Multilevel Intervention to Improve Racial Equity in Access to Kidney Transplant.

BACKGROUND: African Americans (AAs) have reduced access to kidney transplant (KTX). Our center undertook a multilevel quality improvement endeavor to address KTX access barriers, focused on vulnerable populations. This program included dialysis center patient/staff education, embedding telehealth services across South Carolina, partnering with community providers to facilitate testing/procedures, and increased use of high-risk donors. STUDY DESIGN: This was a time series analysis from 2017 to 2021 using autoregression to assess trends in equitable access to KTX for AAs. Equity was measured using a modified version of the Kidney Transplant Equity Index (KTEI), defined as the proportion of AAs in South Carolina with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) vs the proportion of AAs initiating evaluation, completing evaluation, waitlisting, and undergoing KTX. A KTEI of 1.00 is considered complete equity; a KTEI of <1.00 is indicative of disparity. RESULTS: From January 2017 to September 2021, 11,487 ESKD patients (64.7% AA) were referred, 6,748 initiated an evaluation (62.8% AA), 4,109 completed evaluation (59.7% AA), 2,762 were waitlisted (60.0% AA), and 1,229 underwent KTX (55.3% AA). The KTEI for KTX demonstrated significant improvements in equity. The KTEI for initiated evaluations was 0.89 in 2017, improving to 1.00 in 2021 (p = 0.0045). Completed evaluation KTEI improved from 0.85 to 0.95 (p = 0.0230), while waitlist addition KTEI improved from 0.83 to 0.96 (p = 0.0072). The KTEI for KTX also improved from 0.76 to 0.91, which did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0657). CONCLUSIONS: A multilevel intervention focused on improving access to vulnerable populations was significantly associated with reduced disparities for AAs.

Apolipoprotein L1 Opinions of African American Living Kidney Donors, Kidney Transplant Patients, and Nonpatients.

INTRODUCTION: The discovery of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) has raised important ethical and clinical questions about genetic testing in the context of living and deceased kidney donation. Largely missing from this discussion are the perspectives of those African Americans (AA) most likely to be impacted by ApoL1 testing. METHODS: We surveyed 331 AA potential and former living kidney donors (LKDs), kidney transplant candidates and recipients, and nonpatients at three United States transplant programs about their ApoL1 testing attitudes. RESULTS: Overall, 72% felt that transplant programs should offer ApoL1 testing to AA potential LKDs. If a potential LKD has the high-risk genotype, 79% felt that the LKD should be allowed to make their own donation decision or participate in shared decision-making with transplant doctors. More than half of the potential LKDs (58%) would undergo ApoL1 testing and 81% of former LKDs would take the test now if offered. Most transplant candidates expressed a low likelihood of accepting a kidney from a LKD (79%) or a deceased donor (67%) with the high-risk genotype. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong support among LKDs and transplant patients for ApoL1 testing when evaluating potential kidney donors of African ancestry. Inclusion of AA stakeholders in developing guidelines and educational programs for ApoL1 testing is critical.

Association of Public Reporting of Medicare Dialysis Facility Quality Ratings With Access to Kidney Transplantation.

Importance: Improving the quality of dialysis care and access to kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease is a national clinical and policy priority. The role of dialysis facility quality in increasing access to kidney transplantation is not known. Objective: To determine whether patient, facility, and kidney transplant waitlisting characteristics are associated with variations in dialysis center quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study is an analysis of US Renal Data System data and Medicare Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) data from 2013 to 2018. Participants included all adult (aged ≥18 years) patients in the US Renal Data System beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018. Patients with a prior kidney transplant and matched Medicare DFC star ratings to each annual cohort of recipients were excluded. Patients at facilities without a star rating in that year were also excluded. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2021. Exposures: Dialysis center quality, as defined by Medicare DFC star ratings. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing incident dialysis who were waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were patient and facility characteristics. Results: Of 507 581 patients beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017, 291 802 (57.4%) were male, 266 517 (52.5%) were White, and the median (interquartile range) age was 65 (55-75) years. Of 5869 dialysis facilities in 2017, 132 (2.2%) were 1-star, 436 (7.4%) were 2-star, 2047 (34.9%) were 3-star, 1660 (28.3%) were 4-star, and 1594 (27.2%) were 5-star. Higher-quality dialysis facilities were associated with 47% higher odds of transplant waitlisting (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57 for 5-star facilities vs 1-star facilities; P < .001). Black patients were less likely than White patients to be waitlisted for transplantation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76). In addition, patients at for-profit (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and rural (OR, 0.63; 95%, CI 0.58-0.68) facilities were less likely to be waitlisted for transplantation compared with those at nonprofit and urban facilities, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients at higher-quality dialysis facilities had higher odds than patients at lower-quality facilities of being waitlisted for kidney transplantation within 1 year. Waitlisting rates for kidney transplantation should be considered for integration into the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DFC star ratings to incentivize dialysis facility referral to transplant centers, inform patient choice, and drive quality improvement by increasing transplant waitlisting rates.

Outcomes for individuals turned down for living kidney donation.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the consequences of being turned down for living kidney donation could help transplant professionals to counsel individuals considering donation. METHODS: In this exploratory study, we used survey instruments and qualitative interviews to characterize nonmedical outcomes among individuals turned down for living kidney donation between July 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013. We assembled a comparator group of kidney donors. RESULTS: Among 83 turned-down donors with contact information at a single center, 43 (52%) participated in the study (median age 53 years; 53% female; 19% black). Quality of life, depression, financial stress, and provider empathy scores were similar between individuals turned down for donation (n = 43) and donors (n = 128). Participants selected a discrete choice response to a statement about the overall quality of their lives; 32% of turned-down donors versus 7% of donors (P < 0.01) assessed that their lives were worse after the center's decision about whether they could donate a kidney. Among turned-down donors who reported that life had worsened, 77% had an intended recipient who was never transplanted, versus 36% among individuals who assessed life as the same or better (P = 0.02). In interviews, the majority of turned-down donors reported emotional impact, including empathy, stress, and other challenges, related to having someone in their lives with end-stage kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Generic instruments measuring quality of life, depression, financial stress, and provider empathy revealed no significant differences between kidney donors and turned-down donors. However, qualitative interviews revealed preliminary evidence that some turned-down donors experienced emotional consequences. These findings warrant confirmation in larger studies.

A Program for Promoting Clinical Scholarship in General Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates resident physician training in the principles and applications of research. To provide a robust early foundation for effective engagement in scholarship, we designed a novel clinical scholarship program (CSP) for PGY1 general surgery residents. SETTING, DESIGN AND OUTCOMES: In a general surgery residency training program, we assessed resident academic productivity (i.e., presentations, publications, and sustained engagement in clinical research) and self-efficacy to conduct clinical research, as well as the overall satisfaction of both residents and faculty mentors. The clinical research appraisal inventory was administered both before and after completion of the CSP rotation. RESULTS: Totally, 44 categorical general surgery trainees and 23 faculty research mentors participated in the CSP from 2011 to 2016; 26 residents (59%) presented at regional or national meetings. Of the 35 residents who were 24 or more months beyond their PGY1 training period, 16 (46%) have published their CSP project, 5 (14%) report continued commitment towards publication, and 22 (63%) have ≥1 clinical research publications beyond their CSP participation during residency, excluding publications arising from subsequent formal research fellowships. Clinical research appraisal inventory responses indicate significant improvement (p < 0.005) in clinical research self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: A structured CSP increases the confidence of trainees to perform clinical research and leads to significant contributions directed at addressing clinically meaningful problems in surgery. Faculty-guided resident research at a very early stage of clinical training supplements other mentorship experiences and encourages the development of surgeons who will engage in life-long clinical problem solving.

Massachusetts Healthcare Reform and Trends in Emergent Colon Resection.

BACKGROUND: Insurance impacts access to therapeutic options, yet little is known about how healthcare reform might change the pattern of surgical admissions. OBJECTIVE: We compared rates of emergent admissions and outcomes after colectomy before and after reform in Massachusetts with a nationwide control group. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective cohort analysis in a natural experiment. Prereform was defined as hospital discharge from 2002 through the second quarter of 2006 and postreform from the third quarter of 2006 through 2012. Categorical variables were compared by χ. Piecewise functions were used to test the effect of healthcare reform on the rate of emergent surgeries. SETTINGS: The study included acute care hospitals in the Massachusetts Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database (2002-2012) and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002-2011). PATIENTS: Patients aged 18 to 64 years with public or no insurance who underwent inpatient colectomy (via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedural code) were included and patients with Medicare were excluded. INTERVENTION: Massachusetts health care reform was the study intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured the rate of emergent colectomy, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: The unadjusted rate of emergent colectomies was lower in Massachusetts after reform but did not change nationally over the same time period. For emergent surgeries in Massachusetts, a piecewise model with an inflection point (peak) in the third quarter of 2006, coinciding with implementation of healthcare reform in Massachusetts, had a lower mean squared error than a linear model. In comparison, the national rate of emergent surgeries demonstrated no change in pattern. Postreform, length of stay decreased by 1 day in Massachusetts; however, there were no significant improvements in other outcomes. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design and unadjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There was a unique and sustained decline in the rate of emergent colon resection among publically insured and uninsured patients after 2006 in Massachusetts, in contradistinction to the national pattern, suggesting improved access to care associated with health insurance expansion. The reasons for lack of improvement in outcomes are multifactorial.

Concern for Lost Income Following Donation Deters Some Patients From Talking to Potential Living Donors.

CONTEXT: Some living kidney donors report lost income during recovery from surgery. Little is known about whether concern for living donor's lost income affects the decision to undergo donation evaluation and the willingness of transplant candidates to discuss living kidney donation (LKD) with others. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether transplant patients were told by potential donors about lost income concerns and whether patients chose not to discuss LKD with others due to lost income concerns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Kidney transplant patients (185 wait-listed candidates, 171 deceased donor recipients, and 100 live donor recipients) at 2 centers completed a questionnaire to assess whether concern about donor's lost income was a consideration in discussion about LKD with others. RESULTS: One-third (32%) were told by a family member/friend that they were willing to donate but were concerned about potential lost income. The majority of those who expressed financial concern (64%) did not initiate donation evaluation. Many patients (42%) chose not to discuss living donation with a family member/friend due to concern about the impact of lost income on the donor. In the multivariable model, lower annual household income was the only statistically significant predictor of both having a potential donor expressing lost income concern and choosing not to talk to someone because of lost income concern. CONCLUSION: Findings from the current study underscore how concern about income loss for living donors may affect decision-making by both transplant candidates and potential donors.

Quantifying the Race Stratified Impact of Socioeconomics on Graft Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a significant determinant of health outcomes and may be an important component of the causal chain surrounding racial disparities in kidney transplantation. The social adaptability index (SAI) is a validated and quantifiable measure of SES, with a lack of studies analyzing this measure longitudinally or between races. METHODS: Longitudinal cohort study in adult kidney transplantation transplanted at a single-center between 2005 and 2012. The SAI score includes 5 domains (employment, education, marital status, substance abuse and income), each with a minimum of 0 and maximum of 3 for an aggregate of 0 to 15 (higher score → better SES). RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-one patients were included; 624 (53%) were African American (AA) and 547 were non-AA. African Americans had significantly lower mean baseline SAI scores (AAs 6.5 vs non-AAs 7.8; P < 0.001). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that there was no association between baseline SAI and acute rejection in non-AAs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.81-1.05), whereas it was a significant predictor of acute rejection in AAs (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.99). Similarly, a 2-stage approach to joint modelling of time to graft loss and longitudinal SAI did not predict graft loss in non-AAs (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.28-3.62), whereas it was a significant predictor of graft loss in AAs (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for confounders, SAI scores were associated with a lower risk of acute rejection and graft loss in AA kidney transplant recipients, whereas neither baseline nor follow-up SAI predicted outcomes in non-AA kidney transplant recipients.

Organ donation video messaging in motor vehicle offices: results of a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Since nearly all registered organ donors in the United States signed up via a driver's license transaction, motor vehicle (MV) offices represent an important venue for organ donation education. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of organ donation video messaging in MV offices. DESIGN: A 2-group (usual care vs usual care+video messaging) randomized trial with baseline, intervention, and follow-up assessment phases. SETTING: Twenty-eight MV offices in Massachusetts. INTERVENTION: Usual care comprised education of MV clerks, display of organ donation print materials (ie, posters, brochures, signing mats), and a volunteer ambassador program. The intervention included video messaging with silent (subtitled) segments highlighting individuals affected by donation, playing on a recursive loop on monitors in MV waiting rooms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Aggregate monthly donor designation rates at MV offices (primary) and percentage of MV customers who registered as donors after viewing the video (secondary). RESULTS: Controlling for baseline donor designation rate, analysis of covariance showed a significant group effect for intervention phase (F=7.3, P=.01). The usual-care group had a significantly higher aggregate monthly donor designation rate than the intervention group had. In the logistic regression model of customer surveys (n=912), prior donor designation (ß=-1.29, odds ratio [OR]=0.27 [95% CI=0.20-0.37], P<.001), white race (ß=0.57 OR=1.77 [95% CI=1.23-2.54], P=.002), and viewing the intervention video (ß=0.73, OR=1.54 [95% CI=1.24-2.60], P=.01) were statistically significant predictors of donor registration on the day of the survey. CONCLUSION: The relatively low uptake of the video intervention by customers most likely contributed to the negative trial finding.

Does Social Capital Explain Community-Level Differences in Organ Donor Designation?

POLICY POINTS: The growing shortage of life-saving organs has reached unprecedented levels, with more than 120,000 Americans waiting for them. Despite national attempts to increase organ donation and federal laws mandating the equitable allocation of organs, geographic disparities remain. A better understanding of the contextual determinants of organ donor designation, including social capital, may enhance efforts to increase organ donation by raising the probability of collective action and fostering norms of reciprocity and cooperation while increasing costs to defectors. Because community-level factors, including social capital, predict more than half the variation in donor designation, future interventions should tailor strategies to specific communities as the unit of intervention. CONTEXT: The growing shortage of organs has reached unprecedented levels. Despite national attempts to increase donation and federal laws mandating the equitable allocation of organs, their availability and waiting times vary significantly nationwide. Organ donor designation is a collective action problem in public health, in which the regional organ supply and average waiting times are determined by the willingness of individuals to be listed as organ donors. Social capital increases the probability of collective action by fostering norms of reciprocity and cooperation while increasing costs to defectors. We examine whether social capital and other community-level factors explain geographic variation in organ donor designation rates in Massachusetts. METHODS: We obtained a sample of 3,281,532 registered drivers in 2010 from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Registry of Motor Vehicles (MassDOT RMV). We then geocoded the registry data, matched them to 4,466 census blocks, and linked them to the 2010 US Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other sources to obtain community-level sociodemographic, social capital (residential segregation, voter registration and participation, residential mobility, violent-death rate), and religious characteristics. We used spatial modeling, including lagged variables to account for the effect of adjacent block groups, and multivariate regression analysis to examine the relationship of social capital and community-level characteristics with organ donor designation rates. FINDINGS: Block groups with higher levels of social capital, racial homogeneity, income, workforce participation, owner-occupied housing, native-born residents, and white residents had higher rates of organ donor designation (p < 0.001). These factors remained significant in the multivariate model, which explained more than half the geographic variance in organ donor designation (R(2) = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that community-level factors, including social capital, predict more than half the variation in donor designation. Future interventions should target the community as the unit of intervention and should tailor messaging for areas with low social capital.

A Framework for Conducting Deceased Donor Research in the United States.

There are a number of regulatory barriers both perceived and real that have hampered widespread clinical research in the field of donation and transplantation. This article sets forth a framework clarifying the existing legal requirements and their application to the conduct of research on deceased donors and donor organs within the United States. Recommendations are focused on resolving some of the ambiguity surrounding deceased donor authorization for research, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act requirements and the role of institutional review board oversight. The successful conduct of clinical research in the field of donation and transplantation requires an understanding of these regulatory nuances as well as identification of important ethical principles to consider. Facilitation of these concepts will ultimately provide support for innovative research designed to increase the availability of organs for transplantation. Further work identifying the optimal infrastructure for overview of clinical research in the field should be given priority.

Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: Reducing Financial Barriers to Live Kidney Donation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference.

Live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment for eligible people with late-stage kidney disease. Despite this, living kidney donation rates have declined in the United States in recent years. A potential source of this decline is the financial impact on potential and actual living kidney donors (LKDs). Recent evidence indicates that the economic climate may be associated with the decline in LDKT and that there are nontrivial financial ramifications for some LKDs. In June 2014, the American Society of Transplantation's Live Donor Community of Practice convened a Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation. The conference included transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders (with the financial support of 10 other organizations) and sought to identify best practices, knowledge gaps, and opportunities pertaining to living kidney donation. This workgroup was tasked with exploring systemic and financial barriers to living kidney donation. The workgroup reviewed literature that assessed the financial effect of living kidney donation, analyzed employment and insurance factors, discussed international models for addressing direct and indirect costs faced by LKDs, and summarized current available resources. The workgroup developed the following series of recommendations to reduce financial and systemic barriers and achieve financial neutrality for LKDs: (1) allocate resources for standardized reimbursement of LKDs' lost wages and incidental costs; (2) pass legislation to offer employment and insurability protections to LKDs; (3) create an LKD financial toolkit to provide standardized, vetted education to donors and providers about options to maximize donor coverage and minimize financial effect within the current climate; and (4) promote further research to identify systemic barriers to living donation and LDKT to ensure the creation of mitigation strategies.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Overcoming Disparities in Live Kidney Donation in the US--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference.

Despite its superior outcomes relative to chronic dialysis and deceased donor kidney transplantation, live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is less likely to occur in minorities, older adults, and poor patients than in those who are white, younger, and have higher household income. In addition, there is considerable geographic variability in LDKT rates. Concomitantly, in recent years, the rate of living kidney donation (LKD) has stopped increasing and is declining, after decades of consistent growth. Particularly noteworthy is the decline in LKD among black, younger, male, and lower-income adults. The Live Donor Community of Practice within the American Society of Transplantation, with financial support from 10 other organizations, held a Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation in June 2014. The purpose of this meeting was to identify LKD best practices and knowledge gaps that might influence LDKT, with a focus on patient and donor education, evaluation efficiencies, disparities, and systemic barriers to LKD. In this article, we discuss trends in LDKT/LKD and emerging novel strategies for attenuating disparities, and we offer specific recommendations for future clinical practice, education, research, and policy from the Consensus Conference Workgroup focused on disparities.

Concerns of ABO incompatible and crossmatch-positive potential donors and recipients about participating in kidney exchanges.

Kidney paired exchanges (KPEs) have increased, yet are still underutilized. This study aimed to develop tools for assessing KPE concerns, identify predictors of KPE concerns, and describe common KPE concerns among potential living donors (LDs) and intended recipients. Incompatible former potential LDs (n = 135) and intended recipients (n = 83) retrospectively completed questionnaires to assess KPE concerns. Healthcare system distrust also was assessed. A minority (n = 48 or 36.5% of potential LDs; n = 25 or 30.1% of intended recipients) had pursued KPE participation. Of those who pursued KPE participation, 11 (22.9%) and 6 (24.0%) completed KPE donation or transplantation, respectively. The questionnaires for potential LDs and recipients showed good internal consistency and preliminary convergent validity. LDs and patients less willing to pursue KPE reported more KPE concerns. Common KPE concerns for both potential LDs and recipients were related to perceived Distrust/Inequity and Inconvenience/Cost. Multivariate predictors of more KPE concerns were as follows: male gender (t = 4.5, p < 0.001) and more healthcare system distrust (t = 2.5, p = 0.01) for potential LDs; black race (t = 2.1, p = 0.04) and more healthcare system distrust (t = 2.3, p = 0.03) for intended recipients. These findings underscore the importance of addressing concerns potential LDs and patients have about KPE if the true potential of KPE is to be realized.

The Alcohol Relapse Risk Assessment: a scoring system to predict the risk of relapse to any alcohol use after liver transplant.

CONTEXT: Alcohol relapse after liver transplant heightens concern about recurrent disease, nonadherence to the immunosuppression regimen, and death. OBJECTIVES: To develop a scoring system to stratify risk of alcohol relapse after liver transplant. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All adult liver transplants performed from May 2002 to February 2011 at a single center in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of return to any alcohol consumption after liver transplant. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent (40/118) of patients with a history of alcohol abuse/dependency relapsed to use of any alcohol after liver transplant. Nine of 25 hypothesized risk factors were predictive of alcohol relapse after liver transplant: absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, tobacco dependence, continued alcohol use after liver disease diagnosis, low motivation for alcohol treatment, poor stress management skills, no rehabilitation relationship, limited social support, lack of nonmedical behavioral consequences, and continued engagement in social activities with alcohol present. Each independent predictor was assigned an Alcohol Relapse Risk Assessment (ARRA) risk value of 1 point, and patients were classified into 1 of 4 groups by ARRA score: ARRA I = 0, ARRA II = 1 to 3, ARRA III = 4 to 6, and ARRA IV = 7 to 9. Patients in the 2 higher ARRA classifications had significantly higher rates of alcohol relapse and were more likely to return to pretransplant levels of drinking. CONCLUSION: Alcohol relapse rates are moderately high after liver transplant. The ARRA is a valid and practical tool for identifying pretransplant patients with alcohol abuse or dependency at elevated risk of any alcohol use after liver transplant.

Patient-reported immunosuppression nonadherence 6 to 24 months after liver transplant: association with pretransplant psychosocial factors and perceptions of health status change.

CONTEXT: Knowing the prevalence and risk factors of immunosuppression nonadherence after liver transplant may help guide intervention development. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether sociodemographic and psychosocial variables before liver transplant are predictive of nonadherence after liver transplant. DESIGN: Structured telephone interviews were used to collect self-report immunosuppression adherence and health status information. Medical record reviews were then completed to retrospectively examine the relationship between immunosuppression adherence and pretransplant variables, including sociodemographic and medical characteristics and the presence or absence of 6 hypothesized psychosocial risk factors. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nonprobability sample of 236 adults 6 to 24 months after liver transplant at 2 centers completed structured telephone interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Immunosuppressant medication nonadherence, categorized as missed-dose and altered-dose "adherent" or "nonadherent" during the past 6 months; immunosuppression medication holidays. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (35%) were missed-dose nonadherent and 34 patients (14%) were altered-dose nonadherent. Seventy-one patients (30%) reported 1 or more 24-hour immunosuppression holidays in the past 6 months. Missed-dose nonadherence was predicted by male sex (odds ratio, 2.46; P= .01), longer time since liver transplant (odds ratio, 1.08; P= .01), pretransplant mood disorder (odds ratio, 2.52; P=.004), and pretransplant social support instability (odds ratio, 2.25; P=.03). Altered-dose nonadherence was predicted by pretransplant mood disorder (odds ratio, 2.15; P= .04) and pretransplant social support instability (odds ratio, 1.89; P= .03). CONCLUSION: Rates of immunosuppressant nonadherence and drug holidays in the first 2 years after liver transplant are unacceptably high. Pretransplant mood disorder and social support instability increase the risk of nonadherence, and interventions should target these modifiable risk factors.

The decline in living kidney donation in the United States: random variation or cause for concern?

The annual number of living kidney donors in the United States peaked at 6647 in 2004. The preceding decade saw a 120% increase in living kidney donation. However, since 2004, living kidney donation has declined in all but 1 year, resulting in a 13% decline in the annual number of living kidney donors from 2004 to 2011. The proportional decline in living kidney donation has been more pronounced among men, blacks, younger adults, siblings, and parents. In this article, we explore several possible explanations for the decline in living kidney donation, including an increase in medical unsuitability, an aging transplant patient population, financial disincentives, public policies, and shifting practice patterns, among others. We conclude that the decline in living donation is not merely reflective of random variation but one that warrants action by the transplant centers, the broader transplant community, and the state and national governments.

Liver transplant center risk tolerance.

Recent changes in Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) condition for participation, using benchmark volume/outcomes requirements for certification, have been implemented. Consequently, the ability of a transplant center to assess its risk tolerance is important in successful management. An analysis of SRTR data was performed to determine donor/recipient risk factors for graft loss or patient death in the first year. Each transplant performed was then assigned a prospective relative risk (RR) of failure. Using a Monte-Carlo simulation, transplants were selected at random that met the centers' acceptable risk tolerance. Transplant center volume was fixed and its risk tolerance was adjusted to determine the impact on outcomes. The model was run 1000 times on centers with varying volume. The modeling demonstrates that centers with smaller annual volumes must use a more risk taking strategy than larger volume centers to avoid being flagged for CMS volume requirements. The modeling also demonstrates optimal risk taking strategies for centers based upon volume to minimize the probability of being flagged for not meeting volume or outcomes benchmarks. Small volume centers must perform higher risk transplants to meet current CMS requirements and are at risk for adverse action secondary to chance alone.

A Department of Motor Vehicles intervention yields moderate increases in donor designation rates.

CONTEXT: Nearly all persons (37% of public) who have a joined an organ donor registry in the United States have done so through their Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office, which is an underused venue for organ donation campaigns. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a statewide DMV-based intervention to increase donor designation rates. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thirty DMV offices in Florida were randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 15) or an organ donation intervention (n = 15). MEASUREMENT AND PRIMARY OUTCOME: Donor designation rates were assessed at baseline (before the intervention), during the intervention, and at follow-up. RESULTS: When baseline donor designation rate and region were controlled for, the intervention group showed a significantly higher aggregate monthly donor designation rate than the usual care group during the intervention phase of the study (P = .02). Donor designation rates did not differ significantly (P = .13) during the follow-up phase. Lower donor designations rates were significantly associated with DMV service regions with more minorities, less education, and lower income. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a comprehensive DMV-based intervention focused on staff education and direct interactions with the public could yield modest increases in donor designation rates.