Liver Transplant Costs and Activity After United Network for Organ Sharing Allocation Policy Changes.

Importance: A new liver allocation policy was implemented by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in February 2020 with the stated intent of improving access to liver transplant (LT). There are growing concerns nationally regarding the implications this new system may have on LT costs, as well as access to a chance for LT, which have not been captured at a multicenter level. Objective: To characterize LT volume and cost changes across the US and within specific center groups and demographics after the policy implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study collected and reviewed LT volume from multiple centers across the US and cost data with attention to 8 specific center demographics. Two separate 12-month eras were compared, before and after the new UNOS allocation policy: March 4, 2019, to March 4, 2020, and March 5, 2020, to March 5, 2021. Data analysis was performed from May to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Center volume, changes in cost. Results: A total of 22 of 68 centers responded comparing 1948 LTs before the policy change and 1837 LTs postpolicy, resulting in a 6% volume decrease. Transplants using local donations after brain death decreased 54% (P < .001) while imported donations after brain death increased 133% (P = .003). Imported fly-outs and dry runs increased 163% (median, 19; range, 1-75, vs 50, range, 2-91; P = .009) and 33% (median, 3; range, 0-16, vs 7, range, 0-24; P = .02). Overall hospital costs increased 10.9% to a total of $46 360 176 (P = .94) for participating centers. There was a 77% fly-out cost increase postpolicy ($10 600 234; P = .03). On subanalysis, centers with decreased LT volume postpolicy observed higher overall hospital costs ($41 720 365; P = .048), and specifically, a 122% cost increase for liver imports ($6 508 480; P = .002). Transplant centers from low-income states showed a significant increase in hospital (12%) and import (94%) costs. Centers serving populations with larger proportions of racial and ethnic minority candidates and specifically Black candidates significantly increased costs by more than 90% for imported livers, fly-outs, and dry runs despite lower LT volume. Similarly, costs increased significantly (>100%) for fly-outs and dry runs in centers from worse-performing health systems. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on this large multicenter effort and contrary to current assumptions, the new liver distribution system appears to place a disproportionate burden on populations of the current LT community who already experience disparities in health care. The continuous allocation policies being promoted by UNOS could make the situation even worse.

Health Inequity in Likelihood and Time to Renal Recovery after Living Kidney Donation: Implications for Kidney Health in Black Americans.

BACKGROUND: Live donor kidney transplantation has been popularized to help mitigate the organ shortage crisis. At the time of living donor nephrectomy, living donors lose 50% of their kidney function or glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Studies have shown that in healthy living donors, the remaining kidney is able to adapt and recover 10% to 25% of postdonation lost GFR. GFR recovery is critical to long-term kidney health, particularly for Black Americans who disproportionately suffer from kidney disease with an incidence 2.5 times White Americans. To date, no study has examined whether health inequities in renal recovery postdonation exist. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed 100,121 living kidney donors reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 1999 and 2021. We estimated GFR (eGFR) using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2021 equation and predicted the likelihood (logistic regression) and time (Cox regression) to recovery of 60% and 75% predonation eGFR. Models adjusted for age, sex, race, BMI, and predonation eGFR. RESULTS: Black patients were 47% (adjusted odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) and 43% (adjusted odds ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.60, p < 0.001) less likely to recover 60% and 75% of predonation eGFR, respectively, compared with their White counterparts. The hazard ratio for time to renal recovery of 60% and 75% of predonation eGFR was 22% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.80, p < 0.001) and 38% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.65, p < 0.001) lower, respectively, than White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Black living kidney donors were less likely to recover predonation eGFR, and time to renal recovery was significantly longer than their White counterparts. These data highlight the need for enhanced living kidney donor follow-up, particularly for Black living kidney donors who are at greatest future risk of end-stage kidney disease.

Regional Social Vulnerability is Associated With Geographic Disparity in Waitlist Outcomes for Patients With Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Model for End-stage Liver Disease Exceptions in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the role of regional social vulnerability in geographic disparity for patients listed for liver transplantation with non-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exceptions. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Prior work has demonstrated regional variability in the appropriateness of MELD exceptions for diagnoses other than HCC. METHODS: Adults listed at a single center for first-time liver-only transplantation without HCC after June 18, 2013 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database as of March 2021 were examined. Candidates were mapped to hospital referral regions (HRRs). Adjusted likelihood of mortality and liver transplantation were modeled. Advantaged HRRs were defined as those where exception patients were more likely to be transplanted, yet no more likely to die in adjusted analysis. The Centers for Disease Control's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was used as the measure for community health. Higher SVIs indicate poorer community health. RESULTS: There were 49,494 candidates in the cohort, of whom 4337 (8.8%) had MELD exceptions. Among continental US HRRs, 27.3% (n = 78) were identified as advantaged. The mean SVI of advantaged HRRs was 0.42 versus 0.53 in nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.002), indicating better community health in these areas. Only 25.3% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of high SVI versus 40.7% of nonadvantaged HRRs, whereas 44.6% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of low SVI versus 38.0% of nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: An advantage for non-HCC MELD exception patients is associated with lower social vulnerability on a population level. These findings suggest assigning similar waitlist priority to all non-HCC exception candidates without considering geographic differences in social determinants of health may actually exacerbate rather than ameliorate disparity.

Quantifying the association of individual-level characteristics with disparities in kidney transplant waitlist addition among people with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Over 45% of people with HIV (PWH) in the United States at least 50 years old and are at heightened risk of aging-related comorbidities including end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), for which kidney transplant is the optimal treatment. Among ESKD patients, PWH have lower likelihood of waitlisting, a requisite step in the transplant process, than individuals without HIV. It is unknown what proportion of the inequity by HIV status can be explained by demographics, medical characteristics, substance use history, and geography. METHODS: The United States Renal Data System, a national database of all individuals ESKD, was used to create a cohort of people with and without HIV through Medicare claims linkage (2007-2017). The primary outcome was waitlisting. Inverse odds ratio weighting was conducted to assess what proportion of the disparity by HIV status could be explained by individual characteristics. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred and fifty PWH were significantly younger at ESKD diagnosis and more commonly Black with fewer comorbidities. PWH were more frequently characterized as using tobacco, alcohol and drugs. Positive HIV-status was associated with 57% lower likelihood of waitlisting [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.48, P  < 0.001]. Controlling for demographics, medical characteristics, substance use and geography explained 39.8% of this observed disparity (aHR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.79, P  < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PWH were significantly less likely to be waitlisted, and 60.2% of that disparity remained unexplained. HIV characteristics such as CD4 + counts, viral loads, antiretroviral therapy adherence, as well as patient preferences and provider decision-making warrant further study.

Mitigating Health Disparities in Transplantation Requires Equity, Not Equality.

Despite decades of research and evidence-based mitigation strategies, disparities in access to transplantation persist for all organ types and in all stages of the transplant process. Although some strategies have shown promise for alleviating disparities, others have fallen short of the equity goal by providing the same tools and resources to all rather than tailoring the tools and resources to one's circumstances. Innovative solutions that engage all stakeholders are needed to achieve equity regardless of race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, or geography. Mitigation of disparities is paramount to ensure fair and equitable access for those with end-stage disease and to preserve the trust of the public, upon whom we rely for their willingness to donate organs. In this overview, we present a summary of recent literature demonstrating persistent disparities by stage in the transplant process, along with policies and interventions that have been implemented to combat these disparities and hypotheses for why some strategies have been more effective than others. We conclude with future directions that have been proposed by experts in the field and how these suggested strategies may help us finally arrive at equity in transplantation.

Interpersonal Connections Are Important for Virtual Kidney Transplant Educational Program Development.

Introduction: The Living Donor Navigator program is designed to mitigate disparities in living donor kidney transplantation, although geographic disparities in program participation were observed in the initial years of implementation. The purpose of this study was to understand participant perspectives regarding the use of a virtual option/alternative to expand program participation. Methods: Previous participants of the in-person navigator program were purposively sampled. Using the nominal group technique, a well-structured formative methodology to elicit participant perspectives, 2 meetings were conducted among transplant recipients and advocates (N = 13) to identify and prioritize responses to the question "What things would concern you about participating in a virtual and remote Living Donor Navigator program?" Findings: Mean participant age was 59.3 (9.3) years, and participants were 54% male and 62% white. Education levels varied from less than high school to master's degrees. Participants generated 70 unique responses, of which 36 (51.4%) received prioritization. The top 5 ranked responses of each nominal group technique meeting received approximately 50 percent (47.6% vs. 66.7%, respectively) of the total votes and described the potentially limited interpersonal connections, time conflicts, and differing content in a virtual navigator program compared to the in-person model. Discussion: These data suggest that previous participants were concerned with upholding the original design of the program, thus, virtual living donor kidney transplantation programs should aim to maintain interpersonal connections and consistency of content to ensure adequate programmatic engagement. Future research will focus on program fidelity independent of delivery modality.

Racial Disparities in Access to the Kidney Transplant Waitlist Among People with Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

The epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has shifted such that Black individuals disproportionately represent incident HIV diagnoses. While risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) among people with HIV (PWH) has declined with effective antiretroviral therapies, a substantial racial disparity in ESKD burden exists with the greatest prevalence among Black PWH. Disparities in waitlisting for kidney transplantation, the optimal treatment for ESKD, exist for both PWH and Black individuals without HIV, but it is unknown whether these characteristics together exacerbate such disparities. Six hundred two thousand six ESKD patients were identified from the United States Renal Data System (January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2017), and HIV-status was determined through Medicare claims. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine waitlisting rates. Multiplicative interaction terms between HIV-status and race were examined. The 6250 PWH were significantly younger, more commonly Black, and less commonly female than those without HIV. HIV-status and race were independently associated with 50% and 12% lower likelihood of waitlisting, respectively [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.69, p < 0.001; aHR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.87-0.90, p < 0.001]. There was also a significant interaction present between HIV-status and Black race (aHR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.98, p < 0.001) such that, while HIV-status and Black race were independently associated with decreased waitlisting, the interaction of Black race and HIV-status exacerbated those disparities. While limited by lack of HIV-specific data that may impact inferences with respect to race, additional studies are urgently needed to understand the interplay between HIV risk factors, HIV-stigma, and racism, and how intersectionality may exacerbate disparities in transplantation among PWH.

Greater community vulnerability is associated with poor living donor navigator program fidelity.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors contribute to living donor kidney transplantation disparities but may also influence the interventions aimed to mitigate these disparities. The Living Donor Navigator Program was designed to separate the advocacy role from the patient in need of transplantation-friends/family are encouraged to participate as the patients' advocates to identify living donors, though some of the patients participate alone as self-advocates. Self-advocates have a lower living donor kidney transplantation likelihood compared to the patients with an advocate. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the patients' community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy as a surrogate for program fidelity. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 110 Living Donor Navigator participants (April 2017-June 2019). Program fidelity was assessed using the participants' advocacy status. Measures of community vulnerability were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, 19% (n = 21) were self-advocates. For every 10% increase in community-level vulnerability, patients had 17% higher risk of self-advocacy (adjusted relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.32, P = .01). Living in areas with greater unemployment (adjusted relative risk: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.33, P = .01), single-parent households (adjusted relative risk: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.42, P = .006), minority population (adjusted relative risk: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55, P = .02), or no-vehicle households (adjusted relative risk: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.35, P = .02) were associated with increased risk of self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: Having a greater community-level vulnerability was associated with poor Living Donor Navigator Program fidelity. The potential barriers identified using the Social Vulnerability Index may direct resource allocation and program refinement to optimize program fidelity and efficacy for all participants.

Evaluation of Community-Level Vulnerability and Racial Disparities in Living Donor Kidney Transplant.

Importance: Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is the ideal treatment for end-stage kidney disease, but racial disparities in LDKT have increased over the last 2 decades. Recipient clinical and social factors do not account for LDKT racial inequities, although comprehensive measures of community-level vulnerability have not been assessed. Objective: To determine if racial disparities persist in LDKT independent of community-level vulnerability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study included data from 19 287 adult kidney-only transplant recipients in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The study included individuals who underwent transplant between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Exposures: Recipient race and the 2018 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Census tract-level SVI data were linked to census tracts within each recipient zip code. The median SVI measure among the census tracts within a zip code was used to describe community-level vulnerability. Main Outcomes and Measures: Kidney transplant donor type (deceased vs living). Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between SVI and LDKT, and to estimate LDKT likelihood among races, independent of community-level vulnerability and recipient-level characteristics. Results: Among 19 287 kidney transplant recipients, 6080 (32%) received LDKT. A total of 11 582 (60%) were male, and the median (interquartile range) age was 54 (43-63) years. There were 760 Black LDKT recipients (13%), 4865 White LDKT recipients (80%), and 455 LDKT recipients of other races (7%; American Indian, Asian, multiracial, and Pacific Islander). Recipients who lived in communities with higher SVI (ie, more vulnerable) had lower likelihood of LDKT compared with recipients who lived in communities with lower SVI (ie, less vulnerable) (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P < .001). Independent of community-level vulnerability, compared with White recipients, Black recipients had 37% lower likelihood (aRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59-0.67; P < .001) and recipients of other races had 24% lower likelihood (aRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82; P < .001) of LDKT. The interaction between SVI and race was significant among Black recipients, such that the disparity in LDKT between Black and White recipients increased with greater community-level vulnerability (ratio of aRRs, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: Community-level vulnerability is associated with access to LDKT but only partially explains LDKT racial disparities. The adverse effects of living in more vulnerable communities were worse for Black recipients. The interaction of these constructs is worrisome and suggests evaluation of other health system factors that may contribute to LDKT racial disparities is needed.

Cognitive mapping as an approach to facilitate organ donation among African Americans.

Making up 13.4% of the United States population, African Americans (AAs) account for 28.7% of candidates who are currently waiting for an organ donation. AAs are disproportionately affected by end-organ disease, particularly kidney disease, therefore, the need for transplantation among this population is high, and the high need is also observed for other solid organ transplantation. To this end, we worked with the AA community to derive an empirical framework of organ donation strategies that may facilitate AA decision-making. We used a cognitive mapping approach involving two distinct phases of primary data collection and a sequence of data analytic procedures to elicit and systematically organize strategies for facilitating organ donation. AA adults (n = 89) sorted 27 strategies identified from nominal group technique meetings in phase 1 based on their perceived similarities. Sorting data were aggregated and analyzed using Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses. Among 89 AA participants, 68.2% were female, 65.5% obtained > high school education, 69.5% reported annual household income ≤ $50,000. The average age was 47.4 years (SD = 14.5). Derived empirical framework consisted of five distinct clusters: fundamental knowledge, psychosocial support, community awareness, community engagement, and system accountability; and two dimensions: Approach, Donor-related Information. The derived empirical framework reflects an organization scheme that may facilitate AA decision-making about organ donation and suggests that targeted dissemination of donor-related information at both the individual-donor and community levels may be critical for increasing donation rates among AAs.

Geographic Differences in Population Health and Expected Organ Supply in the Gulf Coast Region of the United States Compared to Non-Gulf States.

BACKGROUND: The Final Rule aimed to reduce geographic disparities in access to transplantation by prioritizing the need for transplant over donor proximity. However, disparities in waiting times persist for deceased donor kidney transplantation. The kidney allocation system implemented in 2014 does not account for potential local supply based on population health characteristics within a donation service area (DSA). We hypothesized that regions with traditionally high rates of comorbid disease, such as the states located along the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf States), may be disadvantaged by limited local supply secondary to poor population health. METHODS: Using data from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings, the United States Renal Data System, and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we compared population-level characteristics and expected kidney donation rates by Gulf States location. RESULTS: Prevalence of African American ethnicity, end-stage renal disease, diabetes, fair/poor self-rated health, physical inactivity, food insecurity, and uninsurance were higher among Gulf State DSAs. On unadjusted analyses, Gulf State DSAs were associated with 3.52 fewer expected kidney donors per 100 eligible deaths than non-Gulf States. After adjustment, there was no longer a statistically significant difference in expected kidney donation rate. CONCLUSIONS: Although Gulf State DSAs have lower expected donation rates, these differences appear to be driven by the prevalence of health factors negatively associated with donation rate. These data suggest the need to discuss population health characteristics when examining kidney allocation policy, to account for potential lower supply of donors and to further address geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation.

A Qualitative Assessment of the Living Donor Navigator Program to Identify Core Competencies and Promising Practices for Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: The best strategy to increase awareness of and access to living kidney donation remains unknown. To build upon the existing strategies, we developed the Living Donor Navigator program, combining advocacy training of patient advocates with enhanced health-care systems training of patient navigators to address potential living donor concerns during the evaluation process. Herein, we describe a systematic assessment of the delivery and content of the program through focus group discussion. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with 9 advocate participants in the Living Donor Navigator program to identify knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for both advocates and navigators. We focused on 2 organizational levels: (1) the participant level or the advocacy training of the advocates and (2) the programmatic level or the support role provided by the navigators and administration of the program. FINDINGS: From 4 common themes (communication, education, support, and commitment), we identified several core competencies and promising practices, at both the participant and programmatic levels. These themes highlighted the potential for several improvements of program content and delivery, the importance of cultural sensitivity among the Living Donor navigators, and the opportunity for informal caregiver support and accountability provided by the program. DISCUSSION: These competencies and promising practices represent actionable strategies for content refinement, optimal training of advocates, and engagement of potential living donors through the Living Donor Navigator program. These findings may also assist with program implementation at other transplant centers in the future.

Enhanced Advocacy and Health Systems Training Through Patient Navigation Increases Access to Living-donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: To date, no living donation program has simultaneously addressed the needs of both transplant candidates and living donors by separating the advocacy role from the candidate and improving potential donor comfort with the evaluation process. We hypothesized that the development of a novel program designed to promote both advocacy and systems training among transplant candidates and their potential living kidney donors would result in sustained increases in living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). To this end, we developed and implemented a Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. METHODS: We included adult patients awaiting kidney-only transplant in a retrospective cohort analysis. Using time-varying Cox proportional hazards regression, we explored likelihood of living donor screening and approval by participation in the LDN program. RESULTS: There were 56 LDN participants and 1948 nonparticipants (standard of care). LDN was associated with a 9-fold increased likelihood of living donor screenings (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.27; 95% confidence interval, 5.97-14.41, P < 0.001) and a 7-fold increased likelihood of having an approved living donor (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.74; 95% confidence interval, 3.54-16.93; P < 0.001) compared with the standard of care. Analyses by participant race demonstrated higher likelihood of screened donors and a similar likelihood of having an approved donor among African Americans compared with Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both advocacy and systems training are needed to increase actual LDKT rates, and that LDN programs may mitigate existing racial disparities in access to LDKT.

Donation approval among obese living kidney donor candidates: The impact of metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The scarcity of organs available for transplantation has increased attempts to augment transplantation by utilizing obese living kidney donors. The literature has suggested that these donors have increased risks postdonation. Not surprising, the threshold for living kidney donor approval among obese persons is typically higher and the process more costly. Therefore, a screening tool to predict the likelihood of approval among obese living kidney donor candidates was created. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was performed among obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) living kidney donor candidates evaluated in clinic (January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017). Approved candidates were compared with those not approved using multivariable logistic regression, and a prediction tool was generated. RESULTS: Among 389 obese living kidney donor candidates, there were no significant differences in sex or race and ethnicity by approval status. However, nonapproved candidates had a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome. In the prediction model, glucose impairment and hypertension were most predictive of nonapproval. CONCLUSION: Among obese living kidney donor candidates, several metabolic syndrome components were associated with decreased odds of approval. This tool may serve as a useful initial screening for obese living kidney donor candidates, permitting more cost-effective evaluation processes. The tool could also be used to promote expeditious interventions in the preclinical setting, including weight management programs, to improve the likelihood of donation and postdonation outcomes.

Mitigating Racial and Sex Disparities in Access to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Impact of the Nation's Longest Single-center Kidney Chain.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to assess likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) within a single-center kidney transplant waitlist, by race and sex, after implementation of an incompatible program. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in access to LDKT exist among minority women and may be partially explained by antigen sensitization secondary to prior pregnancies, transplants, or blood transfusions, creating difficulty finding compatible matches. To address these and other obstacles, an incompatible LDKT program, incorporating desensitization and kidney paired donation, was created at our institution. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed among our kidney transplant waitlist candidates (n = 8895). Multivariable Cox regression was utilized, comparing likelihood of LDKT before (era 1: 01/2007-01/2013) and after (era 2: 01/2013-11/2018) implementation of the incompatible program. Candidates were stratified by race [white vs minority (nonwhite)], sex, and breadth of sensitization. RESULTS: Program implementation resulted in the nation's longest single-center kidney chain, and likelihood of LDKT increased by 70% for whites [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.99] and more than 100% for minorities (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.62). Improvement in access to LDKT was greatest among sensitized minority women [calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 11%-49%: aHR 4.79; 95% CI, 2.27-10.11; cPRA 50%-100%: aHR 4.09; 95% CI, 1.89-8.82]. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an incompatible program, and the resulting nation's longest single-center kidney chain, mitigated disparities in access to LDKT among minorities, specifically sensitized women. Extrapolation of this success on a national level may further serve these vulnerable populations.

Disparity in access to kidney allograft offers among transplant candidates with human immunodeficiency virus.

BACKGROUND: Despite a survival benefit from transplantation and acceptable outcomes, patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV+) face barriers to kidney transplantation. Little is known about the acceptance or decline of organ offers on their behalf because waitlist registry data do not include HIV serostatus. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using match run data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, including every kidney offer from May 1, 2007, to July 3, 2013. HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) serostatus were obtained by merging the match run with clinical data from a large dialysis provider. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to evaluate differences in time to the first organ offer and to transplantation. A total of 35 646 uninfected, 2213 HCV+, 418 HIV+, and 71 HIV+/HCV+ candidates received organ offers during the study period. RESULTS: Compared to uninfected candidates, HIV+ candidates had a significantly lower likelihood of receiving a first offer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99) and undergoing transplantation (aHR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.98) after receiving a first offer; HCV+ candidates had a similar likelihood of receiving a first offer (aHR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.92-1.03) and greater likelihood of transplantation after receiving a first offer (aHR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.12-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: HIV+ candidates had a significantly longer wait until their first organ offer and to transplantation. Efforts to increase their access to transplantation are needed.

Optimal timing of hepatitis C treatment among HIV/HCV coinfected ESRD patients: Pre- vs posttransplant.

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have access to effective treatment options for HCV infection. However, they also have access to HCV-infected kidneys, which historically afford shorter times to transplantation. Given the high waitlist mortality and rapid progression of liver fibrosis among coinfected kidney-only transplant candidates, identification of the optimal treatment strategy is paramount. Two strategies, treatment pre- and posttransplant, were compared using Monte Carlo microsimulation of 1 000 000 candidates. The microsimulation was stratified by liver fibrosis stage at waitlist addition and wait-time over a lifetime time horizon. Treatment posttransplant was consistently cost-saving as compared to treatment pretransplant due to the high cost of dialysis. Among patients with low fibrosis disease (F0-F1), treatment posttransplant also yielded higher life months (LM) and quality-adjusted life months (QALM), except among F1 candidates with wait times ≥ 18 months. For candidates with advanced liver disease (F2-F4), treatment pretransplant afforded more LM and QALM unless wait time was <18 months. Moreover, treatment pretransplant was cost-effective for F2 candidates with wait times >71 months and F3 candidates with wait times >18 months. Thus, optimal timing of HCV treatment differs based on liver disease severity and wait time, favoring pretransplant treatment when cirrhosis development prior to transplant seems likely.

Population level outcomes and cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment pre- vs postkidney transplantation.

Direct-acting antivirals approved for use in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) now exist. HCV-positive (HCV+) ESRD patients have the opportunity to decrease the waiting times for transplantation by accepting HCV-infected kidneys. The optimal timing for HCV treatment (pre- vs posttransplant) among kidney transplant candidates is unknown. Monte Carlo microsimulation of 100 000 candidates was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment pretransplant vs posttransplant by liver fibrosis stage and waiting time over a lifetime time horizon using 2 regimens approved for ESRD patients. Treatment pretransplant yielded higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with posttransplant treatment in all subgroups except those with Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Viral Hepatitis stage F0 (pretransplant: 5.7 QALYs vs posttransplant: 5.8 QALYs). However, treatment posttransplant was cost-saving due to decreased dialysis duration with the use of HCV-infected kidneys (pretransplant: $735 700 vs posttransplant: $682 400). Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000, treatment pretransplant was not cost-effective except for those with Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Viral Hepatitis stage F3 whose fibrosis progression was halted. If HCV+ candidates had access to HCV-infected donors and were transplanted ≥9 months sooner than HCV-negative candidates, treatment pretransplant was no longer cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $107 100). In conclusion, optimal timing of treatment depends on fibrosis stage and access to HCV+ kidneys but generally favors posttransplant HCV eradication.