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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Population Health, Ethnicity, and Rate of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation has declined in the United States since 2004, but the relationship between population characteristics and rate of living donation is unknown. The goal of our study was to use data on general population health and socioeconomic status to investigate the association with living donation. METHODS: This cross-sectional, ecological study used population health and socioeconomic status data from the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to investigate the association with living donation. Transplant centers performing 10 or greater kidney transplants reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in 2015 were included. Center rate of living donation was defined as the proportion of all kidney transplants performed at a center that were from living donors. RESULTS: In a linear mixed-effects model, a composite index of health and socioeconomic status factors was negatively associated with living donation, with a rate of living donation that was on average 7.3 percentage points lower among centers in areas with more comorbid disease and poorer socioeconomic status (95% confidence interval, -12.2 to -2.3, P = 0.004). Transplant centers in areas with higher prevalence of minorities had a rate of living donation that was 7.1 percentage points lower than centers with fewer minorities (95% confidence interval, -11.8 to -2.3, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Center-level variation in living donation was associated with population characteristics and minority prevalence. Further examination of these factors in the context of patient and center-level barriers to living donation is warranted.

Decreasing deceased donor transplant rates among children (≤6 years) under the new kidney allocation system.

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was implemented in December 2014 with unknown impact on the pediatric waitlist. To understand the effect of KAS on pediatric registrants, deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rate was assessed using interrupted time series analysis and time-to-event analysis. Two allocation eras were defined with an intermediary washout period: Era 1 (01/01/2013-09/01/2014), Era 2 (09/01/2014-03/01/2015), and Era 3(03/01/2015-03/01/2017). When using Cox proportional hazards, there was no significant association between allocation era and DDKT likelihood as compared to Era 1 (Era 3: aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97-1.18, P = .17). However, this was not consistent across all subgroups. Specifically, while highly sensitized pediatric registrants were consistently less likely to be transplanted than their less sensitized counterparts, this disparity was attenuated in Era 3 (Era 1 aHR: 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01-0.14, P < .001; Era 3 aHR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.53, P < .001) whereas the youngest registrants aged 0-6 experienced a 21% decrease in DDKT likelihood in Era 3 as compared to Era 1 (aHR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.98, P = .03). Thus, while overall DDKT likelihood remained stable with the introduction of KAS, registrants ≤ 6 years of age were disadvantaged, warranting further study to ensure equitable access to transplantation.

Insurance Type and Solid Organ Transplantation Outcomes: A Historical Perspective on How Medicaid Expansion Might Impact Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The number of Medicaid beneficiaries has increased under the Affordable Care Act, improving access to solid organ transplantation in this disadvantaged patient cohort. It is unclear what impact Medicaid expansion will have on transplantation outcomes. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis to measure the frequency and variation in Medicaid transplantation and post-transplantation survival in Medicaid patients. STUDY DESIGN: Adult heart, lung, liver, and renal transplant recipients between 2002 and 2011 (n = 169,194) reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients were identified. Transplant recipients were classified based on insurance status (private, Medicare or Medicaid). Outcomes measures included 5-year post-transplantation survival, summarized using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared with log-rank tests. Organ-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust for donor and recipient factors. RESULTS: Medicaid patients comprised 8.6% of all organ transplant recipients. Fewer transplantations were performed than expected among Medicaid beneficiaries for all organs except liver (liver: observed to expected ratio = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; heart: observed to expected ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.44-1.49; lung: observed to expected ratio = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.22-1.06; renal: observed to expected ratio = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08-0.72). Medicaid transplant recipients were listed with more severe organ failure and experienced shorter transplant wait times. Post-transplantation survival was lower in Medicaid patients compared with private insurance for all organs. Post-transplantation survival in Medicaid patients was similar to Medicare patients for heart, liver, and renal but lower in lung. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid organ transplant beneficiaries had significantly lower survival compared with privately insured beneficiaries. The more severe organ failure among Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of listing, suggested a pattern of late referral, which might account for worse outcomes. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act gives the opportunity to develop the necessary infrastructure to ensure timely transplantation referrals and improve long-term outcomes in this vulnerable population.