The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Kidney Transplant Candidate Waitlist Status across Demographic and Geographic Groups: A National Analysis of UNOS STAR Data.

The primary goal of this retrospective study is to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic differentially impacted transplant status across race, sex, age, primary insurance, and geographic regions by examining which candidates: (i) remained on the waitlist, (ii) received transplants, or (iii) were removed from the waitlist due to severe sickness or death on a national level. Methods: The trend analysis aggregated by monthly transplant data from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2021 (18 months) at the transplant center level. Ten variables about every transplant candidate were extracted from UNOS standard transplant analysis and research (STAR) data and analyzed. Characteristics of demographical groups were analyzed bivariately using t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and using Chi-sq/Fishers exact tests for categorical variables. Results: The trend analysis with the study period of 18 months included 31,336 transplants across 327 transplant centers. Patients experienced a longer waiting time when their registration centers in a county where high numbers of COVID-19 deaths were observed (SHR < 0.9999, p < 0.01). White candidates had a more significant transplant rate reduction than minority candidates (-32.19% vs. -20.15%) while minority candidates were found to have a higher waitlist removal rate than White candidates (9.23% vs. 9.45%). Compared to minority patients, White candidates' sub-distribution hazard ratio of the transplant waiting time was reduced by 55% during the pandemic period. Candidates in the Northwest United States had a more significant reduction in the transplant rate and a greater increase in the removal rate during the pandemic period. Conclusions: Based on this study, waitlist status and disposition varied significantly based on patient sociodemographic factors. During the pandemic period, minority patients, those with public insurance, older patients, and those in counties with high numbers of COVID-19 deaths experienced longer wait times. In contrast, older, White, male, Medicare, and high CPRA patients had a statistically significant higher risk of waitlist removal due to severe sickness or death. The results of this study should be considered carefully as we approach a reopening world post-COVID-19, and further studies should be conducted to elucidate the relationship between transplant candidate sociodemographic status and medical outcomes during this era.

Electronic Patient Portal Use After Kidney Transplant: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Online patient portals have become a core component of patient-centered care. Limited research exists on such portal use in patients after kidney transplantation. The aim of this study was to examine preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors associated with post-transplantation portal use. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included all patients who underwent kidney transplantation from April 2016 to May 2019 at the University of Toledo Medical Center. Exclusion criteria included international travel for transplantation and those without available postoperative lab or follow-up records. Data were collected for 2 y post-transplantation. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was performed to determine associations with portal use. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-seven kidney transplant recipients were included in the study; 35.6% (n = 88) used the portal versus 64.4% (n = 159) did not. Preoperative factors associated with increased use included income >$40,000 (odds ratio [OR], 2.95; P = 0.006) and cancer history (OR, 2.46; P = 0.007), whereas diabetes history had reduced use (OR, 0.51; P = 0.021). The Black race had the least use. Perioperatively, reduced use was associated with dialysis before transplant (OR, 0.25; P < 0.001) and hospital stay ≥4 d (OR, 0.49; P = 0.009). Postoperatively, associations with increased use included average eGFR >30 (P = 0.04) and hospital readmissions (n = 102), whereas those with ER (n = 138) visits had decreased use. Multivariable analysis revealed increased use with income >$40,000 (OR, 2.51; P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: There was no observed difference in clinical outcomes for portal users and nonusers undergoing kidney transplantation, although portal use may decrease the likelihood of ER visits. Socioeconomic status and ethnicity may play a role on who utilizes the patient portals.

Patient-reported disruptions to cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the extent and associations with patient-reported disruptions to cancer treatment and cancer-related care during the COVID-19 pandemic utilizing nationally representative data. METHODS: This analysis uses data from the 2020 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), an annual, cross-sectional survey of US adults. Adults (age >18) who reported requiring current cancer treatment or other cancer-related medical care in the second half of 2020 were included. Estimated proportions of patients with self-reported changes, delays, or cancelations to cancer treatment or other cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic were calculated using sampling weights and associations with sociodemographic and other health-related variables were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 574 (sample-weighted estimate of 2,867,326) adults reported requiring cancer treatment and/or other cancer care since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. An estimated 32.1% reported any change, delay, or cancelation. On sample-weighted univariable analysis, patients who were younger, female, had one or fewer comorbidities, and uninsured were significantly more likely to report disruptions. On sample-weighted, multivariable analysis, patients who were younger and female remained significant predictors. Nearly 90% of patients included in the study reported virtual appointment use. Patients reporting disruptions were also significantly more likely to report feelings of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated 1/3 of patients experienced disruptions to cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients experiencing disruptions in care were more likely to be female or younger which may reflect risk stratification strategies in the early stages of the pandemic, and also had higher rates of anxiety. The longitudinal impact of these disruptions on outcomes merits further study.

Assessing Vasectomy-Related Information on YouTube: An Analysis of the Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of Information.

This study aims to critically appraise the quality of vasectomy-related health information currently available on YouTube to better address patient information needs moving forward. A YouTube search was performed using the keyword "vasectomy." The first 100 videos were assessed, with irrelevant and duplicate videos excluded. Two independent reviewers evaluated the remaining videos using the DISCERN instrument for evaluating the quality of information and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual materials (PEMAT-A/V) for assessing the understandability and actionability of materials. Source characteristics and markers of bias and misinformation were also collected. Seventy-eight videos were included in the study, with a mean duration of 6.6 minutes and mean of 216,672 views. The median DISCERN score was poor at 28 (IQR 22-33) out of a possible 80 with mean PEMAT-AV Understandability and Actionability scores of 67.6% (±16.7%) and 33.8% (±36.2%), respectively. A medical doctor was present in 61 (78.2%) of the videos, of which 53 (86.9%) were urologists and 38 (62.2%) promoted their personal practice or institution. False statements regarding vasectomy were made in 14 (17.9%) videos. Notably, no significant difference was noted in quality, understandability, or actionability of videos created by those with personal promotion to those without. The quality of information regarding vasectomy on YouTube is poor and reaches a wide audience. Continued appraisal and creation of YouTube videos that contain quality, understandable and actionable information by urologists is necessary to ensure patients are well-informed.

The Sun Is Still Shining: Nature of Industry Payments to Transplant Surgeons From 2014 to 2019.

Background: Established in 2013, the Open Payments Program (OPP) mandated that medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers submit record of any financial incentive given to physicians to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is in turn made publicly available. This study aims to characterize these payments to transplant surgeons over the first 6 y of OPP data. Methods: The study sample included all physicians who received at least one nonresearch payment as transplant surgeons to the OPP. To capture transplant surgeons who may be listed under their pipeline specialty, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons member directory as of January 2021 was queried. Payments were analyzed temporally, geographically, and by payment type, physician, and industry payer. Results: In total, payments totaling $15 661 536 were made to 1335 transplant surgeons over the study period. The mean payment was $436.90 (SD, $1760), and the median payment was $52.94 (interquartile range, $18.29-$159.80). The top contributing companies were Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Only 5.3% ($827 236) was paid toward faculty or as a speaker for a nonaccredited and noncertified continuing education program and honorarium. Educational payments came in at $1 233 141 (7.9%) over the study period. $13 750 828.60 (87.8%) of the payments were for other categories (consulting fees, food and beverages, etc). Organ transplant and procurement region 7 and 8 transplant surgeons received the highest median payments during the study period. Conclusions: This study is the first to characterize the payments made to transplant surgeons since the passage of the Sunshine Act. Further studies are needed to understand and interpret the relationship between industry and transplant surgeons, as the payments may or may not translate to influence in medical decisions or use of medical devices.