Do pre-transplant cultural factors predict health-related quality of life after kidney transplantation?

BACKGROUND: Post-transplant health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is associated with health outcomes for kidney transplant (KT) recipients. However, pretransplant predictors of improvements in post-transplant HRQOL remain incompletely understood. Namely, important pretransplant cultural factors, such as experience of discrimination, perceived racism in healthcare, or mistrust of the healthcare system, have not been examined as potential HRQOL predictors. Also, few have examined predictors of decline in HRQOL post-transplant. METHODS: Using data from a prospective cohort study, we examined HRQOL change pre- to post-transplant, and novel cultural predictors of the change. We measured physical, mental, and kidney-specific HRQOL as outcomes, and used cultural factors as predictors, controlling for demographic, clinical, psychosocial, and transplant knowledge covariates. RESULTS: Among 166 KT recipients (57% male; mean age 50.6 years; 61.4% > high school graduates; 80% non-Hispanic White), we found mental and physical, but not kidney-specific, HRQOL significantly improved post-transplant. No culturally related factors outside of medical mistrust significantly predicted change in any HRQOL outcome. Instead, demographic, knowledge, and clinical factors significantly predicted decline in each HRQOL domain: physical HRQOL-older age, more post-KT complications, higher pre-KT physical HRQOL; mental HRQOL-having less information pre-KT, greater pre-KT mental HRQOL; and, kidney-specific HRQOL-poorer kidney functioning post-KT, lower expectations for physical condition to improve, and higher pre-KT kidney-specific HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS: Instead of cultural factors, predictors of HRQOL decline included demographic, knowledge, and clinical factors. These findings are useful for identifying patient groups that may be at greater risk of poorer post-transplant outcomes, in order to target individualized support to patients.

Cost Analysis of Remote Cardiac Rehabilitation Compared With Facility-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation for Coronary Artery Disease.

Remote cardiac rehabilitation (RCR) represents a promising, noninferior alternative to facility-based cardiac rehabilitation (FBCR). The comparable cost of RCR in US populations has yet to be extensively studied. The purpose of this prospective, patient-selected study of traditional FBCR versus a third-party asynchronous RCR platform was to assess whether RCR can be administered at a comparable cost and clinical efficacy to FBCR. Adult insured patients were eligible for enrollment after an admission for a coronary heart disease event. Patients selected either FBCR or Movn RCR, a 12-week telehealth intervention using an app-based platform and internet-capable medical devices. Clinical demographics, intervention adherence, cost-effectiveness, and hospitalizations at 1-year after enrollment were assessed from the Highmark claims database after propensity matching between groups. A total of 260 patients were included and 171 of those eligible (65.8%) received at least 1 cardiac rehabilitation session and half of the patients chose Movn RCR. The propensity matching produced a sample of 41 matched pairs. Movn RCR led to a faster enrollment and higher completion rates (80% vs 50%). The total medical costs were similar between Movn RCR and FBCR, although tended toward cost savings with Movn RCR ($10,574/patient). The cost of cardiac rehabilitation was lower in those enrolled in Movn RCR ($1,377/patient, p = 0.002). The all-cause and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits in the year after enrollment in both groups were similar. In conclusion, this pragmatic study of patients after a coronary heart disease event led to equivalent total medical costs and lower intervention costs for an asynchronous RCR platform than traditional FBCR while maintaining similar clinically important outcomes.