Differences in Racial and Ethnic Disparities Between First and Repeat Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest patients with graft failure had better access to repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) than transplant-naive dialysis accessing first KT. This was postulated to be because of better familiarity with the transplant process and healthcare system; whether this advantage is equitably distributed is not known. We compared the magnitude of racial/ethnic disparities in access to re-KT versus first KT.

METHODS

Using United States Renal Data System, we identified 104 454 White, Black, and Hispanic patients with a history of graft failure from 1995 to 2018, and 2 357 753 transplant-naive dialysis patients. We used adjusted Cox regression to estimate disparities in access to first and re-KT and whether the magnitude of these disparities differed between first and re-KT using a Wald test.

RESULTS

Black patients had inferior access to both waitlisting and receiving first KT and re-KT. However, the racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.80) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.64) was greater than the racial/ethnic disparities in first KT (waitlisting: aHR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93; Pinteraction = 0.001; KT: aHR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64-0.72; Pinteraction < 0.001). For Hispanic patients, ethnic disparities in waitlisting for re-KT (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) were greater than for first KT (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.16; Pinteraction < 0.001). However, the disparity in receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80) was similar to that for first KT (aHR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79; Pinteraction = 0.55). Inferences were similar when restricting the cohorts to the Kidney Allocation System era.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike White patients, Black and Hispanic patients with graft failure do not experience improved access to re-KT. This suggests that structural and systemic barriers likely persist for racialized patients accessing re-KT, and systemic changes are needed to achieve transplant equity.

Neighborhood Racial and Ethnic Segregation and the Risk of Dementia in Older Adults Living with Kidney Failure

BACKGROUND

Dementia disproportionately impacts older minoritized adults with kidney failure. To better understand the mechanism of this disparity, we studied the role of racial and ethnic segregation (segregation hereafter), a form of structural racism recently identified as a mechanism in numerous other health disparities.

METHODS

We identified 901,065 older adults (age ≥55) with kidney failure from 2003 to 2019 using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). We quantified dementia risk across tertiles of residential neighborhood segregation score using cause-specific hazard models, adjusting for individual and neighborhood-level factors. We included an interaction term to quantify the differential effect of segregation on dementia diagnosis by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

We identified 79,851 older adults with kidney failure diagnosed with dementia between 2003 and 2019 (median follow-up: 2.2 years). Compared to those in low-segregation neighborhoods, older adults with kidney failure in high-segregation neighborhoods had a 1.63-fold (95% confidence interval (CI):1.60-1.66) higher risk of dementia diagnosis, an association that differed by race and ethnicity (Asian: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1.26, 95%CI:1.15-1.38; Black: aHR=1.66, 95%CI:1.61-1.71; Hispanic: aHR=2.05, 95%CI:1.93-2.18; White: aHR=1.59, 95%CI:1.55-1.64;Pinteraction<0.001). Notably, older Asian (aHR=1.76, 95%CI:1.64-1.89), Black (aHR=2.65, 95%CI:2.54-2.77), Hispanic (aHR=2.15, 95%CI:2.04-2.26), and White (aHR=2.20, 95%CI:2.09-2.31) adults with kidney failure residing in minority-predominant high-segregation neighborhoods had a higher risk of dementia diagnosis compared to older White adults with kidney failure in White-predominant high-segregation neighborhoods. Moreover, older adults with kidney failure receiving care at dialysis facilities located in high-segregation neighborhoods also experienced a higher risk of dementia diagnosis (aHR=1.53, 95%CI:1.50-1.56); this association differed by race and ethnicity (Pinteraction<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Residing in or receiving care at dialysis facilities located in high-segregation neighborhoods was associated with a higher risk of dementia diagnosis among older individuals with kidney failure, particularly minoritized individuals.

Neighborhood Segregation and Access to Live Donor Kidney Transplantation

Importance

Identifying the mechanisms of structural racism, such as racial and ethnic segregation, is a crucial first step in addressing the persistent disparities in access to live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

Objective

To assess whether segregation at the candidate's residential neighborhood and transplant center neighborhood is associated with access to LDKT.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study spanning January 1995 to December 2021, participants included non-Hispanic Black or White adult candidates for first-time LDKT reported in the US national transplant registry. The median (IQR) follow-up time for each participant was 1.9 (0.6-3.0) years.

Main Outcome and Measures

Segregation, measured using the Theil H method to calculate segregation tertiles in zip code tabulation areas based on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates, reflects the heterogeneity in neighborhood racial and ethnic composition. To quantify the likelihood of LDKT by neighborhood segregation, cause-specific hazard models were adjusted for individual-level and neighborhood-level factors and included an interaction between segregation tertiles and race.

Results

Among 162 587 candidates for kidney transplant, the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (13.2) years, 65 141 (40.1%) were female, 80 023 (49.2%) were Black, and 82 564 (50.8%) were White. Among Black candidates, living in a high-segregation neighborhood was associated with 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.97]) lower access to LDKT relative to residence in low-segregation neighborhoods; no such association was observed among White candidates (P for interaction = .01). Both Black candidates (AHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-1.00]) and White candidates (AHR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]) listed at transplant centers in high-segregation neighborhoods had lower access to LDKT relative to their counterparts listed at centers in low-segregation neighborhoods (P for interaction = .64). Within high-segregation transplant center neighborhoods, candidates listed at predominantly minority neighborhoods had 17% lower access to LDKT relative to candidates listed at predominantly White neighborhoods (AHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]). Black candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers in predominantly minority neighborhoods had significantly lower likelihood of LDKT relative to White candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers located in predominantly White neighborhoods (65% and 64%, respectively).

Conclusions

Segregated residential and transplant center neighborhoods likely serve as a mechanism of structural racism, contributing to persistent racial disparities in access to LDKT. To promote equitable access, studies should assess targeted interventions (eg, community outreach clinics) to improve support for potential candidates and donors and ultimately mitigate the effects of segregation.

Inequities in kidney health and kidney care

Health inequity refers to the existence of unnecessary and unfair differences in the ability of an individual or community to achieve optimal health and access appropriate care. Kidney diseases, including acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, are the epitome of health inequity. Kidney disease risk and outcomes are strongly associated with inequities that occur across the entire clinical course of disease. Insufficient investment across the spectrum of kidney health and kidney care is a fundamental source of inequity. In addition, social and structural inequities, including inequities in access to primary health care, education and preventative strategies, are major risk factors for, and contribute to, poorer outcomes for individuals living with kidney diseases. Access to affordable kidney care is also highly inequitable, resulting in financial hardship and catastrophic health expenditure for the most vulnerable. Solutions to these injustices require leadership and political will. The nephrology community has an important role in advocacy and in identifying and implementing solutions to dismantle inequities that affect kidney health.

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate, Albuminuria, and Adverse Outcomes: An Individual-Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Importance

Chronic kidney disease (low estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] or albuminuria) affects approximately 14% of adults in the US.

Objective

To evaluate associations of lower eGFR based on creatinine alone, lower eGFR based on creatinine combined with cystatin C, and more severe albuminuria with adverse kidney outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, and other health outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Individual-participant data meta-analysis of 27 503 140 individuals from 114 global cohorts (eGFR based on creatinine alone) and 720 736 individuals from 20 cohorts (eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C) and 9 067 753 individuals from 114 cohorts (albuminuria) from 1980 to 2021.

Exposures

The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2021 equations for eGFR based on creatinine alone and eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C; and albuminuria estimated as urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The risk of kidney failure requiring replacement therapy, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute kidney injury, any hospitalization, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral artery disease. The analyses were performed within each cohort and summarized with random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

Within the population using eGFR based on creatinine alone (mean age, 54 years [SD, 17 years]; 51% were women; mean follow-up time, 4.8 years [SD, 3.3 years]), the mean eGFR was 90 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD, 22 mL/min/1.73 m2) and the median UACR was 11 mg/g (IQR, 8-16 mg/g). Within the population using eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C (mean age, 59 years [SD, 12 years]; 53% were women; mean follow-up time, 10.8 years [SD, 4.1 years]), the mean eGFR was 88 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD, 22 mL/min/1.73 m2) and the median UACR was 9 mg/g (IQR, 6-18 mg/g). Lower eGFR (whether based on creatinine alone or based on creatinine and cystatin C) and higher UACR were each significantly associated with higher risk for each of the 10 adverse outcomes, including those in the mildest categories of chronic kidney disease. For example, among people with a UACR less than 10 mg/g, an eGFR of 45 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 based on creatinine alone was associated with significantly higher hospitalization rates compared with an eGFR of 90 to 104 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.2-1.3]; 161 vs 79 events per 1000 person-years; excess absolute risk, 22 events per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 19-25 events per 1000 person-years]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this retrospective analysis of 114 cohorts, lower eGFR based on creatinine alone, lower eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C, and more severe UACR were each associated with increased rates of 10 adverse outcomes, including adverse kidney outcomes, cardiovascular diseases, and hospitalizations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Redressing the Harms of Race-Based Kidney Function Estimation

This Viewpoint emphasizes the urgency of abolishing race-based medical practices and explains how they have unjustly contributed to racial inequities in clinical care and health outcomes.

Testing the Differential Access Hypothesis That Black Kidney Transplant Candidates Perceive Social Network Access to Fewer Potential Living Donors Than White Candidates

INTRODUCTION

Many studies of Black-White disparities in living donor kidney transplantation hypothesize that they were partially due to Black-White differences in candidate social network access to healthy, willing donors. This differential access hypothesis has not been tested using directly measured social network data.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Do black kidney transplant candidates have perceived lower social network access to health and/or willing living donors than white candidates?

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey that measured the social network members was collected in 2015. Black-White differences in patient counts of perceived healthy and/or willing potential donors in social networks, and individual network members' probability of being perceived healthy and/or willing, were compared using logistic and negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS

The survey included 66 kidney transplant candidates reporting on 1474 social network members at a large Southeastern US transplant center in 2015. Black and White patients had similar access to perceived healthy, likely potential donors (86% vs 87% had 1 or more, P = .92; 5.91 vs 4.13 mean counts, P = .20) and perceived healthy, agreed potential donors (56% vs 48%, P = .54; 1.77 vs 1.74, P = .97). Black patients' network members were individually more likely to be perceived healthy and likely potential donors (26% vs 21%, P = .04), and White patients' network members were more likely to have agreed (13% vs 9%, P = .03), but these differences were statistically insignificant in demographically adjusted models.

CONCLUSION

Black and White transplant candidates perceived access to similar numbers of potential donors in their social networks. This result does not support the differential access hypothesis.

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

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

Designing Interventions Addressing Structural Racism to Reduce Kidney Health Disparities: A Report from a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop

Structural racism embodies the many ways in which society fosters racial discrimination through "mutually reinforcing inequitable systems" that limit access to resources and opportunities that can promote health and well being among marginalized communities. To achieve health equity, and kidney health equity more specifically, structural racism must be eliminated. In February 2022, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases convened the "Designing Interventions that Address Structural Racism to Reduce Kidney Health Disparities" workshop, which was aimed at describing the mechanisms through which structural racism contributes to health and health care disparities for people along the continuum of kidney disease and identifying actionable opportunities for interventional research focused on dismantling or addressing the effects of structural racism. Participants identified six domains as key targets for interventions and future research: (1) apply an antiracism lens, (2) promote structural interventions, (3) target multiple levels, (4) promote effective community and stakeholder engagement, (5) improve data collection, and (6) advance health equity through new health care models. There is an urgent need for research to develop, implement, and evaluate interventions that address the unjust systems, policies, and laws that generate and perpetuate inequities in kidney health.

Examining post-donation outcomes in Hispanic/Latinx living kidney donors in the United States: A systematic review

We conducted a systematic review to assess outcomes in Hispanic donors and explore how Hispanic ethnicity was characterized. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus through October 2021. Two reviewers independently screened study titles, abstracts, and full texts; they also qualitatively synthesized results and independently assessed quality of included studies. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes ranged from 4007 to 143,750 donors and mean age ranged from 37 to 54 years. Maximum follow-up time of studies varied from a perioperative donor nephrectomy period to 30 years post-donation. Hispanic donors ranged between 6% and 21% of the donor populations across studies. Most studies reported Hispanic ethnicity under race or a combined race and ethnicity category. Compared to non-Hispanic White donors, Hispanic donors were not at increased risk for post-donation mortality, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, non-pregnancy-related hospitalizations, or overall perioperative surgical complications. Compared to non-Hispanic White donors, most studies showed Hispanic donors were at higher risk for diabetes mellitus following nephrectomy; however, mixed findings were seen regarding the risk for post-donation chronic kidney disease and hypertension. Future studies should evaluate cultural, socioeconomic, and geographic differences within the heterogeneous Hispanic donor population, which may further explain variation in health outcomes.

Perceived Susceptibility to Chronic Kidney Disease and Hypertension Self-Management among Black and White Live Kidney Donors

Background

Despite the societal benefits of live kidney donation, Black donors may be more likely than White donors to develop hypertension (HTN) and chronic kidney disease after donation. Among live kidney donors diagnosed with post-donation HTN, little is known about potential racial/ethnic differences in HTN self-care behaviors and perceived susceptibility to developing kidney disease.

Methods

We ascertained electronic medical records and phone survey data from live donors enrolled in the multi-center Wellness and Health Outcomes of LivE Donors (WHOLE-Donor) Hypertension Care Study between May 2013 and April 2020. Using multivariable logistic regression models performed January through June 2021, we examined potential associations of donor race/ethnicity with perceived susceptibility to kidney disease and self-care behaviors (ie, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System measure assessing self-reported actions to control high blood pressure).

Results

The study included 318 US-based live kidney donors who developed post-donation HTN (57.6% female; 78.9% White; 18.6% Black; and mean age 46.7 years at donation). Black donors were equally as likely as White donors to report being moderately or strongly concerned about developing kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 1.27, 95%CI: .66, 2.14, P=.57). Donors with diabetes were more likely than those without diabetes (aOR: 2.43, 95%CI: 1.03, 5.01, P=.04), while donors aged >50 years were less likely than younger donors (aOR: .39, 95%CI: .18, .85, P=.02) to report being moderately or strongly concerned about kidney disease. Overall, 87% of donors reported taking at least one action to help control blood pressure, with no significant differences by sociodemographic factors.

Conclusions

We found no substantial differences in perceived susceptibility to kidney disease among Black and White donors, despite published evidence that Black donors may experience greater risk of developing kidney disease than White donors. Behavioral interventions to enhance knowledge about future disease risk, attitudes, and self-care strategies among living kidney donors may be beneficial.

Honoring Dr. Shalon Irving, A Champion for Health Equity

Shalon Irving's 2017 death brought national attention to maternal mortality among Black women in the US. This essay remembers her life and legacy.

Elucidating measures of systemic racism to mitigate racial disparities in kidney transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given recent national attention to the role of racism in perpetuating racial inequities in society and health, this review provides a timely and relevant summary of key measures of systemic racism in kidney transplantation. More specifically, the review identifies current and promising interventions, whereas highlighting the need for more sustainable and impactful interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Racial disparities persist in kidney transplantation. Black and Hispanic individuals are less likely to receive a kidney transplant than non-Hispanic Whites despite disproportionately higher rates of kidney failure. Studies demonstrate that socioeconomic factors do not fully explain existing racial disparities in transplantation. Systemic racism at all levels, individual, interpersonal, institutional, and structural, is at the core of racial disparities, and current interventions are insufficient in mitigating their effects. Thus, targeted and sustainable interventions must be implemented to mitigate systemic racism in kidney transplantation.

SUMMARY

Systemic racism in all its forms continues to influence disparities at all stages of kidney transplantation. This paper highlights recent findings that shed light on how racism contributes to racial disparities in kidney transplantation. Using these findings to identify targets and strategies for mitigation, relevant interventions and policies that show promise are detailed.

Gender and racial disparities in the transplant surgery workforce

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores trends in the United States (US) transplant surgery workforce with a focus on historical demographics, post-fellowship job market, and quality of life reported by transplant surgeons. Ongoing efforts to improve women and racial/ethnic minority representation in transplant surgery are highlighted. Future directions to create a transplant workforce that reflects the diversity of the US population are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities among transplant surgeons is minimal. Although recent data shows an improvement in the number of Black transplant surgeons from 2% to 5.5% and an increase in women to 12%, the White to Non-White transplant workforce ratio has increased 35% from 2000 to 2013. Transplant surgeons report an average of 4.3 call nights per week and less than five leisure days a month. Transplant ranks 1st among surgical sub-specialties in the prevalence of three well-studied facets of burnout. Concerns about lifestyle may contribute to the decreasing demand for advanced training in abdominal transplantation by US graduates.

SUMMARY

Minimal improvements have been made in transplant surgery workforce diversity. Sustained and intentional recruitment and promotion efforts are needed to improve the representation of women and minority physicians and advanced practice providers in the field.

Dismantling structural racism as a root cause of racial disparities in COVID-19 and transplantation

As the United States faces unparalleled challenges due to COVID-19, racial disparities in health and healthcare have once again taken center stage. If effective interventions to address racial disparities in transplantation, including those magnified by COVID-19, are to be designed and implemented at the national level, it is first critical to understand the complex mechanisms by which structural, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized racism influence the presence of racial disparities in healthcare and transplantation. Specifically, we must deeply re-evaluate how scientists and clinicians think about race in the transplant context, and we must actively shift our efforts from merely observing disparities to acknowledging and acting on racism as a root cause underlying the vast majority of these disparities. We must do better to ensure equitable access and outcomes for all transplant patients, including within the current COVID-19 pandemic. We respectfully offer this viewpoint as a call to action to every reader to join us in working together to help dismantle racist influences and advance transplant equity.

Results of a data-driven performance improvement initiative in organ donation

New metrics for organ procurement organization (OPO) performance utilize National Center for Health Statistics data to measure cause, age, and location consistent (CALC) deaths. We used this denominator to identify opportunities for improved donor conversion at one OPO, Indiana Donor Network (INOP). We sought to determine whether such analyses are immediately actionable for quality improvement (QI) initiatives directed at increased donor conversion. CALC-based assessment of INOP's performance revealed an opportunity to improve conversion of older donors. Following the QI initiative, INOP donor yield rose by 44%, while organs transplanted rose by 29%. These changes tolerated temporary disruption around the COVID-19 pandemic. Improved donor yield was primarily seen in older groups identified by CALC-based methods. Process changes in resource allocation and monitoring were associated with a 57% increase in the number of potential donors approached in the QI period and a subsequent rise in the number of potential donor referrals, suggesting positive feedback at area hospitals. Post-intervention, INOP's projected donation performance rose from 51st to 18th among all OPOs. OPOs can use CALC death data to accurately assess donor conversion by categories including age and race/ethnicity. These data can be used in real time to inform OPO-level processes to maximize donor recovery.

Examination of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Deceased Organ Donation Ratio Over Time in the US

Importance

Historically, deceased organ donation was lower among Black compared with White populations, motivating efforts to reduce racial disparities. The overarching effect of these efforts in Black and other racial/ethnic groups remains unclear.

Objective

To examine changes in deceased organ donation over time.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study used data from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2017, from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to quantify the number of actual deceased organ donors, and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research Detailed Mortality File to quantify the number of potential donors (individuals who died under conditions consistent with organ donation). Data were analyzed from December 2, 2019, to May 14, 2020.

Exposures

Race and ethnicity of deceased and potential donors.

Main Outcomes and Measures

For each racial/ethnic group and year, a donation ratio was calculated as the number of actual deceased donors divided by the number of potential donors. Direct age and sex standardization was used to allow for group comparisons, and Poisson regression was used to quantify changes in donation ratio over time.

Results

A total of 141 534 deceased donors and 5 268 200 potential donors were included in the analysis. Among Black individuals, the donation ratio increased 2.58-fold from 1999 to 2017 (yearly change in adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.05; P < .001). This increase was significantly greater than the 1.60-fold increase seen in White individuals. Nevertheless, substantial racial differences remained, with Black individuals still donating at only 69% the rate of White individuals in 2017 (P < .001). Among other racial minority populations, changes were less drastic. Deceased organ donation increased 1.80-fold among American Indian/Alaska Native and 1.40-fold among Asian or Pacific Islander populations, with substantial racial differences remaining in 2017 (American Indian/Alaska Native population donation at 28% and Asian/Pacific Islander population donation at 85% the rate of the White population). Deceased organ donation differences between Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino populations increased over time (4% lower in 2017).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that differences in deceased organ donation between White and some racial minority populations have attenuated over time. The greatest gains were observed among Black individuals, who have been the primary targets of study and intervention. Despite improvements, substantial differences remain, suggesting that novel approaches are needed to understand and address relatively lower rates of deceased organ donation among all racial minorities.

Mortality and Access to Kidney Transplantation in Patients with Sickle Cell Disease-Associated Kidney Failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patients with sickle cell disease-associated kidney failure have high mortality, which might be lowered by kidney transplantation. However, because they show higher post-transplant mortality compared with patients with other kidney failure etiologies, kidney transplantation remains controversial in this population, potentially limiting their chance of receiving transplantation. We aimed to quantify the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation in this population and determine the chance of receiving transplantation with sickle cell disease as the cause of kidney failure as compared with other etiologies of kidney failure.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using a national registry, we studied all adults with kidney failure who began maintenance dialysis or were added to the kidney transplant waiting list in 1998-2017. To quantify the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation, we measured the absolute risk difference and hazard ratio for mortality in matched pairs of transplant recipients versus waitlisted candidates in the sickle cell and control groups. To compare the chance of receiving transplantation, we estimated hazard ratios for receiving transplantation in the sickle cell and control groups, treating death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Compared with their matched waitlisted candidates, 189 transplant recipients with sickle cell disease and 220,251 control recipients showed significantly lower mortality. The absolute risk difference at 10 years post-transplant was 20.3 (98.75% confidence interval, 0.9 to 39.8) and 19.8 (98.75% confidence interval, 19.2 to 20.4) percentage points in the sickle cell and control groups, respectively. The hazard ratio was also similar in the sickle cell (0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.91) and control (0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.55) groups (interaction P=0.8). Nonetheless, the sickle cell group was less likely to receive transplantation than the controls (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.87). Similar disparities were found among waitlisted candidates (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with sickle cell disease-associated kidney failure exhibited similar decreases in mortality associated with kidney transplantation as compared with those with other kidney failure etiologies. Nonetheless, the sickle cell population was less likely to receive transplantation, even after waitlist registration.

National Trends in the Association of Race and Ethnicity With Predialysis Nephrology Care in the United States From 2005 to 2015

Importance

Predialysis nephrology care is associated with better survival among patients with end-stage kidney disease.

Objective

To examine national trends in racial/ethnic disparities in receipt of predialysis nephrology care at least 1 year before dialysis initiation in the United States from 2005 to 2015.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This national registry study assessed US registry data of 1 000 390 adults in the US Renal Data System who initiated maintenance dialysis treatment from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2015, in multiple cross-sectional analyses. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine national trends in racial/ethnic disparities in receipt of predialysis nephrology care with adjustments for potential confounders. Data were analyzed April 17, 2020.

Exposure

Race/ethnicity of the patients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Receipt of at least 12 months of predialysis nephrology care as determined by clinician-based documentation on the End Stage Renal Disease Medical Evidence Report Form CMS 2728.

Results

Among 1 000 390 adults (57.2% male; 54.6% White, 27.8% Black, 14.0% Hispanic, and 3.6% Asian; mean [SD] age, 62.4 [15.6] years) who initiated maintenance dialysis in the United States from 2005 to 2015, 310 743 (31.1%) received at least 12 months of predialysis nephrology care. In 2005 to 2007, compared with White adults, the adjusted odds ratio for receipt of at least 12 months of predialysis nephrology care was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84) among Black adults, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65-0.69) among Hispanic adults, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89) among Asian adults; in 2014 to 2015, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.78) among Black adults, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.63) among Hispanic adults, and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95) among Asian adults.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of more than 1 million US adults with end-stage kidney disease, racial and ethnic disparities in predialysis nephrology care did not substantially improve from 2005 to 2015. Study findings suggest that national strategies to address racial/ethnic disparities in predialysis nephrology care are needed.

COVID-19, Racism, and Racial Disparities in Kidney Disease: Galvanizing the Kidney Community Response

PodcastThis article contains a podcast athttps://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2020_07_21_JASN2020060809.mp3.

Association of Socioeconomic Status and Comorbidities with Racial Disparities during Kidney Transplant Evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Black patients referred for kidney transplantation have surpassed many obstacles but likely face continued racial disparities before transplant. The mechanisms that underlie these disparities are unclear. We determined the contributions of socioeconomic status (SES) and comorbidities as mediators to disparities in listing and transplant.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We studied a cohort (n=1452 black; n=1561 white) of patients with kidney failure who were referred for and started the transplant process (2009-2018). We estimated the direct and indirect effects of SES (self-reported income, education, and employment) and medical comorbidities (self-reported and chart-abstracted) as mediators of racial disparities in listing using Cox proportional hazards analysis with inverse odds ratio weighting. Among the 983 black and 1085 white candidates actively listed, we estimated the direct and indirect effects of SES and comorbidities as mediators of racial disparities on receipt of transplant using Poisson regression with inverse odds ratio weighting.

RESULTS

Within the first year, 876 (60%) black and 1028 (66%) white patients were waitlisted. The relative risk of listing for black compared with white patients was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.69 to 0.83); after adjustment for SES and comorbidity, the relative risk was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.97). The proportion of the racial disparity in listing was explained by SES by 36% (95% CI, 26% to 57%), comorbidity by 44% (95% CI, 35% to 61%), and SES with comorbidity by 58% (95% CI, 44% to 85%). There were 409 (42%) black and 496 (45%) white listed candidates transplanted, with a median duration of follow-up of 3.9 (interquartile range, 1.2-7.1) and 2.8 (interquartile range, 0.8-6.3) years, respectively. The incidence rate ratio for black versus white candidates was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.96); SES and comorbidity did not explain the racial disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

SES and comorbidity partially mediated racial disparities in listing but not for transplant.

Donor-Recipient Relationship and Risk of ESKD in Live Kidney Donors of Varied Racial Groups

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017.

EXPOSURE

Biological relationship of donor and recipient.

OUTCOME

ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used.

RESULTS

Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6).

LIMITATIONS

Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.

Neighborhood Poverty and Sex Differences in Live Donor Kidney Transplant Outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Neighborhood poverty has been associated with worse outcomes after live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), and prior work suggests that women with kidney disease may be more susceptible to the negative influence of poverty than men. As such, our goal was to examine whether poverty differentially affects women in influencing LDKT outcomes.

METHODS

Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and US Census, we performed multivariable Cox regression to compare outcomes among 18 955 women and 30 887 men who received a first LDKT in 2005-2014 with follow-up through December 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Women living in poor (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.50) and middle-income (aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.14-1.40) neighborhoods had higher risk of graft loss than men, but there were no differences in wealthy areas (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88-1.29). Women living in wealthy (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87) and middle-income (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92) neighborhoods incurred a survival advantage over men, but there were no statistically significant differences in mortality in poor areas (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Given our findings that poverty is more strongly associated with graft loss in women, targeted efforts are needed to specifically address mechanisms driving these disparities in LDKT outcomes.

Barriers to access in pediatric living-donor liver transplantation

Children receiving a LDLT have superior post-transplant outcomes, but this procedure is only used for 10% of transplant recipients. Better understanding about barriers toward LDLT and the sociodemographic characteristics that influence these underlying mechanisms would help to inform strategies to increase its use. We conducted an online, anonymous survey of parents/caregivers for children awaiting, or have received, a liver transplant regarding their knowledge and attitudes about LDLT. The survey was completed by 217 respondents. While 97% of respondents understood an individual could donate a portion of their liver, only 72% knew the steps in evaluation, and 69% understood the donor surgery was covered by the recipient's insurance. Individuals with public insurance were less likely than those with private insurance to know the steps for LDLT evaluation (44% vs 82%; P < 0.001). Respondents with public insurance were less likely to know someone that had been a living donor (44% vs 56%; P = 0.005) as were individuals without a college degree (64% vs 85%; P = 0.007). Nearly all respondents generally trusted their healthcare team. Among respondents, 82% believed they were well-informed about LDLT but individuals with public insurance were significantly less likely to feel well-informed (67% vs 87%; P = 0.03) and to understand how donor surgery might impact donor work/time off (44% vs 81%; P = 0.001). Substantial gaps exist in parental understanding about LDLT, including its evaluation, potential benefits, and complications. Greater emphasis on addressing these barriers, especially to individuals with fewer resources, will be helpful to expand the use of LDLT.

Overcoming Barriers to Sustaining Health Equity Interventions: Insights from the National Institutes of Health Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities

We conducted qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews with the directors of the 10 National Institutes of Health Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (NIH/CPHHD) to identify factors that were associated with the sustainability of 19 interventions developed to address cancer disparities and 17 interventions developed to address cardiovascular disease disparities in the United States. Interview transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method of analysis to identify key themes and synthesize findings. Directors at NIH/CPHHD reported that barriers to sustainability included uncertainty about future funding and insufficient resources to build and maintain diverse stakeholder partnerships. Strategies that helped to overcome these barriers included developing and engaging community partnerships with health care systems; early pursuit of multiple funding sources; and investments in infrastructure to address the social determinants of health. Sustainability planning should be incorporated during the early stages of intervention development to facilitate maintenance of successful programs that address health disparities.

Perspectives on implementing mobile health technology for living kidney donor follow-up: In-depth interviews with transplant providers

BACKGROUND

United States transplant centers are required to report follow-up data for living kidney donors for 2 years post-donation. However, living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up is often incomplete. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could ease data collection burden but have not yet been explored in this context.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 21 transplant providers and thought leaders about challenges in LKD follow-up, and the potential role of mHealth in overcoming these challenges.

RESULTS

Participants reported challenges conveying the importance of follow-up to LKDs, limited data from international/out-of-town LKDs, and inadequate staffing. They believed the 2-year requirement was insufficient, but expressed difficulty engaging LKDs for even this short time and inadequate resources for longer-term follow-up. Participants believed an mHealth system for post-donation follow-up could benefit LKDs (by simplifying communication/tasks and improving donor engagement) and transplant centers (by streamlining communication and decreasing workforce burden). Concerns included cost, learning curves, security/privacy, patient language/socioeconomic barriers, and older donor comfort with mHealth technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant providers felt that mHealth technology could improve LKD follow-up and help centers meet reporting thresholds. However, designing a secure, easy to use, and cost-effective system remains challenging.

How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation.

METHODS

We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics.

RESULTS

Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least 1 purpose. Although most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (P = 0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (P = 0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (P < 0.01), increasing awareness about deceased organ donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01). Individual characteristics influence opinions about the role and clinical usefulness of social media.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant center involvement and support for social media may influence clinician perceptions and practices. Increasing use of social media among transplant professionals may provide an opportunity to deliver high-quality information to patients.

Limited health literacy and adverse outcomes among kidney transplant candidates

More than one-third of US adults have limited health literacy, putting them at risk of adverse clinical outcomes. We evaluated the prevalence of limited health literacy among 1578 adult kidney transplant (KT) candidates (May 2014-November 2017) and examined its association with listing for transplant and waitlist mortality in this pilot study. Limited health literacy was assessed at KT evaluation by using a standard cutoff score ≤5 on the Brief Health Literacy Screen (score range 0-12, lower scores indicate worse health literacy). We used logistic regression and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to identify risk factors for limited health literacy and to quantify its association with listing and waitlist mortality. We found that 8.9% of candidates had limited health literacy; risk factors included less than college education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.86-4.43), frailty (aOR = 1.85, 95% CI:1.22-2.80), comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index [1-point increase] aOR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20), and cognitive impairment (aOR = 3.45, 95% CI: 2.20-5.41) after adjusting for age, sex, race, and income. Candidates with limited health literacy had a 30% (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.91) decreased likelihood of listing and a 2.42-fold (95% CI: 1.16- to 5.05-fold) increased risk of waitlist mortality. Limited health literacy may be a salient mechanism in access to KT; programs to aid candidates with limited health literacy may improve outcomes and reduce disparities.

Better graft outcomes from offspring donor kidneys among living donor kidney transplant recipients in the United States

A recent study reported that kidney transplant recipients of offspring living donors had higher graft loss and mortality. This seemed counterintuitive, given the excellent HLA matching and younger age of offspring donors; we were concerned about residual confounding and other study design issues. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2001-2016 to evaluate death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality for recipients of offspring versus nonoffspring living donor kidneys, using Cox regression models with interaction terms. Recipients of offspring kidneys had lower DCGF than recipients of nonoffspring kidneys (15-year cumulative incidence 21.2% vs 26.1%, P < .001). This association remained after adjustment for recipient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = _0.73 0.77_0.82 , P < .001), and was attenuated among African American donors (aHR _0.77 0.85_0.95 ; interaction: P = .01) and female recipients (aHR _0.77 0.84_0.91 , P < .001). Although offspring kidney recipients had higher mortality (15-year mortality 56.4% vs 37.2%, P < .001), this largely disappeared with adjustment for recipient age alone (aHR = _1.02 1.06_1.10 , P = .002) and was nonsignificant after further adjustment for other recipient characteristics (aHR = _0.93 0.97_1.01 , P = .1). Kidneys from offspring donors provided lower graft failure and comparable mortality. An otherwise eligible donor should not be dismissed because they are the offspring of the recipient, and we encourage continued individualized counseling for potential donors.

Use of Twitter in communicating living solid organ donation information to the public: An exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals

BACKGROUND

As transplant centers start leveraging Twitter for information dissemination and public engagement, it is important to understand current living solid organ donation-related Twitter use.

METHODS

We identified public Twitter profiles available in 01/2017 that referenced living organ donation and analyzed the use of donation-related Twitter handles, names, or profile information. Tweets were manually abstracted and qualitatively analyzed for common themes. Social media influence of those tweeting about living donation was evaluated using Klout score.

RESULTS

We identified 93 donors, 61 professionals, 12 hospitals, and 19 organizations that met eligibility criteria. Social media influence was similar across these groups (P = 0.4). Donors (16%) and organizations (23%) were more likely than professionals (7%) or hospitals (0%) to include transplant-related educational information in their profiles (P = 0.007). Living donation-related tweets were most commonly donation stories (33%), news reports (20%), reports about new transplant research (15%), and sharing transplant candidates' searches for donors (14%).

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals, hospitals, and organizations on Twitter provides insight into how the social media platform may be used to communicate about and disseminate information about living donation.

Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Use of Mobile Health Technologies for Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up.

METHODS

We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

Racial differences in completion of the living kidney donor evaluation process

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) persist but the most effective target to eliminate these disparities remains unknown. One potential target could be delays during completion of the live donor evaluation process. We studied racial differences in progression through the evaluation process for 247 African American (AA) and 664 non-AA living donor candidates at our center between January 2011 and March 2015. AA candidates were more likely to be obese (38% vs 22%: P < .001), biologically related (66% vs 44%: P < .001), and live ≤50 miles from the center (64% vs 37%: P < .001) than non-AAs. Even after adjusting for these differences, AAs were less likely to progress from referral to donation (aHR for AA vs non-AA: _0.26 0.47 _0.83; P = .01). We then assessed racial differences in completion of each step of the evaluation process and found disparities in progression from medical screening to in-person evaluation (aHR: _0.41 0.62_0.94; P = .02) and from clearance to donation (aHR: _0.28 0.51_0.91; P = .02), compared with from referral to medical screening (aHR: _0.78 1.02_1.33; P = .95) and from in-person evaluation to clearance (aHR: _0.59 0.93_1.44; P = .54). Delays may be a manifestation of the transplant candidate's social network, thus, targeted efforts to optimize networks for identification of donor candidates may help address LDKT disparities.

Effectiveness of informational decision aids and a live donor financial assistance program on pursuit of live kidney transplants in African American hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

African Americans have persistently poor access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT). We conducted a small randomized trial to provide preliminary evidence of the effect of informational decision support and donor financial assistance interventions on African American hemodialysis patients' pursuit of LDKT.

METHODS

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive (1) Usual Care; (2) the Providing Resources to Enhance African American Patients' Readiness to Make Decisions about Kidney Disease (PREPARED); or (3) PREPARED plus a living kidney donor financial assistance program. Our primary outcome was patients' actions to pursue LDKT (discussions with family, friends, or doctor; initiation or completion of the recipient LDKT medical evaluation; or identification of a donor). We also measured participants' attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of interventions' usefulness.

RESULTS

Of 329 screened, 92 patients were eligible and randomized to Usual Care (n = 31), PREPARED (n = 30), or PREPARED plus financial assistance (n = 31). Most participants reported interventions helped their decision making about renal replacement treatments (62%). However there were no statistically significant improvements in LDKT actions among groups over 6 months. Further, no participants utilized the living donor financial assistance benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest these interventions may need to be paired with personal support or navigation services to overcome key communication, logistical, and financial barriers to LDKT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov [ NCT01439516 ] [August 31, 2011].

Provider Perceptions of the Organization's Cultural Competence Climate and Their Skills and Behaviors Targeting Patient-Centered Care for Socially At-Risk Populations

As part of a cultural competence needs assessment study at a large academic health care system, we conducted a survey among 1,220 practicing physicians to assess their perceptions of the organization's cultural competence climate and their skills and behaviors targeting patient-centered care for culturally and socially diverse patients. Less than half of providers reported engaging in behaviors to address cultural and social barriers more than 75% of the time. In multivariable logistic regression models, providers who reported moderate or major structural problems were more likely to report low skillfulness in identifying patient mistrust (aOR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.23-3.28, p&lt;0.01), how well patients read and write English (aOR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.03-2.57, p=0.03), and socioeconomic barriers (aOR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.14-4.01, p=0.01), than providers who reported only small or no structural problems. Improved structural support for socially and culturally complex medical encounters is needed to enhance care for socially at-risk patients.

Factors associated with perceived donation-related financial burden among living kidney donors

The perception of living kidney donation-related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self-reported and ZIP code-level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation-related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income <$60 000 (86% vs. 20%, P = .002), or have had predonation cost concerns (43% vs. 7%, P = .03). Perceived financial burden was 3.6-fold as likely among those with predonation cost concerns and 10.6-fold as likely for those with incomes <$60 000. Collecting socioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation-related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support interventions toward potential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation-related financial burden.

Association of Race and Ethnicity With Live Donor Kidney Transplantation in the United States From 1995 to 2014

IMPORTANCE

Over the past 2 decades, there has been increased attention and effort to reduce disparities in live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) for black, Hispanic, and Asian patients with end-stage kidney disease. The goal of this study was to investigate whether these efforts have been successful.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate changes over time in racial/ethnic disparities in LDKT in the United States, accounting for differences in death and deceased donor kidney transplantation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A secondary analysis of a prospectively maintained cohort study conducted in the United States of 453 162 adult first-time kidney transplantation candidates included in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2014, with follow-up through December 31, 2016.

EXPOSURES

Race/ethnicity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcome was time to LDKT. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and competing risk models were constructed to assess changes in racial/ethnic disparities in LDKT among adults on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list and interaction terms were used to test the statistical significance of temporal changes in racial/ethnic differences in receipt of LDKT. The adjusted subhazard ratios are estimates derived from the multivariable competing risk models. Data were categorized into 5-year increments (1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014) to allow for an adequate sample size in each analytical cell.

RESULTS

Among 453 162 adult kidney transplantation candidates (mean [SD] age, 50.9 [13.1] years; 39% were women; 48% were white; 30%, black; 16%, Hispanic; and 6%, Asian), 59 516 (13.1%) received LDKT. Overall, there were 39 509 LDKTs among white patients, 8926 among black patients, 8357 among Hispanic patients, and 2724 among Asian patients. In 1995, the cumulative incidence of LDKT at 2 years after appearing on the waiting list was 7.0% among white patients, 3.4% among black patients, 6.8% among Hispanic patients, and 5.1% among Asian patients. In 2014, the cumulative incidence of LDKT was 11.4% among white patients, 2.9% among black patients, 5.9% among Hispanic patients, and 5.6% among Asian patients. From 1995-1999 to 2010-2014, racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of LDKT increased (P < .001 for all statistical interaction terms in adjusted models comparing white patients vs black, Hispanic, and Asian patients). In 1995-1999, compared with receipt of LDKT among white patients, the adjusted subhazard ratio was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.42-0.48) among black patients, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.88) among Hispanic patients, and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50-0.63) among Asian patients. In 2010-2014, compared with receipt of LDKT among white patients, the adjusted subhazard ratio was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.26-0.28) among black patients, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.50-0.54) among Hispanic patients, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.39-0.45) among Asian patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adult first-time kidney transplantation candidates in the United States who were added to the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list between 1995 and 2014, disparities in the receipt of live donor kidney transplantation increased from 1995-1999 to 2010-2014. These findings suggest that national strategies for addressing disparities in receipt of live donor kidney transplantation should be revisited.

The National Landscape of Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up in the United States

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/ United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) mandated that transplant centers collect data on living kidney donors (LKDs) at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, with policy-defined thresholds for the proportion of complete living donor follow-up (LDF) data submitted in a timely manner (60 days before or after the expected visit date). While mandated, it was unclear how centers across the country would perform in meeting thresholds, given potential donor and center-level challenges of LDF. To better understand the impact of this policy, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for 31,615 LKDs between January 2010 and June 2015, comparing proportions of complete and timely LDF form submissions before and after policy implementation. We also used multilevel logistic regression to assess donor- and center-level characteristics associated with complete and timely LDF submissions. Complete and timely 2-year LDF increased from 33% prepolicy (January 2010 through January 2013) to 54% postpolicy (February 2013 through June 2015) (p < 0.001). In an adjusted model, the odds of 2-year LDF increased by 22% per year prepolicy (p < 0.001) and 23% per year postpolicy (p < 0.001). Despite these annual increases in LDF, only 43% (87/202) of centers met the OPTN/UNOS-required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year LDF thresholds for LKDs who donated in 2013. These findings motivate further evaluation of LDF barriers and the optimal approaches to capturing outcomes after living donation.