Improving Health Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Application of an Implementation Science Framework.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve racial equity in access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT) have focused primarily on patients, ignoring the contributions of clinicians, transplant centers, and health system factors. Obtaining access to LDKT is a complex, multi-step process involving patients, their families, clinicians, and health system functions. An implementation science framework can help elucidate multi-level barriers to achieving racial equity in LDKT and guide the implementation of interventions targeted at all levels. METHODS: We adopted the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), an implementation science framework for racial equity in LDKT. The purpose was to provide a guide for assessment, inform intervention design, and support planning for the implementation of interventions. RESULTS: We applied 4 main PRISM domains to racial equity in LDKT: Organizational Characteristics, Program Components, External Environment, and Patient Characteristics. We specified elements within each domain that consider perspectives of the health system, transplant center, clinical staff, and patients. CONCLUSION: The applied PRISM framework provides a foundation for the examination of multi-level influences across the entirety of LDKT care. Researchers, quality improvement staff, and clinicians can use the applied PRISM framework to guide the assessment of inequities, support collaborative intervention development, monitor intervention implementation, and inform resource allocation to improve equity in access to LDKT.

Geography, inequities, and the social determinants of health in transplantation.

Among the causes of inequity in organ transplantation, geography is oft-cited but rarely defined with precision. Traditionally, geographic inequity has been characterized by variation in distance to transplant centers, availability of deceased organ donors, or the consequences of allocation systems that are inherently geographically based. Recent research has begun to explore the use of measures at various geographic levels to better understand how characteristics of a patient's geographic surroundings contribute to a broad range of transplant inequities. Within, we first explore the relationship between geography, inequities, and the social determinants of health. Next, we review methodologic considerations essential to geographic health research, and critically appraise how these techniques have been applied. Finally, we propose how to use geography to improve access to and outcomes of transplantation.

Defining the Need for Causal Inference to Understand the Impact of Social Determinants of Health: A Primer on Behalf of the Consortium for the Holistic Assessment of Risk in Transplantation (CHART).

Objective: This study aims to introduce key concepts and methods that inform the design of studies that seek to quantify the causal effect of social determinants of health (SDOH) on access to and outcomes following organ transplant. Background: The causal pathways between SDOH and transplant outcomes are poorly understood. This is partially due to the unstandardized and incomplete capture of the complex interactions between patients, their neighborhood environments, the tertiary care system, and structural factors that impact access and outcomes. Designing studies to quantify the causal impact of these factors on transplant access and outcomes requires an understanding of the fundamental concepts of causal inference. Methods: We present an overview of fundamental concepts in causal inference, including the potential outcomes framework and direct acyclic graphs. We discuss how to conceptualize SDOH in a causal framework and provide applied examples to illustrate how bias is introduced. Results: There is a need for direct measures of SDOH, increased measurement of latent and mediating variables, and multi-level frameworks for research that examine health inequities across multiple health systems to generalize results. We illustrate that biases can arise due to socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and incongruencies in language between the patient and clinician. Conclusions: Progress towards an equitable transplant system requires establishing causal pathways between psychosocial risk factors, access, and outcomes. This is predicated on accurate and precise quantification of social risk, best facilitated by improved organization of health system data and multicenter efforts to collect and learn from it in ways relevant to specialties and service lines.

Racial Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant Centers, 2008-2018.

Importance: It is unclear whether center-level factors are associated with racial equity in living donor kidney transplant (LDKT). Objective: To evaluate center-level factors and racial equity in LDKT during an 11-year time period. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort longitudinal study was completed in February 2023, of US transplant centers with at least 12 annual LDKTs from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, identified in the Health Resources Services Administration database and linked to the US Renal Data System and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Observed and model-based estimated Black-White mean LDKT rate ratios (RRs), where an RR of 1 indicates racial equity and values less than 1 indicate a lower rate of LDKT of Black patients compared with White patients. Estimated yearly best-case center-specific LDKT RRs between Black and White individuals, where modifiable center characteristics were set to values that would facilitate access to LDKT. Results: The final cohorts of patients included 394 625 waitlisted adults, of whom 33.1% were Black and 66.9% were White, and 57 222 adult LDKT recipients, of whom 14.1% were Black and 85.9% were White. Among 89 transplant centers, estimated yearly center-level RRs between Black and White individuals accounting for center and population characteristics ranged from 0.0557 in 2008 to 0.771 in 2018. The yearly median RRs ranged from 0.216 in 2016 to 0.285 in 2010. Model-based estimations for the hypothetical best-case scenario resulted in little change in the minimum RR (from 0.0557 to 0.0549), but a greater positive shift in the maximum RR from 0.771 to 0.895. Relative to the observed 582 LDKT in Black patients and 3837 in White patients, the 2018 hypothetical model estimated an increase of 423 (a 72.7% increase) LDKTs for Black patients and of 1838 (a 47.9% increase) LDKTs for White patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with kidney failure, no substantial improvement occurred over time either in the observed or the covariate-adjusted estimated RRs. Under the best-case hypothetical estimations, modifying centers' participation in the paired exchange and voucher programs and increased access to public insurance may contribute to improved racial equity in LDKT. Additional work is needed to identify center-level and program-specific strategies to improve racial equity in access to LDKT.

Equity in liver transplantation: are we any closer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As policies governing liver transplantation (LT) continue to change and influence clinical practice, it is important to monitor trends in equitable access and outcomes amongst patients. The purpose of this review is to closely examine recent advances and findings in health equity research in LT over the last 2 years; specifically evaluating inequities at the different stages of LT (referral, evaluation, listing, waitlist outcomes and post-LT outcomes). RECENT FINDINGS: Advancements in geospatial analysis have enabled investigators to identify and begin to study the role of community level factors (such as neighborhood poverty, increased community capital/urbanicity score) in driving LT disparities. There has also been a shift in investigating center specific characteristics that contributes to disparities in waitlist access. Modification to the current model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score policy accounting for height differences is also crucial to eradicating the disparity in LT amongst sexes. Lastly, Black pediatric patients have been shown to have higher rates of death and worse posttransplant outcome after transitioning to adult healthcare. SUMMARY: Although, there have been some advances in methodology and policies, inequities in waitlist access, waitlist outcomes and posttransplant outcomes continue to be pervasive in the field of LT. Future directions include expansion of social determinants of health measures, inclusion of multicenter designs, MELD score modification and investigation into drivers of worse posttransplant outcomes in Black patients.

Characterization of social determinants of health of a liver transplant referral population.

Disparities exist in referral and access to the liver transplant (LT) waitlist, and social determinants of health (SDOH) are increasingly recognized as important factors driving health inequities, including in LT. The SDOH of potential transplant candidates is therefore important to characterize when designing targeted interventions to promote equity in access to LT. Yet, it is uncertain how a transplant center should approach this issue, characterize SDOH, identify disparities, and use these data to inform interventions. We performed a retrospective study of referrals for first-time, single-organ LT to our center from 2016 to 2020. Addresses were geoprocessed and mapped to the corresponding county, census tract, and census block group to assess their geospatial distribution, identify potential disparities in referrals, and characterize their communities across multiple domains of SDOH to identify potential barriers to evaluation and selection. We identified variability in referral patterns and areas with disproportionately low referrals, including counties in the highest quartile of liver disease mortality (9%) and neighborhoods in the highest quintile of socioeconomic deprivation (17%) and quartile of poverty (21%). Black individuals were also under-represented compared with expected state demographics (12% vs. 18%). Among the referral population, several potential barriers to evaluation and selection for LT were identified, including poverty, educational attainment, access to healthy food, and access to technology. This approach to the characterization of a transplant center's referral population by geographic location and associated SDOH demonstrates a model for identifying disparities in a referral population and potential barriers to evaluation that can be used to inform targeted interventions for disparities in LT access.

A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations.

The choice of deprivation index can influence conclusions drawn regarding the extent of deprivation within a community and the identification of the most deprived communities in the United States. This study aimed to determine the degree of correlation among deprivation indices commonly used to characterize transplant populations. We used a retrospective cohort consisting of adults listed for liver or kidney transplants between 2008 and 2018 to compare 4 deprivation indices: neighborhood deprivation index, social deprivation index (SDI), area deprivation index, and social vulnerability index. Pairwise correlation between deprivation indices by transplant referral regions was measured using Spearman correlations of population-weighted medians and upper quartiles. In total, 52 individual variables were used among the 4 deprivation indices with 25% overlap. For both organs, the correlation between the population-weighted 75th percentile of the deprivation indices by transplant referral region was highest between SDI and social vulnerability index (liver and kidney, 0.93) and lowest between area deprivation index and SDI (liver, 0.19 and kidney, 0.15). The choice of deprivation index affects the applicability of research findings across studies examining the relationship between social risk and clinical outcomes. Appropriate application of these measures to transplant populations requires careful index selection based on the intended use and included variable relevance.

Association of the Affordable Care Act on Access to and Outcomes After Kidney or Liver Transplant: A Transplant Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on payor mix among patients on the kidney and liver transplant waiting list as well as waiting list and post-transplant outcomes. DESIGN: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we performed a secondary data analysis of all patients on the kidney and liver transplant waiting list from 2007 to 2018. We described changes in payor mix by timing of state Medicaid expansion. We used competing risks models to estimate cause-specific hazard ratios for the effects of insurance and era on death/delisting and transplant. We used a Poisson regression model to estimate the effect of insurance and era on incidence rate ratio of inactivations on the waiting list. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the effect of insurance and era on graft and patient survival. RESULTS: A decade after implementation of the ACA, the prevalence of Medicaid beneficiaries listed for transplant increased by 2.5% (from 7.4% to 9.9%) for kidney and by 2.6% (15.3% to 17.9%) for liver. Expansion states had greater increases than nonexpansion states (kidney 3.8% vs 0.6%, liver 5.3% vs -1.8%). Among wait-listed patients, the magnitude of association of Medicaid insurance vs private insurance with transplant decreased over time for kidney candidates (era 1 subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR), 0.62 [95% CI, 0.60-0.64] vs era 3 SHR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74-0.70]) but increased for liver candidates (era 1 SHR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83-0.90] vs era 3 SHR 0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.82]). Medicaid-insured kidney and liver recipients had greater hazards of graft failure; this did not change over time (kidney: HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.06-1.44] liver: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.94-1.17]). CONCLUSIONS: For the millions of patients with chronic kidney and liver diseases, implementation of the ACA has resulted in only modest increases in access to transplant for the publicly insured vs the privately insured.

Social determinants of health data in solid organ transplantation: National data sources and future directions.

Health equity research in transplantation has largely relied on national data sources, yet the availability of social determinants of health (SDOH) data varies widely among these sources. We sought to characterize the extent to which national data sources contain SDOH data applicable to end-stage organ disease (ESOD) and transplant patients. We reviewed 10 active national data sources based in the United States. For each data source, we examined patient inclusion criteria and explored strengths and limitations regarding SDOH data, using the National Institutes of Health PhenX toolkit of SDOH as a data collection instrument. Of the 28 SDOH variables reviewed, eight-core demographic variables were included in ≥80% of the data sources, and seven variables that described elements of social status ranged between 30 and 60% inclusion. Variables regarding identity, healthcare access, and social need were poorly represented (≤20%) across the data sources, and five of these variables were included in none of the data sources. The results of our review highlight the need for improved SDOH data collection systems in ESOD and transplant patients via: enhanced inter-registry collaboration, incorporation of standardized SDOH variables into existing data sources, and transplant center and consortium-based investigation and innovation.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes. RESULTS: Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant. CONCLUSIONS: This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Eudaimonia: An Aristotelian approach to transplantation.

Despite extraordinary achievements in over the past 20 years, the field of transplantation remains hindered by relatively narrow metrics for success. Eudaimonia is an Aristotelian concept that refers to flourishing, or achieving the best conditions possible, in every sense. The vast amounts of patient data that are collected throughout the transplant care continuum, ranging from social determinants of health to genomic profiles and patient-reported outcomes, afford us unprecedented opportunity to enhance our definition of success for our transplant patients. We must engage the technologies available for data integration and analysis and apply them in an insightful way, such that our clinical practice evolves beyond patient and graft survival and toward a more comprehensive state of wellness.

Decreased graft loss following implementation of the kidney allocation score (KAS).

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was developed to improve equity and utility in organ allocation. We examine the effect of this change on kidney graft distribution and survival. METHODS: UNOS data was used to identify first-time adult recipients of a deceased donor kidney-alone transplant pre-KAS (Jan 2012-Dec 2014, n = 26,612) and post-KAS (Jan 2015-Dec 2017, n = 30,701), as well as grafts recovered Jan 2012-Jun 2019. RESULTS: Post-KAS, kidneys were more likely to experience cold ischemia time >24 h (20.0% vs. 18.8%, p < 0.001) and experienced more delayed graft function, though competing risks modeling demonstrated a lower hazard of graft loss post-KAS, HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.97, p = 0.007). Post-policy, KDPI >85% kidneys were more likely to be shared regionally (37% vs. 14%), and more likely to be discarded (60.6% vs. 54.9%) after the policy change. KDPI >85% graft and patient survival did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the KAS has increased sharing of high-KDPI kidneys and has decreased the hazard of graft loss without an impact on patient survival.

Textbook Outcomes in Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome (TO) is an emerging concept within multiple surgical domains, which represents a novel effort to define a standardized, composite quality benchmark based on multiple postoperative endpoints that represent the ideal "textbook" hospitalization. We sought to define TO for liver transplantation (LT) using a cohort from a high procedural volume center. METHODS: Patients who underwent LT at our institution between 2014 and 2017 were eligible for the study. The definition of TO was determined by clinician consensus at our institution to include freedom from: mortality within 90 days, primary allograft non-function, early allograft dysfunction (EAD), rejection within 30 days, readmission with 30 days, readmission to the ICU during index hospitalization, hospital length of stay > 75th percentile of all liver transplant patients, red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirement greater than the 75th percentile for all liver transplant patients, Clavien-Dindo Grade III complication (re-intervention), and major intraoperative complication. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-one liver transplants with complete data were performed within the study period. Of those, 71 (31%) achieved a TO. Overall, the most likely event to lead to failure to achieve TO was readmission within 30 days (n = 57, 37%) or reoperation (n = 49, 32%). Overall and rejection-free survival did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Interestingly, patients who achieved TO incurred approximately $60,000 less in total charges than those who did not. When we limit this to charges specifically attributable to the transplant episode, the difference was approximately $50,000 and remained significantly less for those that achieved TO. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we present the first definition of TO in LT. Though not associated with long-term outcomes, TO in LT is associated with a significantly lower charges and costs of the initial hospitalization. A multi-institutional study to validate this definition of TO is warranted.

Agree on much, except it is time for change.

The imbalance between supply and demand of organs for transplant will not be fully solved by changes to the allocation system. Improved organ donation and utilization must be accomplished through critical reassessment of organ procurement organization (OPO) performance as a partnership between transplant centers, OPOs, and community hospitals. The continued discussion on changes to the organ distribution system should be based on patient-centeredness, enhanced transparency, improved models, and metrics. Focusing too heavily on geography without consideration for the other factors at play risks oversimplification of this complex issue.