Financial incentives versus standard of care to improve patient compliance with live kidney donor follow-up: protocol for a multi-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

Evolving Impact of COVID-19 on Transplant Center Practices and Policies in the United States.

In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.

Early impact of COVID-19 on transplant center practices and policies in the United States.

COVID-19 is a novel, rapidly changing pandemic: consequently, evidence-based recommendations in solid organ transplantation (SOT) remain challenging and unclear. To understand the impact on transplant activity across the United States, and center-level variation in testing, clinical practice, and policies, we conducted a national survey between March 24, 2020 and March 31, 2020 and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map. Response rate was a very high 79.3%, reflecting a strong national priority to better understand COVID-19. Complete suspension of live donor kidney transplantation was reported by 71.8% and live donor liver by 67.7%. While complete suspension of deceased donor transplantation was less frequent, some restrictions to deceased donor kidney transplantation were reported by 84.0% and deceased donor liver by 73.3%; more stringent restrictions were associated with higher regional incidence of COVID-19. Shortage of COVID-19 tests was reported by 42.5%. Respondents reported a total of 148 COVID-19 recipients from <1 to >10 years posttransplant: 69.6% were kidney recipients, and 25.0% were critically ill. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was used by 78.1% of respondents; azithromycin by 46.9%; tocilizumab by 31.3%, and remdesivir by 25.0%. There is wide heterogeneity in center-level response across the United States; ongoing national data collection, expert discussion, and clinical studies are critical to informing evidence-based practices.

Temporal trends and hospital costs associated with an endovascular-first approach for acute limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest similar perioperative outcomes for endovascular and open surgical management of acute limb ischemia (ALI). We sought to describe temporal trends, patient factors, and hospital costs associated with contemporary ALI management. METHODS: We used the weighted National Inpatient Sample to estimate primary ALI cases requiring open or endovascular intervention (2005-2014). We used multivariable regression models to examine temporal trends, patient factors, and hospital costs associated with endovascular-first vs open-first management. RESULTS: Of 116,451 admissions for ALI during the study period, 35.2% were treated by an endovascular-first approach. The percentage of admissions managed with an endovascular-first approach increased over time (P < .001). Independent predictors of endovascular-first management included younger age, male sex, renal insufficiency, and more recent calendar year of admission (P ≤ .02), whereas patients who underwent fasciotomy, those with Medicaid, and those admitted on a weekend were more likely to undergo open-first management (P ≤ .02). Endovascular-first management had higher mean hospital costs than open-first management ($29,719 vs $26,193; P < .001). After adjustment for patient, hospital, and admission characteristics, there was an increase of $981 in treatment costs per year in the endovascular-first group (95% confidence interval [CI], $571-$1392; P < .001), whereas the costs associated with an open-first approach remained relatively stable over time ($10 per year; 95% CI, -$295 to $315; P = .95; P < .001 for interaction). The risk-adjusted odds of in-hospital major amputation was similar in both groups (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.15; P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an endovascular-first approach for the treatment of ALI has significantly increased over time. Although major amputation rates are similar for both approaches, the costs associated with an endovascular-first approach are increasing over time, whereas the costs of open surgery have remained stable. The cost-effectiveness of modern ALI management warrants further investigation.

Accelerating kidney allocation: Simultaneously expiring offers.

Using nonideal kidneys for transplant quickly might reduce the discard rate of kidney transplants. We studied changing kidney allocation to eliminate sequential offers, instead making offers to multiple centers for all nonlocally allocated kidneys, so that multiple centers must accept or decline within the same 1 hour. If more than 1 center accepted an offer, the kidney would go to the highest-priority accepting candidate. Using 2010 Kidney-Pancreas Simulated Allocation Model-Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data, we simulated the allocation of 12 933 kidneys, excluding locally allocated and zero-mismatch kidneys. We assumed that each hour of delay decreased the probability of acceptance by 5% and that kidneys would be discarded after 20 hours of offers beyond the local level. We simulated offering kidneys simultaneously to small, medium-size, and large batches of centers. Increasing the batch size increased the percentage of kidneys accepted and shortened allocation times. Going from small to large batches increased the number of kidneys accepted from 10 085 (92%) to 10 802 (98%) for low-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys and from 1257 (65%) to 1737 (89%) for high-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys. The average number of offers that a center received each week was 10.1 for small batches and 16.8 for large batches. Simultaneously expiring offers might allow faster allocation and decrease the number of discards, while still maintaining an acceptable screening burden.

Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non-HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change.

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39  350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.

Baseline and Center-Level Variation in Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Listing in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network has implemented medical criteria to determine which candidates are most appropriate for simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplantation in comparison to liver-alone transplantation. We investigated prepolicy center-level variation among SLK listing practice, in light of such criteria. METHODS: We identified 4736 SLK-eligible candidates after Share-35 in the United States. We calculated the proportion of candidates at each center who were listed for SLK transplantation within 6 months of eligibility. Multilevel logistic regression and parametric survival model was used to estimate the center-specific probability of SLK listing, adjusting for patient and center-level characteristics. RESULTS: Among 4736 SLK-eligible candidates, 64.8% were listed for SLK within 6 months of eligibility. However, the percentage of SLK listing ranged from 0% to 100% across centers. African American race, male sex, transplant history, diabetes, and hypertension were associated with a higher likelihood of SLK listing. Conversely, older age was associated with a lower likelihood of SLK listing. After adjusting for candidate characteristics, the percentage of SLK listing still ranged from 3.8% to 80.2% across centers; this wide variation persisted even after further adjusting for center-level characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant prepolicy center-level variation in SLK listing for SLK-eligible candidates. Implementation of standardized SLK listing practices may reduce center-level variation and equalize access for SLK candidates across the United States.

Assessment of resident and fellow knowledge of the organ donor referral process.

Maximizing deceased donation rates can decrease the organ shortage. Non-transplant physicians play a critical role in facilitating conversion of potential deceased donors to actual donors, but studies suggest that physicians lack knowledge about the organ donation process. As residency and fellowship are often the last opportunities for formal medical training, we hypothesized that deficiencies in knowledge might originate in residency and fellowship. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess knowledge about organ donation, experience in donor conversion, and opinions of the process among residents and fellows after their intensive care unit rotations at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Of 40 participants, 50% had previously facilitated donor conversion, 25% were familiar with the guidelines of the organ procurement organization (OPO), and 10% had received formal instruction from the OPO. The median score on the knowledge assessment was five of 10; higher knowledge score was not associated with level of medical training, prior training in or experience with donor conversion, or with favorable opinions about the OPO. We identified a pervasive deficit in knowledge among residents and fellows at an academic medical center with an active transplant program that may help explain attending-level deficits in knowledge about the organ donation process.

Missing consent forms in the preoperative area: a single-center assessment of the scope of the problem and its downstream effects.

Missing consent forms at surgery can lead to delays in patient care, provider frustration, and patient anxiety. We sought to assess the scope and magnitude of this problem at our institution. We surveyed key informants to determine the frequency and effect of missing consent forms. We found that 66% of patients were missing signed consent forms at surgery and that this caused a delay for 14% of operative cases. In many instances, the missing consent forms interfered with team rounds and resident educational activities. In addition, residents spent less time obtaining consent and were often uncomfortable obtaining consent for major procedures. Finally, 40% of faculty felt dissatisfied with resident consent forms, and more than two-thirds felt patients were uncomfortable with being asked for consent by residents. At our center, missing consent forms led to delayed cases, burdensome and inadequate consent by residents, and extra work for nursing staff.

Practice patterns and outcomes in retransplantation among pediatric kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: More than 25% of pediatric kidney transplants are lost within 7 years, necessitating dialysis or retransplantation. Retransplantation practices and the outcomes of repeat transplantations, particularly among those with early graft loss, are not clear. METHODS: We examined retransplantation practice patterns and outcomes in 14,799 pediatric (ages <18 years) patients between 1987 and 2010. Death-censored graft survival was analyzed using extended Cox models and retransplantation using competing risks regression. RESULTS: After the first graft failure, 50.4% underwent retransplantation and 12.1% died within 5 years; after the second graft failure, 36.1% underwent retransplantation and 15.4% died within 5 years. Prior preemptive transplantation and graft loss after 5 years were associated with increased rates of retransplantation. Graft loss before 5 years, older age, non-Caucasian race, public insurance, and increased panel-reactive antibody were associated with decreased rates of retransplantation. First transplants had lower risk of graft loss compared with second (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.80; P<0.001), third (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78; P<0.001), and fourth (aHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78; P=0.005) transplants. However, among patients receiving two or more transplants (conditioned on having lost a first transplant), second graft median survival was 8.5 years despite a median survival of 4.5 years for the first transplant. Among patients receiving three or more transplants, third graft median survival was 7.7 years despite median survivals of 2.1 and 3.1 years for the first and second transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric kidney transplant recipients who experience graft loss, racial and socioeconomic disparities exist with regard to retransplantation, and excellent graft survival can be achieved with retransplantation despite poor survival of previous grafts.

Effect of eliminating priority points for HLA-B matching on racial disparities in kidney transplant rates.

BACKGROUND: African Americans have lower rates of obtaining a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) compared with their white counterparts. One proposed mechanism is differential HLA distributions between African Americans and whites. In May 2003, the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network changed kidney allocation policy to eliminate priority based on HLA-B matching in an effort to address this disparity. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of the change in policy regarding priority points for HLA-B matching. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 178,902 patients registered for a DDKT between January 2000 and August 2009. FACTORS: African Americans versus whites before and after the policy change. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, dialysis type, insurance status, education, panel-reactive antibody level, and blood type. OUTCOMES: Adjusted relative rates (aRRs) of deceased donor kidney transplant for African Americans compared with whites. MEASUREMENTS: Time from initial active wait listing to DDKT, censored for living donor kidney transplant and death. RESULTS: Before the policy change, African Americans had 37% lower rates of DDKT (aRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.65; P < 0.001). After the policy change, African Americans had 23% lower rates of DDKT (aRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.76-0.79; P < 0.001). There was a 23% reduction in the disparity between African Americans and whites after the policy change (interaction aRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29; P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: As an observational study, findings could have been affected by residual confounding or other changes in practice patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparity in rates of DDKT was decreased by the HLA-B policy change, but parity was not achieved. There are unaddressed factors in kidney allocation that lead to continued disparity on the kidney transplant waiting list.