culturally competent care. Implementation facilitators included: stakeholders’ focus on a moral imperative to implement the HKTP, personal motivations related to their Hispanic heritage, and perceptions of Hispanic patients’ transplant education needs. Implementation barriers included: stakeholders’ perceptions that Hispanics’ health insurance payer mix would negatively impact revenue, a lack of knowledge about LDKT disparities and patient data disaggregated by ethnicity/race, and a perception that the family discussion component was immoral because of the possibility of coercion.

Discussion and Conclusions

Our study identified novel barriers and facilitators to the implementation preparation of a culturally competent care intervention. Healthcare administrators can facilitate organizations’ implementation of culturally competent care interventions by understanding factors challenging care delivery processes and raising clinical team awareness of disparities in LDKT.

The First North American Experience Using Glycosorb Immunoadsorption Columns for Blood Group-Incompatible Kidney Transplantation

Background:

Blood group incompatibility (ABOi) is the most common barrier to living donor kidney transplantation. Options for such recipients include kidney paired donation (KPD) or desensitization methodology to reduce blood antibody response.

Objective:

The objective of this study is to report on the first North America experience in ABOi living donor kidney transplantation using Glycosorb ABO immunoadsorption columns.

Design:

Retrospective observational cohort study.

Setting:

Renal transplant program at St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, University of Toronto.

Patients:

Twenty-six ABOi living donor transplants from August 2011 through February 2020 were undertaken at our center.

Measurements:

Renal allograft and patient survival postdesensitization for ABOi living donor transplants and isohemagglutinin titer reduction.

Methods:

Preoperative immunosuppressive regimen consisted of a single dose of Rituximab 375 mg/m² IV on day −28; tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid, and prednisone to start on day −7. Immunoadsorption treatments with Glycosorb A or B columns were performed on day −7 through day −1 based on anti-A or anti-B titers on Spectra Optia Apheresis System. Immunosuppression included basiliximab, solumedrol followed by oral prednisone, once-daily tacrolimus, and mycophenolic acid. The mean follow-up was 53 months (3-96 months).

Results:

A total of 26 individuals underwent an attempt at desensitization of whom 24 patients underwent immediate transplant. One patient had a rebound in titers and subsequently was transplanted from a blood group compatible living donor. A second patient had an unrelated medical issue and desensitization was discontinued. Five-year patient survival was 96% and death censored allograft survival was 92%. Posttransplant anti-A or anti-B titers were monitored daily for the first 7 days posttransplant and every 2 days from days 7 to 14. There were no acute rejections seen in this cohort of transplant recipients.

Limitations:

As our protocol was first initiated as proof of concept, a few recipients had low initial isohemagglutinin titers. This may have contributed to improved clinical outcomes.

Conclusions:

ABO column immunoadsorption with specific columns is a safe and effective method for ABOi living donor kidney transplantation, and an option when KPD is less than ideal.

Trial not registered as this was a retrospective cohort review.

Protein and calorie restriction may improve outcomes in living kidney donors and kidney transplant recipients

Previously, we and others showed that dietary restriction protects against renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in animals. However, clinical translation of preoperative diets is scarce, and in the setting of kidney transplantation these data are lacking. In this pilot study, we investigated the effects of five days of a preoperative protein and caloric dietary restriction (PCR) diet in living kidney donors on the perioperative effects in donors, recipients and transplanted kidneys. Thirty-five kidney donors were randomized into either the PCR, 30% calorie and 80% protein reduction, or control group without restrictions. Adherence to the diet and kidney function in donors and their kidney recipients were analyzed. Perioperative kidney biopsies were taken in a selected group of transplanted kidneys for gene expression analysis. All donors adhered to the diet. From postoperative day 2 up until month 1, kidney function of donors was significantly better in the PCR-group. PCR-donor kidney recipients showed significantly improved kidney function and lower incidence of slow graft function and acute rejection. PCR inhibited cellular immune response pathways and activated stress-resistance signaling. These observations are the first to show that preoperative dietary restriction induces postoperative recovery benefits in humans and may be beneficial in clinical settings involving ischemia-reperfusion injury.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Comparison of 250 Cases

Living kidney donation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, however, the best surgical approach for minimally-invasive donor nephrectomy (DN) is still a matter of debate. This bi-centric study aimed to retrospectively compare perioperative outcomes and postoperative kidney function after 257 transperitoneal DNs including 52 robot-assisted (RDN) and 205 laparoscopic DNs (LDN). As primary outcomes, the intraoperative (operating time, warm ischemia time (WIT), major complications) and postoperative (length of stay, complications) results were compared. As secondary outcomes, postoperative kidney and graft function were analyzed including delayed graft function (DGF) rates, and the impact of the surgical approach was assessed. Overall, the type of minimally-invasive donor nephrectomy (RDN vs. LDN) did not affect primary outcomes, especially not operating time and WIT; and major complication and DGF rates were low in both groups. A history of smoking and preoperative kidney function, but not the surgical approach, were predictive for postoperative serum creatinine of the donor and recipient. To conclude, RDN and LDN have equivalent perioperative results in experienced centers. For this reason, not the surgical approach, but rather the graft- (preoperative kidney function) and patient-specific (history of smoking) aspects impacted postoperative kidney function.

Influence of Renal Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation on Large Artery Stiffness and Peripheral Vascular Resistance

BACKGROUND

Vascular status following renal transplantation (RT) may improve while living kidney donation (LKD) is possibly associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed glomerular filtration rate (mGFR, 51Chrome EDTA clearance) and intermediate vascular risk factors in terms of blood pressure (BP), pulse wave velocity (PWV), central augmentation index (AIx), excess pressure (Pexcess), and forearm vascular resistance in donors (n = 58, 45 ± 13 years) and recipients (n = 51, 50 ± 12 years) before and one year following LKD or RT.

RESULTS

After kidney donation, mGFR decreased by 33% to 65 ± 11 ml/min/1.73m2, while recipients obtained a mGFR of 55 ± 9 ml/min/1.73m.2 Ambulatory 24-hour mean arterial BP (MAP) remained unchanged in donors but decreased by 5 mm Hg in recipients (P < 0.05). Carotid-femoral PWV increased by 0.3 m/s in donors (P < 0.05) but remained unchanged in recipients. AIx was unaltered after LKD but decreased following RT (P < 0.01), and Pexcess did not change in either group. Resting forearm resistance (Rrest), measured by venous occlusion plethysmography, increased after LKD (P < 0.05) but was unaffected by RT, while no changes were seen in minimum resistance (Rmin). ΔPWV showed a positive linear association to Δ24-hour MAP in both groups. Multiple linear regression analysis (adjusting for age, gender, and the baseline value of the studied parameter) did not detect independent effects of graft function on 24-hour MAP, PWV, AIx, vascular resistance, or Pexcess, whereas low post-donation GFR was related to higher AIx and Rrest.

CONCLUSIONS

RT reduced BP and AIx without affecting PWV, whereas LKD resulted in increased PWV and Rrest, despite unchanged BP.

Evaluation and care of international living kidney donor candidates: Strategies for addressing common considerations and challenges

End-stage kidney disease patients in the United States may have family members or friends who are not US citizens or residents but are willing to serve as their living kidney donor in the United States ("international donors"). In July 2017, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) convened a multidisciplinary workgroup of experts in living donation care, including coordinators, social workers, donor advocates, administrators, and physicians, to evaluate educational gaps related to the evaluation and care of international donors. The evaluation of international living donor candidates is a resource-intensive process that raises key considerations for assessing risk of exploitation/inducement and addressing communication barriers, logistics barriers, and access to care in their home country. Through consensus-building discussions, we developed recommendations related to: (a) establishing program guidelines for international donor candidate evaluation and selection; (b) initial screening; (c) logistics planning; (d) comprehensive evaluation; and (e) postdonation care and follow-up. These recommendations are not intended to direct formal policy, but rather as guidance to help programs more efficiently and effectively structure and execute evaluations and care coordination. We also offer recommendations for research and advocacy to optimize the care of this unique group of living donors.

Use of the Living Kidney Donor Profile Index in the Canadian Kidney Transplant Recipient Population: A Validation Study

Background:

The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was derived in a cohort of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) from the United States to predict the risk of total graft failure. There are important differences in patient demographics, listing practices, access to transplantation, delivery of care, and posttransplant mortality in Canada as compared with the United States, and the generalizability of the LKDPI in the Canadian context is unknown.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to externally validate the LKDPI in a large contemporary cohort of Canadian KTR.

Design:

Retrospective cohort validation study.

Setting:

Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Patients:

A total of 645 adult (≥18 years old) living donor KTR between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016 with follow-up until December 31, 2017 were included in the study.

Measurements:

The predictive performance of the LKDPI was evaluated. The outcome of interest was total graft failure, defined as the need for chronic dialysis, retransplantation, or death with graft function.

Methods:

The Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the relation between the LKDPI and total graft failure. The Cox proportional hazards model was also used for external validation and performance assessment of the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model performance. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell’s C statistic and calibration was assessed graphically, comparing observed versus predicted probabilities of total graft failure.

Results:

A total of 645 living donor KTR were included in the study. The median LKDPI score was 13 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.1, 29.9). Higher LKDPI scores were associated with an increased risk of total graft failure (hazard ratio = 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-1.02; P = .02). Discrimination was poor (C statistic = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.48-0.61). Calibration was as good at 1-year posttransplant but suboptimal at 3- and 5-years posttransplant.

Limitations:

Limitations include a relatively small sample size, predicted probabilities for assessment of calibration only available for scores of 0 to 100, and some missing data handled by imputation.

Conclusions:

In this external validation study, the predictive ability of the LKDPI was modest in a cohort of Canadian KTR. Validation of prediction models is an important step to assess performance in external populations. Potential recalibration of the LKDPI may be useful prior to clinical use in external cohorts.

Arterial Hypertension as a Risk Factor for Reduced Glomerular Filtration Rate after Living Kidney Donation

Living kidney donation represents the optimal renal replacement therapy, but recent data suggest an increased long-term renal risk for the donor. Here, we evaluated the risk for reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), death, and major cardiovascular events such as nonfatal myocardial infarction or cerebrovascular event including TIA (transient ischemic attack) and stroke in 225 donors, who underwent pre-donation examinations and live donor nephrectomy between 1985 and 2014 at our center. The median follow-up time was 8.7 years (1.0–29.1). In multivariate analysis, age and arterial hypertension at baseline were significantly associated with a higher risk of adverse renal outcomes, such as (1) eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m² (age per year: HR (hazard ratio) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–1.08, hypertension: HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.22–3.98), (2) eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m² and a decrease of ≥40% from baseline (age: HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03–1.13, hypertension: HR 4.22, 95% CI 1.72–10.36), and (3) eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m² (age: HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.20, hypertension: HR 5.06, 95% CI 1.49–17.22). In addition, eGFR at time of donation (per mL/min/1.73 m²) was associated with a lower risk of (1) eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m² (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97–1.00) and (2) eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m² (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00). Age was the only significant predictor for death or major cardiovascular event (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–1.16). In conclusion, arterial hypertension, lower eGFR, and age at the time of donation are strong predictors for adverse renal outcomes in living kidney donors.