RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Adults residing in deprived neighborhoods face various socioeconomic stressors, hindering their likelihood of receiving live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and preemptive kidney transplantation (KT). We quantified the association between residential neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) and the likelihood of LDKT/preemptive KT, testing for a differential impact by race and ethnicity. METHODS: We studied 403 937 adults (age ≥ 18) KT candidates (national transplant registry; 2006-2021). NDI and its 10 components were averaged at the ZIP-code level. Cause-specific hazards models were used to quantify the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of LDKT and preemptive KT across tertiles of NDI and its 10 components. RESULTS: Candidates residing in high-deprivation neighborhoods were more likely to be female (40.1% vs. 36.2%) and Black (41.9% vs. 17.7%), and were less likely to receive both LDKT (aHR = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.67) and preemptive KT (aHR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.59-0.62) than those in low-deprivation neighborhoods. These associations differedby race and ethnicity (Black: aHRLDKT = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55-0.62; aHRpreemptive KT = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.63-0.73; Pinteractions: LDKT < 0.001; Preemptive KT = 0.002). All deprivation components were associated with the likelihood of both LDKT and preemptive KT (except median home value): for example, higher median household income (LDKT: aHR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.07-1.09; Preemptive KT: aHR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11) and educational attainments (≥high school [LDKT: aHR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.18; Preemptive KT: aHR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.21-1.25]). CONCLUSION: Residence in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods is associated with a lower likelihood of LDKT and preemptive KT, differentially impacting minority candidates. Identifying and understanding which neighborhood-level socioeconomic status contributes to these racial disparities can be instrumental in tailoring interventions to achieve health equity in LDKT and preemptive KT.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Riñón , Donadores Vivos , Características del Vecindario , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Donadores Vivos/provisión & distribución , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Estudios de Seguimiento , Pronóstico , Características de la Residencia , Fallo Renal Crónico/cirugía , Factores Socioeconómicos , Sistema de Registros/estadística & datos numéricos , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto Joven , AdolescenteRESUMEN
Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation may have important implications on disparities in liver transplant (LT) evaluation. In this retrospective cohort study, we constructed a novel dataset by linking individual patient-level data with the highly granular Area Deprivation Index (ADI), which is advantageous over other neighborhood measures due to: specificity of Census Block-Group (versus Census Tract, Zip code), scoring, and robust variables. Our cohort included 1377 adults referred to our center for LT evaluation 8/1/2016-12/31/2019. Using modified Poisson regression, we tested for effect measure modification of the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) and LT evaluation outcomes (listing, initiating evaluation, and death) by race and ethnicity. Compared to patients with high nSES, those with low nSES were at higher risk of not being listed (aRR = 1.14; 95%CI 1.05-1.22; p < .001), of not initiating evaluation post-referral (aRR = 1.20; 95%CI 1.01-1.42; p = .03) and of dying without initiating evaluation (aRR = 1.55; 95%CI 1.09-2.2; p = .01). While White patients with low nSES had similar rates of listing compared to White patients with high nSES (aRR = 1.06; 95%CI .96-1.17; p = .25), Underrepresented patients from neighborhoods with low nSES incurred 31% higher risk of not being listed compared to Underrepresented patients from neighborhoods with high nSES (aRR = 1.31; 95%CI 1.12-1.5; p < .001). Interventions addressing neighborhood deprivation may not only benefit patients with low nSES but may address racial and ethnic inequities.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Hígado , Adulto , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Clase Social , Etnicidad , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de SaludRESUMEN
Racial and ethnic disparities persist in access to the liver transplantation (LT) waiting list; however, there is limited knowledge about underlying system-level factors that may be responsible for these disparities. Given the complex nature of LT candidate evaluation, a human factors and systems engineering approach may provide insights. We recruited participants from the LT teams (coordinators, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers, dieticians, pharmacists, leadership) at two major LT centers. From December 2020 to July 2021, we performed ethnographic observations (participant-patient appointments, committee meetings) and semistructured interviews (N = 54 interviews, 49 observation hours). Based on findings from this multicenter, multimethod qualitative study combined with the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (a human factors and systems engineering model for health care), we created a conceptual framework describing how transplant work system characteristics and other external factors may improve equity in the LT evaluation process. Participant perceptions about listing disparities described external factors (e.g., structural racism, ambiguous national guidelines, national quality metrics) that permeate the LT evaluation process. Mechanisms identified included minimal transplant team diversity, implicit bias, and interpersonal racism. A lack of resources was a common theme, such as social workers, transportation assistance, non-English-language materials, and time (e.g., more time for education for patients with health literacy concerns). Because of the minimal data collection or center feedback about disparities, participants felt uncomfortable with and unadaptable to unwanted outcomes, which perpetuate disparities. We proposed transplant center-level solutions (i.e., including but not limited to training of staff on health equity) to modifiable barriers in the clinical work system that could help patient navigation, reduce disparities, and improve access to care. Our findings call for an urgent need for transplant centers, national societies, and policy makers to focus efforts on improving equity (tailored, patient-centered resources) using the science of human factors and systems engineering.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Hígado , Humanos , Trasplante de Hígado/efectos adversos , Grupos Raciales , Etnicidad , Listas de Espera , Atención a la Salud , Disparidades en Atención de SaludRESUMEN
COVID-19 has profoundly affected the American health care system; its effect on the liver transplant (LT) waitlist based on COVID-19 incidence has not been characterized. Using SRTR data, we compared observed LT waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, deceased donor LTs (DDLT), and living donor LTs (LDLT) 3/15/2020-8/31/2020 to expected values based on historical trends 1/2016-1/2020, stratified by statewide COVID-19 incidence. Overall, from 3/15 to 4/30, new listings were 11% fewer than expected (IRR = 0.84 0.890.93 ), LDLTs were 49% fewer (IRR = 0.37 0.510.72 ), and DDLTs were 9% fewer (IRR = 0.85 0.910.97 ). In May, new listings were 21% fewer (IRR = 0.74 0.790.84 ), LDLTs were 42% fewer (IRR = 0.39 0.580.85 ) and DDLTs were 13% more (IRR = 1.07 1.151.23 ). Centers in states with the highest incidence 3/15-4/30 had 59% more waitlist deaths (IRR = 1.09 1.592.32 ) and 34% fewer DDLTs (IRR = 0.50 0.660.86 ). By August, waitlist outcomes were occurring at expected rates, except for DDLT (13% more across all incidences). While the early COVID-affected states endured major transplant practice changes, later in the pandemic the newly COVID-affected areas were not impacted to the same extent. These results speak to the adaptability of the transplant community in addressing the pandemic and applying new knowledge to patient care.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trasplante de Hígado/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Trasplante de Hígado/tendencias , Pandemias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Listas de EsperaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation (ICBP) is frequently inadequate and can lead to adverse events, delayed or repeated procedures, and negative patient outcomes. Guidelines to overcome the complex factors in this setting are not well established. Our aims were to use health systems engineering principles to comprehensively evaluate the ICBP process, create an ICBP protocol, increase adequate ICBP, and decrease length of stay. Our goal was to provide adaptable tools for other institutions and procedural specialties. METHODS: Patients admitted to our tertiary care academic hospital that underwent inpatient colonoscopy between July 3, 2017 to June 8, 2018 were included. Our multi-disciplinary team created a protocol employing health systems engineering techniques (i.e., process mapping, cause-effect diagrams, and plan-do-study-act cycles). We collected demographic and colonoscopy data. Our outcome measures were adequate preparation and length of stay. We compared pre-intervention (120 ICBP) vs. post-intervention (129 ICBP) outcomes using generalized linear regression models. Our new ICBP protocol included: split-dose 6-L polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution, a gastroenterology electronic note template, and an education plan for patients, nurses, and physicians. RESULTS: The percent of adequate ICBPs significantly increased with the intervention from 61% pre-intervention to 74% post-intervention (adjusted odds ratio of 1.87, p value = 0.023). The median length of stay decreased by approximately 25%, from 4 days pre-intervention to 3 days post-intervention (p value = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: By addressing issues at patient, provider, and system levels with health systems engineering principles, we addressed patient safety and quality of care provided by improving rates of adequate ICBP.
Asunto(s)
Gastroenterología , Pacientes Internos , Catárticos , Colonoscopía , Humanos , Atención Dirigida al Paciente , PolietilenglicolesRESUMEN
A wide gap between the increasing demand for organs and the limited supply leads to immeasurable loss of life each year. The organ shortage could be attenuated by donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV). The transplantation of organs from HIV+ deceased donors into HIV+ individuals (HIV D+ /R+) was initiated in South Africa in 2010; however, this practice was forbidden in the USA until the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013. HIV D+/R+ transplantation is now practiced in the USA as part of ongoing research studies, helping to reduce waiting times for all patients on the waitlist. The introduction of direct acting antivirals for HCV has revolutionized the utilization of donors with HCV for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients. This is particularly relevant as the HCV donor pool has increased substantially in the context of the rise in deaths related to drug overdose from injection drug use. This article serves to review the current literature on using organs from donors with HIV or HCV.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH , Hepatitis C Crónica , Hepatitis C , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Infecciones por VIH/tratamiento farmacológico , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis C/complicaciones , Hepatitis C Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Donantes de TejidosRESUMEN
Many deceased-donor and living-donor kidney transplants (KTs) rely on commercial airlines for transport. However, the coronavirus-19 pandemic has drastically impacted the commercial airline industry. To understand potential pandemic-related disruptions in the transportation network of kidneys across the United States, we used national flight data to compare scheduled flights during the pandemic vs 1-year earlier, focusing on Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) pairs between which kidneys historically most likely traveled by direct flight (High Volume by direct Air transport OPO Pairs, HVA-OPs). Across the United States, there were 39% fewer flights in April 2020 vs April 2019. Specific to the kidney transportation network, there were 65.1% fewer flights between HVA-OPs, with considerable OPO-level variation (interquartile range [IQR] 54.7%-75.3%; range 0%-100%). This translated to a drop in median number of flights between HVA-OPs from 112 flights/wk in April 2019 to 34 in April 2020 (P < .001), and a rise in wait time between scheduled flights from 1.5 hours in April 2019 (IQR 0.76-3.3) to 4.9 hours in April 2020 (IQR 2.6-11.2; P < .001). Fewer flights and longer wait times can impact logistics as well as cold ischemia time; our findings motivate an exploration of creative approaches to KT transport as the impact of this pandemic on the airline industry evolves.
Asunto(s)
Aeronaves/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Trasplante de Riñón/métodos , Pandemias , Insuficiencia Renal/cirugía , Donantes de Tejidos/provisión & distribución , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/organización & administración , Comorbilidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Insuficiencia Renal/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/tendencias , Trasplante de Órganos/tendencias , Política Organizacional , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/tendencias , Telemedicina/tendencias , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/tendencias , Adulto , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/etiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Estudios de Seguimiento , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/organización & administración , Humanos , Incidencia , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Control de Infecciones/tendencias , Trasplante de Órganos/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/virología , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/organización & administración , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis B (HBV) is a viral illness that chronically infects 240 million people worldwide, leads to liver disease, and increases risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. The HBV vaccine has decreased HBV infection, and it and the human papilloma virus vaccine are the only vaccines that prevent cancer. Despite the effectiveness of the HBV vaccine, some populations do not develop protective responses. The risk groups for poor response include those with immunosuppression or dialysis-dependent, end-stage renal disease. Five percent of normal people do not have a response. These subjects are deemed HBV "nonresponders." Multiple strategies to improve the immunogenicity of the HBV vaccine are currently being pursued, including vaccine adjuvants, recombinant vaccines, and immune enhancement via up-regulation of dendritic cells. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for peer-reviewed publications published from January 1980 to September 2017. STUDY SELECTIONS: Studies retrieved for inclusion summarized potential mechanisms behind HBV vaccine nonresponsiveness and potential solutions. RESULTS: The mechanisms behind HBV vaccine nonresponsiveness vary between each subject population. Many current and future strategies may provide protective immunity against HBV in each of these populations. CONCLUSION: This review provides a background on the immunology of HBV infection, the possible immunologic mechanisms to explain HBV vaccine nonresponsiveness, current research aimed at improving vaccine effectiveness, and possible future approaches for providing nonresponders protection from HBV.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra Hepatitis B/inmunología , Hepatitis B/epidemiología , Hepatitis B/prevención & control , Neoplasias Hepáticas/prevención & control , Linfocitos T CD4-Positivos/inmunología , Enfermedad Celíaca/inmunología , Diabetes Mellitus/inmunología , Infecciones por VIH/inmunología , Hepatitis B/inmunología , Hepatitis C/inmunología , Humanos , Fallo Renal Crónico/inmunología , Neoplasias Hepáticas/virología , Recuento de Linfocitos , Potencia de la VacunaAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trasplante de Hígado , Formación de Anticuerpos , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Receptores de TrasplantesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Important barriers for widespread use of health information exchange (HIE) are usability and interface issues. However, most HIEs are implemented without performing a needs assessment with the end users, healthcare providers. We performed a user needs assessment for the process of obtaining clinical information from other health care organizations about a hospitalized patient and identified the types of information most valued for medical decision-making. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative analysis were used to evaluate the process to obtain and use outside clinical information (OI) using semi-structured interviews (16 internists), direct observation (750 h), and operational data from the electronic medical records (30,461 hospitalizations) of an internal medicine department in a public, teaching hospital in Tampa, Florida. RESULTS: 13.7 % of hospitalizations generate at least one request for OI. On average, the process comprised 13 steps, 6 decisions points, and 4 different participants. Physicians estimate that the average time to receive OI is 18 h. Physicians perceived that OI received is not useful 33-66 % of the time because information received is irrelevant or not timely. Technical barriers to OI use included poor accessibility and ineffective information visualization. Common problems with the process were receiving extraneous notes and the need to re-request the information. Drivers for OI use were to trend lab or imaging abnormalities, understand medical history of critically ill or hospital-to-hospital transferred patients, and assess previous echocardiograms and bacterial cultures. About 85 % of the physicians believe HIE would have a positive effect on improving healthcare delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Although hospitalists are challenged by a complex process to obtain OI, they recognize the value of specific information for enhancing medical decision-making. HIE systems are likely to have increased utilization and effectiveness if specific patient-level clinical information is delivered at the right time to the right users.
Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Intercambio de Información en Salud , Personal de Salud , Aplicaciones de la Informática Médica , Evaluación de Necesidades , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Liver transplant (LT) evaluation is a complex process for patients involving multi-step and parallel medical, surgical, and psychosocial assessments of a patient's appropriateness for transplant. Patients may experience difficulties in navigating the evaluation process, potentially leading to disengagement and resulting in further health decline or death prior to completing evaluation. We aimed to identify and characterize patients' perceptions of undergoing LT evaluation. METHODS: We performed fourteen 30-45 min, semi-structured interviews between 3/2021-5/2021 with patients at a large LT center. Using the constant comparison method, we individually noted themes within and across interviews and codes. RESULTS: Our analysis generated 5 thematic dimensions related to patient engagement (i.e., patient involvement/activation): (1) psychological impact of evaluation on patients' lives; (2) information received during evaluation; (3) prior medical experience of the patient; 4) communication between patients and transplant providers; and (5) support system of the patients. Among these dimensions, we identified 8 themes. CONCLUSION: LT patient engagement is a multi-dimensional component of LT evaluation that incorporates the psychological impact, information received, prior medical experience, communication, and support systems of patients. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This work can inform targeted interventions for increasing patient engagement during the LT evaluation process.
Asunto(s)
Entrevistas como Asunto , Trasplante de Hígado , Participación del Paciente , Investigación Cualitativa , Humanos , Trasplante de Hígado/psicología , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Participación del Paciente/psicología , Adulto , Anciano , Comunicación , Relaciones Médico-PacienteRESUMEN
Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities exist in the prevalence and natural history of chronic liver disease, access to care, and clinical outcomes. Solutions to improve health equity range widely, from digital health tools to policy changes. The current review outlines the disparities along the chronic liver disease health care continuum from screening and diagnosis to the management of cirrhosis and considerations of pre-liver and post-liver transplantation. Using a health equity research and implementation science framework, we offer pragmatic strategies to address barriers to implementing high-quality equitable care for patients with chronic liver disease.
Asunto(s)
Continuidad de la Atención al Paciente , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Hepatopatías , Humanos , Hepatopatías/terapia , Enfermedad Crónica , Trasplante de Hígado , Equidad en Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Cirrosis Hepática/terapiaRESUMEN
Surgical resection for localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is typically reserved for a minority of patients with favorable tumor features and anatomy. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy can expand the number of patients who are candidates for surgical resection and potentially reduce the chance for recurrence, but its role in HCC not defined. We retrospectively examined the outcomes of patients who underwent surgical resection for HCC at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and compared the clinical outcomes of patients who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy with those who underwent upfront resection. The clinical cohort included a total of 92 patients, 36 of whom received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatment. A majority of patients (61.1%) who received neoadjuvant ICI-based therapy were outside of standard resectability criteria and were more likely to have features known to confer risk of disease recurrence, including α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL (P = 0.02), tumor diameter ≥ 5 cm (P = 0.001), portal vein invasion (P < 0.001), and multifocality (P < 0.001). Patients who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy had similar rates of margin-negative resection (P = 0.47) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) as those who underwent upfront surgical resection (median RFS 44.8 months compared with 49.3 months, respectively, log-rank P = 0.66). There was a nonsignificant trend toward superior RFS in the subset of patients with a pathologic response (tumor necrosis ≥ 70%) with neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Neoadjuvant ICI-based therapy may allow high-risk patients, including those who are outside traditional resectability criteria, to achieve comparable clinical outcomes with those who undergo upfront resection. SIGNIFICANCE: Surgical resection for localized HCC is typically only reserved for those with solitary tumors without vascular invasion. In this retrospective analysis, we show that neoadjuvant immunotherapy may allow high-risk patients, including those who are outside of standard resection criteria, to undergo successful margin-negative resection and achieve comparable long-term clinical outcomes compared with upfront resection. These findings highlight need for prospective studies on neoadjuvant immunotherapy in HCC.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Inmunoterapia , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Humanos , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/terapia , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/patología , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/mortalidad , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/inmunología , Neoplasias Hepáticas/terapia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patología , Neoplasias Hepáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Hepáticas/inmunología , Terapia Neoadyuvante/métodos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano , Inmunoterapia/métodos , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/prevención & control , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , HepatectomíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of large-scale data and artificial intelligence (AI) to support complex transplantation decisions is in its infancy. Transplant candidate decision-making, which relies heavily on subjective assessment (ie, high variability), provides a ripe opportunity for AI-based clinical decision support (CDS). However, AI-CDS for transplant applications must consider important concerns regarding fairness (ie, health equity). The objective of this study was to use human-centered design methods to elicit providers' perceptions of AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions. METHODS: In this multicenter qualitative study conducted from December 2020 to July 2021, we performed semistructured interviews with 53 multidisciplinary liver transplant providers from 2 transplant centers. We used inductive coding and constant comparison analysis of interview data. RESULTS: Analysis yielded 6 themes important for the design of fair AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions: (1) transparency in the creators behind the AI-CDS and their motivations; (2) understanding how the AI-CDS uses data to support recommendations (ie, interpretability); (3) acknowledgment that AI-CDS could mitigate emotions and biases; (4) AI-CDS as a member of the transplant team, not a replacement; (5) identifying patient resource needs; and (6) including the patient's role in the AI-CDS. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, providers interviewed were cautiously optimistic about the potential for AI-CDS to improve clinical and equitable outcomes for patients. These findings can guide multidisciplinary developers in the design and implementation of AI-CDS that deliberately considers health equity.