Referral and evaluation for kidney transplantation among patients with lupus nephritis-related end-stage kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: For the majority of patients with lupus nephritis-related end-stage kidney disease (LN-ESKD), kidney transplant is associated with better outcomes than dialysis. Access to kidney transplant requires an initial referral to a transplant center and medical evaluation prior to waitlisting. The study's objective was to examine access to these early steps in the kidney transplant process among patients with LN-ESKD. METHODS: Adults who began treatment for ESKD in the Southeast, Northeast, New York, or Ohio River Valley U.S. regions from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2019, followed through 6/30/2021, were identified from the United States Renal Data System. Referral and evaluation start data were collected from 28 of 48 transplant centers across these regions. The exposure was primary cause of ESKD (LN-ESKD vs other-ESKD). The outcomes were referral and evaluation start at a transplant center. Cox models quantified the association between LN-ESKD (vs other-ESKD) and referral and evaluation start. RESULTS: Among 192,318 patients initiating treatment for ESKD, 0.4% had LN-ESKD. Over half (58%) of LN-ESKD patients were referred before study end, and among those referred, 66% started the evaluation. In adjusted analyses, patients with LN-ESKD were referred (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.19) and started the transplant evaluation (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.28) at a higher rate than patients with other-ESKD. Among referred patients with LN-ESKD, the median time from ESKD start to referral was 2.9 months (IQR: <1 to 11.7 months), which is similar to patients with other-ESKD (median 2.6 months, IQR: <1 to 8.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: Among incident patients with ESKD, having a primary diagnosis of LN-ESKD versus other-ESKD is associated with higher rates of early transplant access outcomes. Despite this, patients with LN-ESKD (vs other-ESKD) are less likely to be preemptively referred (i.e., referred prior to ESKD start) for kidney transplant. While providers may no longer be delaying the early steps in the kidney transplantation process among this patient population, there is still room for improvement in the rates of preemptive referral. Access to kidney transplant referral prior to ESKD could result in increased transplant rates and better transplant outcomes for patients with LN-ESKD.

Setting reasonable goals for kidney transplant referral among dialysis facilities.

BACKGROUND: Determining whether a patient is eligible for kidney transplantation is complex. In this study, we estimate what proportion of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) might have been suitable candidates for kidney transplantation but were not referred. METHODS: We identified 43,952 people initiating dialysis for kidney failure between 2012 and 2017 in the states of Georgia, North Carolina, or South Carolina from the United States Renal Data System and linked to the Early-Steps to Transplant Access Registry to obtain data on referral and waitlisting up until December 2020. We identified 'good transplant candidates' as those who were waitlisted within 2-years of referral, among all patients referred within 1-year of dialysis initiation. Using propensity score cut-offs, logistic regression, and area under the curve (AUC), we then estimated the proportion of individuals who may have been good transplant candidates, but were not referred. RESULTS: Overall, 42.6% of incident dialysis patients were referred within one year and among them, 32.9% were waitlisted within 2 years of referral. Our model had reasonably good discrimination for identifying good transplant candidates with an AUC of 0.70 (95%CI 0.69-0.71), sensitivity of 0.68 and specificity of 0.61. Overall, 25% of individuals not referred for transplant may have been 'good' transplant candidates. Adding these patients to the existing 18,725 referred patients would increase the proportion of incident ESKD patients being referred within one year from 42.6% to 57.2% (a ~ 14.6% increase). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we show that a significant proportion of potentially good transplant candidates are not being referred for transplant. A ~ 14% increase in the proportion of patients being referred from dialysis facilities is both a meaningful and realistic goal and could lead to more qualified patients being referred and subsequently waitlisted for a lifesaving transplant.

A Population Health Approach to Transplant Access: Challenging the Status Quo.

Transplant referral and evaluation are critical steps to waitlisting yet remain an elusive part of the transplant process. Despite calls for more data collection on pre-waitlisting steps, there are currently no national surveillance data to aid in understanding the causes and potential solutions for the extreme variation in access to transplantation. As population health scientists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and ethicists we submit that the transplant community has an obligation to better understand disparities in transplant access as a first necessary step to effectively mitigating these inequities. Our position is grounded in a population health approach, consistent with several new overarching national policy and quality initiatives. The purpose of this Perspective is to (1) provide an overview of how a population health approach should inform current multisystem policies impacting kidney transplantation and demonstrate how these efforts could be enhanced with national data collection on pre-waitlisting steps; (2) demonstrate the feasibility and concrete next steps for pre-waitlisting data collection; and (3) identify potential opportunities to use these data to implement effective population-level interventions, policies, and quality measures to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

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

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The national kidney allocation system (KAS) implemented in December 2014 in the United States redefined the start of waiting time from the time of waitlisting to the time of kidney failure. Waitlisting has declined post-KAS, but it is unknown if this is due to transplant center practices or changes in dialysis facility referral and evaluation. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the 2014 KAS policy change on referral and evaluation for transplantation among a population of incident and prevalent patients with kidney failure. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 37,676 incident (2012-2016) patients in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina identified within the US Renal Data System at 9 transplant centers and followed through December 2017. A prevalent population of 6,079 patients from the same centers receiving maintenance dialysis in 2012 but not referred for transplantation in 2012. EXPOSURE: KAS era (pre-KAS vs post-KAS). OUTCOME: Referral for transplantation, start of transplant evaluation, and waitlisting. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Multivariable time-dependent Cox models for the incident and prevalent population. RESULTS: Among incident patients, KAS was associated with increased referrals (adjusted HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]) and evaluation starts among those referred (adjusted HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.10-1.21]), decreased overall waitlisting (adjusted HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.65-0.76]), and lower rates of active waitlisting among those evaluated compared to the pre-KAS era (adjusted HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.90]). Among the prevalent population, KAS was associated with increases in overall waitlisting (adjusted HR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.15-2.63]) and active waitlisting among those evaluated (adjusted HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.16-3.49]), but had no significant impact on referral or evaluation starts among those referred. LIMITATIONS: Limited to 3 states, residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: In the southeastern United States, the impact of KAS on steps to transplantation was different among incident and prevalent patients with kidney failure. Dialysis facilities referred more incident patients and transplant centers evaluated more incident patients after implementation of KAS, but fewer evaluated patients were placed onto the waitlist. Changes in dialysis facility and transplant center behaviors after KAS implementation may have influenced the observed changes in access to transplantation.

Employment status at transplant influences ethnic disparities in outcomes after deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: African American (AA) recipients of deceased-donor (DD) kidney transplants (KT) have shorter allograft survival than recipients of other ethnic groups. Reasons for this disparity encompass complex interactions between donors and recipients characteristics. METHODS: Outcomes from 3872 AA and 19,719 European American (EA) DDs who had one kidney transplanted in an AA recipient and one in an EA recipient were analyzed. Four donor/recipient pair groups (DRP) were studied, AA/AA, AA/EA, EA/AA, and EA/EA. Survival random forests and Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to rank and evaluate modifying effects of DRP on variables associated with allograft survival. These analyses sought to identify factors contributing to the observed disparities in transplant outcomes among AA and EA DDKT recipients. RESULTS: Transplant era, discharge serum creatinine, delayed graft function, and DRP were among the top predictors of allograft survival and mortality among DDKT recipients. Interaction effects between DRP with the kidney donor risk index and transplant era showed significant improvement in allograft survival over time in EA recipients. However, AA recipients appeared to have similar or poorer outcomes for DDKT performed after 2010 versus before 2001; allograft survival hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.15 (0.74, 1.76) and 1.07 (0.8, 1.45) for AA/AA and EA/AA, compared to 0.62 (0.54, 0.71) and 0.5 (0.41, 0.62) for EA/EA and AA/EA DRP, respectively. Recipient mortality improved over time among all DRP, except unemployed AA/AAs. Relative to DDKT performed pre-2001, employed AA/AAs had HR = 0.37 (0.2, 0.69) versus 0.59 (0.31, 1.11) for unemployed AA/AA after 2010. CONCLUSION: Relative to DDKT performed before 2001, similar or worse overall DCAS was observed among AA/AAs, while EA/EAs experienced considerable improvement regardless of employment status, KDRI, and EPTS. AA recipients of an AA DDKT, especially if unemployed, had worse allograft survival and mortality and did not appear to benefit from advances in care over the past 20 years.

Kidney transplant program waitlisting rate as a metric to assess transplant access.

Kidney transplant program performance in the United States is commonly measured by posttransplant outcomes. Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and necessary information for patient decision-making. In this study, we propose a new metric, the waitlisting rate, defined as the ratio of patients who are waitlisted in a center relative to the person-years referred for evaluation to a program. Furthermore, we standardize the waitlisting rate relative to the state average in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The new metric was used as a proof-of-concept to assess transplant-program access compared to the existing transplant rate metric. The study cohorts were defined by linking 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data with transplant-program referral data from the Southeastern United States between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Waitlisting rate varied across the 9 Southeastern transplant programs, ranging from 10 to 22 events per 100 patient-years, whereas the program-specific waitlisting rate ratio ranged between 0.76 and 1.33. Program-specific waitlisting rate ratio was uncorrelated with the transplant rate ratio (r = -.15, 95% CI, -0.83 to 0.57). Findings warrant collection of national data on early transplant steps, such as referral, for a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.

Every 2-month belatacept maintenance therapy in kidney transplant recipients greater than 1-year posttransplant: A randomized, noninferiority trial.

Belatacept results in improved kidney transplant outcomes, but utilization has been limited by logistical barriers related to monthly (q1m) intravenous infusions. Every 2-month (q2m) belatacept has potential to increase utilization, therefore we conducted a randomized noninferiority trial in low immunologic risk renal transplant recipients greater than 1-year posttransplant. Patients on belatacept were randomly assigned to q1m or q2m therapy. The primary objective was a noninferiority comparison of renal function (eGFR) at 12 months with a noninferiority margin (NIM) of 6.0 ml/min/1.73 m2 . One hundred and sixty-six participants were randomized to q1m (n = 82) or q2m (n = 84) belatacept, 163 patients received treatment, and 76 q1m and 77 q2m subjects completed the 12-month study period. Every 2-month belatacept was noninferior to q1m, as the difference in mean eGFR adjusted for baseline renal function did not exceed the NIM. Two-month dosing was safe and well tolerated, with no patient deaths or graft losses. Four rejection episodes and three cases of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) occurred among q2m subjects; however, only one rejection and one instance of DSA were observed in subjects adherent to the study protocol. Every 2-month belatacept therapy may facilitate long-term utilization of costimulation blockade, but future multicenter studies with long-term follow-up will further elucidate immunologic risk. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02560558).

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

BACKGROUND: Geographic disparities in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation persist in the United States under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) introduced in 2014, and the effect of transplant center practices on the probability of transplantation for wait-listed patients remains unclear. METHODS: To compare probability of transplantation across centers nationally and within donation service areas (DSAs), we conducted a registry study that included all United States incident adult kidney transplant candidates wait listed in 2011 and 2015 (pre-KAS and post-KAS cohorts comprising 32,745 and 34,728 individuals, respectively). For each center, we calculated the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation within 3 years of wait listing using competing risk regression, with living donor transplantation, death, and waiting list removal as competing events. We examined associations between center-level and DSA-level characteristics and the adjusted probability of transplant. RESULTS: Candidates received deceased donor kidney transplants within 3 years of wait listing more frequently post-KAS (22%) than pre-KAS (19%). Nationally, the probability of transplant varied 16-fold between centers, ranging from 4.0% to 64.2% in the post-KAS era. Within DSAs, we observed a median 2.3-fold variation between centers, with up to ten-fold and 57.4 percentage point differences. Probability of transplantation was correlated in the post-KAS cohort with center willingness to accept hard-to-place kidneys (r=0.55, P<0.001) and local organ supply (r=0.44, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Large differences in the adjusted probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation persist under KAS, even between centers working with the same local organ supply. Probability of transplantation is significantly associated with organ offer acceptance patterns at transplant centers, underscoring the need for greater understanding of how centers make decisions about organs offered to wait-listed patients and how they relate to disparities in access to transplantation.

Association of sociocultural factors with initiation of the kidney transplant evaluation process.

Although research shows that minorities exhibit higher levels of medical mistrust, perceived racism, and discrimination in healthcare settings, the degree to which these underlying sociocultural factors preclude end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients from initiating kidney transplant evaluation is unknown. We telephone surveyed 528 adult ESRD patients of black or white race referred for evaluation to a Georgia transplant center (N = 3) in 2014-2016. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between sociocultural factors and evaluation initiation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics. Despite blacks (n = 407) reporting higher levels of medical mistrust (40.0% vs 26.4%, P < .01), perceived racism (55.5% vs 18.2%, P < .01), and experienced discrimination (29.0% vs 15.7%, P < .01) than whites (n = 121), blacks were only slightly less likely than whites to initiate evaluation (49.6% vs 57.9%, P = .11). However, after adjustment, medical mistrust (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.91), experienced discrimination (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.95), and perceived racism (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.92) were associated with lower evaluation initiation. Results suggest that sociocultural disparities exist in early kidney transplant access and occur despite the absence of a significant racial disparity in evaluation initiation. Interventions to reduce disparities in transplantation access should target underlying sociocultural factors, not just race.

Dialysis facility referral and start of evaluation for kidney transplantation among patients treated with dialysis in the Southeastern United States.

Variability in transplant access exists, but barriers to referral and evaluation are underexplored due to lack of national surveillance data. We examined referral for kidney transplantation evaluation and start of the evaluation among 34 857 incident, adult (18-79 years) end-stage kidney disease patients from 690 dialysis facilities in the United States Renal Data System from January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2016, followed through February 2018 and linked data to referral and evaluation data from nine transplant centers in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Multivariable-adjusted competing risk analysis examined each outcome. The median within-facility cumulative percentage of patients referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis at the 690 dialysis facilities in Network 6 was 33.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 25.3%-43.1%). Only 48.3% of referred patients started the transplant evaluation within 6 months of referral. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with referral vs evaluation start among those referred at any time differed. For example, black, non-Hispanic patients had a higher rate of referral (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.27), but lower evaluation start among those referred (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.98), vs white non-Hispanic patients. Barriers to transplant varied by step, and national surveillance data should be collected on early transplant steps to improve transplant access.

Genome-wide association study for time to failure of kidney transplants from African American deceased donors.

Two renal-risk variants in the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) in African American (AA) deceased donors (DD) are associated with shorter renal allograft survival after transplantation. To identify additional genes contributing to allograft survival, a genome-wide association study was performed in 532 AA DDs. Phenotypic data were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Association and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-by-APOL1 interaction tests were conducted using death-censored renal allograft survival accounting for relevant covariates. Replication and inverse-variance-weighted meta-analysis were performed using data from 250 AA DD in the Genomics of Transplantation study. Accounting for APOL1, multiple SNPs near the Nudix Hydrolase 7 gene (NUDT7) showed strong independent effects (P = 1.6 × 10-8 -2.2 × 10-8 ). Several SNPs in the Translocation protein SEC63 homolog (SEC63; P = 2 × 10-9 -3.7 × 10-8 ) and plasmacytoma variant translocation 1 (PVT1) genes (P = 4.0 × 10-8 -7 × 10-8 ) modified the effect of APOL1 on allograft survival. SEC63 is expressed in human renal tubule cells and glomeruli, and PVT1 is associated with diabetic kidney disease. Overall, associations were detected for 41 SNPs (P = 2 × 10-9 -5 × 10-8 ) contributing independently or interacting with APOL1 to impact renal allograft survival after transplantation from AA DD. Given the small sample size of the discovery and replication sets, independent validations and functional genomic efforts are needed to validate these results.

Policies to promote timely referral for kidney transplantation.

There are numerous patient, provider, and health system barriers to accessing kidney transplantation. Patient barriers such as sociocultural and clinical characteristics and provider factors such as provider knowledge and awareness of transplantation play important roles in facilitating transplant. Health system factors like misaligned incentives and quality metrics for dialysis facilities and transplant centers also influence transplant access. While numerous studies have documented the impact of these barriers on wait-listing and transplant, few studies have examined referral from a dialysis facility to a transplant center and start of the transplant evaluation process. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require that dialysis facilities educate patients about transplant, there are no guidelines for the content and objectives for this education. In addition, policies to require timely referral for transplantation have been considered by CMS but are difficult to implement without national data on referral. Federal policies should be amended to mandate transplant center submission of referral data-while decreasing the unfunded mandate to collect other unusable data currently collected as part of regulatory monitoring of transplant centers-to promote timely access to transplant, increased transplant rates, and to better understand the multilevel barriers and facilitators to transplant referral.

Association Between Dialysis Facility Ownership and Access to Kidney Transplantation.

Importance: For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population. Objective: To determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study that included 1 478 564 patients treated at 6511 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report). Exposures: The primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Access to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome. Results: Among 1 478 564 patients, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 55-76 years), with 55.3% male, and 28.1% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 121 680 patients (8.2%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to -2.3%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: -4.3% [95% CI, -4.4% to -4.2%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.54]); and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.45]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among US patients with end-stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelihood of accessing kidney transplantation. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.

Factors leading to the discard of deceased donor kidneys in the United States.

The proportion of deceased donor kidneys procured for transplant but subsequently discarded has been growing steadily in the United States, but factors contributing to the rising discard rate remain unclear. To assess the reasons for and probability of organ discard we assembled a cohort of 212,305 deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplant from 2000-2015 in the SRTR registry that included 36,700 kidneys that were discarded. 'Biopsy Findings' (38.2%) was the most commonly reported reason for discard. The median Kidney Donor Risk Index of discarded kidneys was significantly higher than transplanted organs (1.78 vs 1.12), but a large overlap in the quality of discarded and transplanted kidneys was observed. Kidneys of donors who were older, female, Black, obese, diabetic, hypertensive or HCV-positive experienced a significantly increased odds of discard. Kidneys from donors with multiple unfavorable characteristics were more likely to be discarded, whereas unilaterally discarded kidneys had the most desirable donor characteristics and the recipients of their partner kidneys experienced a one-year death-censored graft survival rate over 90%. There was considerable geographic variation in the odds of discard across the United States, which further supports the notion that factors beyond organ quality contributed to kidney discard. Thus, while the discard of a small fraction of organs procured from donors may be inevitable, the discard of potentially transplantable kidneys needs to be avoided. This will require a better understanding of the factors contributing to organ discard in order to remove the disincentives to utilize less-than-ideal organs for transplantation.

Racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for deceased donor kidney transplantation 1 year after implementation of the new national kidney allocation system.

The impact of a new national kidney allocation system (KAS) on access to the national deceased-donor waiting list (waitlisting) and racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting among US end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is unknown. We examined waitlisting pre- and post-KAS among incident (N = 1 253 100) and prevalent (N = 1 556 954) ESRD patients from the United States Renal Data System database (2005-2015) using multivariable time-dependent Cox and interrupted time-series models. The adjusted waitlisting rate among incident patients was 9% lower post-KAS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.93), although preemptive waitlisting increased from 30.2% to 35.1% (P < .0001). The waitlisting decrease is largely due to a decline in inactively waitlisted patients. Pre-KAS, blacks had a 19% lower waitlisting rate vs whites (HR: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82); following KAS, disparity declined to 12% (HR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.90). In adjusted time-series analyses of prevalent patients, waitlisting rates declined by 3.45/10 000 per month post-KAS (P < .001), resulting in ≈146 fewer waitlisting events/month. Shorter dialysis vintage was associated with greater decreases in waitlisting post-KAS (P < .001). Racial disparity reduction was due in part to a steeper decline in inactive waitlisting among minorities and a greater proportion of actively waitlisted minority patients. Waitlisting and racial disparity in waitlisting declined post-KAS; however, disparity remains.

Emergency department use among kidney transplant recipients in the United States.

Patients with end-stage renal disease use the emergency department (ED) at a 6-fold higher rate than do other US adults. No national studies have described ED use rates among kidney transplant (KTx) recipients, and the factors associated with higher ED use. We examined a cohort of 132 725 adult KTx recipients in the United States Renal Data System (2005-2013). Data on ED visits, hospitalization, and outpatient nephrology visits were obtained from Medicare claims databases. Nearly half (46.1%) of KTx recipients had at least one ED visit (1.61 ED visits/patient-year [PY]), and 39.7% of ED visits resulted in hospitalization in the first year posttransplantation. ED visit rate was high in the first 30 days (5.26 visits/PY) but declined substantially thereafter (1.81 visits/PY in months 1-3; 1.13 visits/PY in months 3-12 posttransplantation). ED visit rates were higher in the first 30 days versus rates for dialysis patients but less than half the rate thereafter. Female sex, public insurance, medical comorbidities, longer pretransplantation dialysis vintage, and delayed graft function were associated with higher ED use in the first year post-KTx. Policies and strategies addressing potentially preventable ED visits should be promoted to help improve patient care and increase efficient use of ED resources.

Awareness of the New Kidney Allocation System among United States Dialysis Providers with Low Waitlisting.

It is unknown whether dialysis facility staff are aware of the new kidney allocation system implemented in December 2014, which changed how deceased donor kidneys are allocated and waiting time is calculated. U.S. dialysis facilities with low annual waitlisting (<15.2%) were surveyed as part of a large randomized study. Among 653 facilities, 57.9% of staff were aware of the policy change, with medical directors (84.4%) being more aware than social workers (73.3%), facility administrators (53.1%), nurse managers (46.4%), and other staff (43.8%). Targeted education among dialysis facilities with low waitlisting may help extend the reach of the new policy.

Racial disparities in preemptive referral for kidney transplantation in Georgia.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities persist in access to kidney transplantation. Racial differences in preemptive referral, or referral prior to dialysis start, may explain this discrepancy. METHODS: Patient-level data on kidney transplant referrals (2005-2012) from all Georgia transplant centers were linked to the United States Renal Data System to examine racial disparities in preemptive referral, waitlisting, and living donor transplant. Adjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models determined the associations between race (African American vs white) and preemptive referral, and placement on the waitlist and receipt of a living donor kidney, respectively. RESULTS: Among 7752 adults referred for transplant evaluation, 20.38% (n = 1580) were preemptively referred. The odds of African Americans being preemptively referred for transplant evaluation were 37% (OR = 0.63; [95% CI: 0.55 0.71]) lower than white patients. Among preemptively referred patients, there was no racial difference (African Americans compared to white patients. HR = 0.96; [95% CI: 0.88, 1.04]) in waitlisting. However, African Americans were 70% less likely than white patients to receive a living donor transplant (HR = 0.30; [95% CI: 0.21, 0.42]). CONCLUSION: Racial disparities in transplant receipt may be partially explained by disparities in preemptive referral. Interventions to reduce racial disparities in kidney transplant access may need to be targeted earlier in the disease process.

Dialysis facility staff perceptions of racial, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have been well documented, but few studies have explored health care staff attitudes towards these inequalities. Staff perceptions can influence patient care and outcomes, and identifying staff perceptions on disparities could aid in the development of potential interventions to address these health inequities. The objective of this study was to investigate dialysis staff (n = 509), primarily social workers and nurse managers, perceptions of renal transplant disparities in the Southeastern United States. METHODS: This is a mixed methods study that uses both deductive and inductive qualitative analysis of a dialysis staff survey conducted in 2012 using three open-ended questions that asked staff to discuss their perceptions of factors that may contribute to transplant disparities among African American, female, and elderly patients. RESULTS: Study results suggested that the majority of staff (n = 255, 28%) perceived patients' low socioeconomic status as the primary theme related to why renal transplant disparities exist between African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Staff cited patient perception of old age as a primary contributor (n = 188, 23%) to the disparity between young and elderly patients. The dialysis staff responses on gender transplant disparities suggested that staff were unaware of differences due to limited experience and observation (n = 76, 14.7%) of gender disparities. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that dialysis facilities should educate staff on existing renal transplantation disparities, particularly gender disparities, and collaboratively work with transplant facilities to develop strategies to actively address modifiable patient barriers for transplant.