Search

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine organized 2 multistakeholder symposia on February 2, 2018 and January 11, 2019 to address the problem of high graft failure in adolescent and young adult (AYA) solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Participants included international experts in transplantation, behavioral psychology, patient/parent advocacy, and technology. The objectives of the symposia were as follows: (1) to identify and discuss the barriers to and facilitators of effective transfer of care for AYA SOT recipients; (2) to actively explore strategies and digital solutions to promote their successful transfer of care; and (3) to develop meaningful partnerships for the successful development, evaluation, implementation, and dissemination of these digital solutions. Additionally, data were collected from 152 AYA SOT recipients demonstrating a substantial gap in how this population uses technologies for health-related activities, alongside an increased interest in an app to help them manage their transplant.

The safety of living donor nephrectomy is essential to the continued success, growth, and sustainability of the clinical practice of living donor kidney transplantation. This review summarizes recent advances in our understanding of the perioperative and long-term risks faced by living kidney donors.Although adverse perioperative complications are extremely rare, donors particularly men, Black, or obese, frequently experience minor complications that result in delayed return to normal duties at home and work. Similarly, although long-term complications such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are rare, recent studies suggest a relative increase in risk of ESRD that is attributable to donation. Several risk calculators have been developed to help donors and their care providers quantify the baseline and postdonation risk of ESRD based on demographic and health characteristics. Thresholds of risk may help define what is an acceptable level of risk to the donor and the transplant center.Individualized risk calculators now allow care providers and potential donors to objectively and transparently participate in shared decision-making about the safety of living kidney donation.

In the United States, kidney donation from international (noncitizen/nonresident) living kidney donors (LKDs) is permitted; however, given the heterogeneity of healthcare systems, concerns remain regarding the international LKD practice and recipient outcomes. We studied a US cohort of 102 315 LKD transplants from 2000-2016, including 2088 international LKDs, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. International LKDs were more tightly clustered among a small number of centers than domestic LKDs (Gini coefficient 0.76 vs 0.58, P < .001). Compared with domestic LKDs, international LKDs were more often young, male, Hispanic or Asian, and biologically related to their recipient (P < .001). Policy-compliant donor follow-up was substantially lower for international LKDs at 6, 12, and 24 months postnephrectomy (2015 cohort: 45%, 33%, 36% vs 76%, 71%, 70% for domestic LKDs, P < .001). Among international LKDs, Hispanic (aOR = 0.23 0.360.56 , P < .001) and biologically related (aOR = 0.39 0.590.89 , P < .01) donors were more compliant in donor follow-up than white and unrelated donors. Recipients of international living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) had similar graft failure (aHR = 0.78 0.891.02 , P = .1) but lower mortality (aHR = 0.53 0.620.72 , P < .001) compared with the recipients of domestic LDKT after adjusting for recipient, transplant, and donor factors. International LKDs may provide an alternative opportunity for living donation. However, efforts to improve international LKD follow-up and engagement are warranted.

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: HIV-infected (HIV+) and hepatitis C virus-infected (HCV+) individuals with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have decreased access to kidney transplantation. With new opportunities provided by the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act and direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for HCV, we explore the potential risks and benefits of living donor kidney transplantation from HIV+ or HCV+ donors, from the perspective of both donor health and recipient outcomes RECENT FINDINGS: The HOPE Act permits organ donation from both deceased and living HIV+ persons to HIV+ recipients; however, there is only clinical experience with HIV+ deceased donors to date. Empirical evidence demonstrates a low but acceptable risk of ESRD in potential HIV+ living donors without comorbidities who have well-controlled infection in the absence of donation. With the availability of potent DAAs for eradication of HCV infection, growing evidence shows good outcomes with HCV seropositive and/or viremic deceased kidney donors, providing rationale to consider HCV+ living donors. SUMMARY: HIV+ and HCV+ living donor kidney transplantation may improve access to transplant for vulnerable ESRD populations. Careful evaluation and monitoring are warranted to mitigate potential risks to donors and recipients.

Objectives: Psychosocial factors are important predictors of medication adherence, and subsequently graft survival, in solid organ transplantation. Early experiences suggest this may also be the case in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Methods: Using validated tools, we surveyed upper extremity transplant recipients at two centers to assess depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), personality (Ten-Item Personality Inventory), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale), post-traumatic stress disorder (Primary Care Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Screen for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition), and social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support). Medication adherence among vascularized composite allotransplantation recipients at two centers was assessed by a member of the clinical research team using the recipients’ medical records. Results: Medication adherence was reported for 12 vascularized composite allotransplantation recipients, and 9 vascularized composite allotransplantation recipients completed psychosocial assessments. Most recipients were believed to be adherent to their immunosuppression, however, three recipients were believed to be non-adherent and a member of the clinical team had discussed non-adherence at least once with five recipients. Results from the psychosocial assessment (n = 9) indicated that eight participants had high levels of social support, and eight demonstrated high levels of conscientiousness which have been associated with better medication adherence in solid organ transplantation. However, three participants demonstrated mild anxiety, two demonstrated minimal symptoms of depression, and one demonstrated post-traumatic stress disorder which have been associated with worse medication adherence in solid organ transplantation. Conclusion: These findings lay the groundwork for future assessments of the role psychosocial factors play in facilitating medication adherence and broader transplant outcomes.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background. Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors. Methods. To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner’s dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner’s KT. Results. Caregiver-partners reported increases in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03) and stress (P = 0.01) and decreases in social life (P = 0.02) and sexual relations (P

BACKGROUND HIV-infected (HIV+) donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation might improve access to transplantation for people living with HIV. However, it remains unknown whether transplant candidates living with HIV will accept the currently unknown risks of HIV D+/R+ transplantation. METHODS We surveyed transplant candidates living with HIV from 9 US transplant centers regarding willingness to accept HIV+ donor organs. RESULTS Among 116 participants, the median age was 55 years, 68% were men, and 78% were African American. Most were willing to accept HIV+ living donor organs (87%), HIV+ deceased donor organs (84%), and increased infectious risk donor organs (70%). Some (30%) were concerned about HIV superinfection; even among these respondents, 71% were willing to accept an HIV D+ organ. Respondents from centers that had already performed a transplant under an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were more willing to accept HIV+ deceased donor organs (89% vs. 71%, P = 0.04). Respondents who chose not to enroll in an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were less likely to believe that HIV D+/R+ transplantation was safe (45% vs. 77%, P = 0.02), and that HIV D+ organs would work similar to HIV D- organs (55% vs. 77%, P = 0.04), but more likely to believe they would receive an infection other than HIV from an HIV D+ organ (64% vs. 13%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Willingness to accept HIV D+ organs among transplant candidates living with HIV does not seem to be a major barrier to HIV D+/R+ transplantation and may increase with growing HIV D+/R+ transplantation experience.

The first sustained increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years was observed from 2017 to 2019. To help sustain this surge, we studied 35 900 donors (70.3% white, 14.5% Hispanic, 9.3% black, 4.4% Asian) to understand the increase in 2017-2019 vs 2014-2016 using Poisson regression. Among biologically related donors aged

End-stage kidney disease patients in the United States may have family members or friends who are not U.S. citizens or residents but are willing to serve as their living kidney donors in the United States (“international donors”). In July 2017, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) convened a multidisciplinary workgroup of experts in living donation care, including coordinators, social workers, donor advocates, administrators and physicians, to evaluate educational gaps related to the evaluation and care of international donors. The evaluation of the international living donor candidates is a resource intensive process that raises key considerations for assessing risk of exploitation/ inducement, and addressing communication barriers, logistics barriers and access to care in their home country. Through consensus-building discussions, we developed recommendations related to: 1) establishing program guidelines for international donor candidate evaluation and selection; 2) initial screening; 3) logistics planning; 4) comprehensive evaluation; and 5) postdonation care and follow-up. These recommendations are not intended to direct formal policy, but rather as guidance to help programs more efficiently and effectively structure and execute evaluations and care coordination. We also offer recommendations for research and advocacy efforts to help optimize the care of this unique group of living donors.

IMPORTANCE: Living kidney donation is associated with increased long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). An early postdonation marker of ESRD risk could improve postdonation risk assessment and counseling for kidney donors and allow early intervention for donors at increased risk. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between renal function in the first 6 months postdonation and subsequent risk of ESRD in kidney donors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary analysis of a prospective national cohort uses a population-based registry of all living kidney donors in the United States between October 26, 1999, and January 1, 2018, with follow-up through December 31, 2018. All kidney donors who had donated in the date range and had serum creatinine measured at 6 months (±3 months) postdonation were included. EXPOSURES: Renal function as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate 6 months after donation (eGFR6). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: End-stage renal disease, ascertained via linkage to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. RESULTS: A total of 71 468 living kidney donors were included (of 109 065 total donors over this period). Their median (interquartile range) eGFR6 was 63 (54-74) mL/min/1.73 m(2). Cumulative incidence of ESRD at 15 years postdonation ranged from 11.7 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values greater than 70 mL/min/1.73 m(2) to 33.1 donors per 10 000 donors with eGFR6 values of 50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or less. Adjusting for age, race, sex, body mass index, and biological relationship, every 10 mL/min/1.73 m(2) reduction in eGFR6 was associated with a 28% increased risk of ESRD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.54]; P = .009). The association between predonation eGFR and ESRD was not significant and was fully mediated by eGFR6 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.17]; P = .97). The postdonation eGFR value was a better marker of ESRD than eGFR decline after donation or the ratio of eGFR6 to predonation eGFR, as determined by the Akaike information criterion (in which a lower value indicates a better model fit; eGFR6, 1495.61; predonation eGFR − eGFR6, 1503.58; eGFR6 / predonation eGFR, 1502.30). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, there was an independent association of eGFR6 with subsequent ESRD risk in living kidney donors, even after adjusting for predonation characteristics. The findings support measurement of early postdonation serum creatinine monitoring in living kidney donors, and the use of these data to help identify donors who might need more careful surveillance and early intervention.

Simple (Bosniak I) renal cysts are considered acceptable in living kidney donor selection in terms of cancer risk. However, they tend to increase in number and size over time and might compromise renal function in donors. To clarify their implications for long-term renal function, we characterized the prevalence of renal cysts in 454 individuals who donated at our center from 2000 to 2007. We estimated the association between the presence of cysts in the kidney remaining after nephrectomy (ie, retained cysts) and postdonation eGFR trajectory using mixed-effects linear regression. Donors with retained cysts (N = 86) were older (P .9). There continued to be no evidence of an association when we considered retained cyst(s) ≥10 mm or multiple retained cysts (all P > .05). These findings reaffirm current practices of accepting candidates with simple renal cysts for donor nephrectomy.

Background The purpose of this study is to quantify the relationship between social media use and the dissemination of research across nontraditional channels. Methods Between June and August of 2016, the authors identified 10 plastic surgery journals with the highest impact factor and their 10 most widely circulated articles. Article age; journal impact factor; "distinguished" article designation; and social media metadata of the first authors, last authors, and journals were incorporated into a multivariate regression model to predict the Altmetric Attention Score, a quantitative measure of popularity across Web-based media platforms. Results A total of 100 articles, 181 authors, and 10 journals were identified. Older articles tended to be less popular. The article's popularity was associated with the journal's audience size, but not with the author's social media activity. For each 1000 additional Twitter followers of the journal of publication, the Altmetric score is greater by a factor of 1.72 (95 percent CI, 1.076 to 2.749), which is the equivalent of 72 percent more Tweets. There is also a small but statistically significant negative association between the author's social media audience size and the popularity of his or her articles: for every 1000 additional followers, the Altmetric score is lower by a factor of 0.822 (95 percent CI, 0.725 to 0.932), which is the equivalent of 17.8 percent fewer Tweets. Conclusion The popularity of an article across social media platforms is associated with the journal's audience on social media, not with the magnitude of the author's social media activity.

BACKGROUND: In the US, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) provides publicly available quality report cards. These reports have historically rated transplant programs using a 3-tier system. In 2016, the SRTR temporarily transitioned to a 5-tier system, which classified more programs as under-performing. METHODS: As part of a larger survey about transplant quality metrics, we surveyed members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and American Society of Transplantation (N = 280 respondents) on transplant center experiences with patient and payer responses to the 5-tier SRTR ratings. RESULTS: Over half of respondents (n=137, 52.1%) reported ≥1 negative effect of the new 5-tier ranking system, including losing patients, losing insurers, increased concern among patients, and increased concern among referring providers. Few respondents (n=35, 13.7%) reported any positive effects of the 5-tier ranking system. Lower SRTR-reported scores on the 5-tier scale were associated with increased risk of reporting at least one negative effect in a logistic model (p

Background Efforts are underway to improve living kidney donor (LKD) education, but current LKD concerns and information-gathering preferences have not been ascertained to inform evidence-based resource development. As a result, prior studies have found that donors desire information that is not included in current informed consent and/or educational materials. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 LKDs who donated at our center to assess (1) concerns about donation that they either had personally before or after donation or heard from family members or friends, (2) information that they had desired before donation, and (3) where they sought information about donation. We used thematic analysis of verbatim interview transcriptions to identify donation-related concerns. We compared the demographic characteristics of participants reporting specific concerns using Fisher’s exact test. Results We identified 19 unique concerns that participants had or heard about living kidney donation. 20% of participants reported having had no pre-donation concerns; 38% reported no post-donation concerns. The most common concern pre-donation was future kidney failure (22%), post-donation was the recovery process (24%), and from family was endangering their family unit (16%). 44% of participants reported being less concerned than family. 26% of participants wished they had had additional information prior to donating, including practical advice for recovery (10%) and information about specific complications (14%). Caucasian participants were more likely to hear at least one concern from family (76% vs. 33%, p = 0.02). The most commonly consulted educational resources were health care providers (100%) and websites (79% of donors since 2000). 26% of participants had had contact with other donors; an additional 20% desired contact with other LKDs. Conclusions Potential donors not only have personal donation-related concerns but frequently hear donation-related concerns from family members and friends. Current gaps in donor education include an absence of practical, peer-to-peer advice about donation from other prior donors and materials directed and potential donors’ family members and friends. These findings can inform the development of new educational practices and resources targeted not only at LKDs but at their social networks.

The perception of living kidney donation-related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self-reported and ZIP code-level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation-related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inadequate knowledge of the benefits, risks and opportunities for living donation is an important, potentially modifiable barrier to living donor transplantation. We assessed the current state of the evidence regarding strategies to increase knowledge, communication and access to living donor transplantation, as reported in peer-reviewed medical literature. RECENT FINDINGS: Nineteen studies were reviewed, categorized as programs evaluated in randomized controlled trials (8 studies) and programs supported by observational (non-randomized) studies (11 studies). Content extraction demonstrated that comprehensive education about living donation and living donor transplantation involves multiple learners – the transplant candidate, potential living donors, and social support networks – and requires communicating complex information about the risks and benefits of donation, transplantation and alternative therapies to these different audiences. Transplant centers can help transplant patients learn about living donor transplantation through a variety of formats and modalities, including center-based, home-based and remote technology-based education, outreach to dialysis centers, and social media. Evaluation of these strategies and program themes informed a new Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) public education brochure. SUMMARY: Increasing transplant candidate knowledge and comfort in talking about living donation and transplantation can reduce educational barriers to pursuit of living donor transplants. Ongoing efforts are needed to develop, refine and disseminate educational programs to help improve transplant access for more patients in need of organ donors.

Living donor transplantation offers patients with end-stage renal disease faster access to transplant and better survival and quality of life than waiting for a deceased donor or remaining on dialysis. While many people state they would be willing to help someone in need through kidney donation, there are education and communication barriers to donor candidate identification. These barriers might be mitigated by technological innovations, including the use of social media. This article describes the state of contemporary evidence regarding use of social media tools and interventions to increase access to living donor transplantation, as reported in peer-reviewed medical literature, as well as programs that have not yet been formally evaluated. As social media platforms continue to grow and expand, a commitment to understanding and facilitating the use of social media by the transplant community may support patients who are interested in using social media as a tool to find a living kidney donor.

From its infancy, live donor transplantation has operated within a framework of acceptable risk to donors. Such a framework presumes that risks of living donation are experienced by the donor while all benefits are realized by the recipient, creating an inequitable distribution that demands minimization of donor risk. We suggest that this risk-tolerance framework ignores tangible benefits to the donor. A previously proposed framework more fully considers potential benefits to the donor and argues that risks and benefits must be balanced. We expand on this approach, and posit that donors sharing a household with and/or caring for a potential transplant patient may realize tangible benefits that are absent in a more distantly related donation (e.g. cousin, nondirected). We term these donors, whose well-being is closely tied to their recipient, "interdependent donors." A flexible risk-benefit model that combines risk assessment with benefits to interdependent donors will contribute to donor evaluation and selection that more accurately reflects what is at stake for donors. In so doing, a risk-benefit framework may allow some donors to accept greater risk in donation decisions.

About 6,000 individuals participate in the U.S. transplant system as a living organ donor each year. Organ donation (most commonly a kidney or part of liver) by living individuals is a unique procedure, where healthy patients undergo a major surgical operation without any direct functional benefit to themselves. In this article, the authors explore how the ideal of informed consent guides education and evaluation for living organ donation. The authors posit that informed consent for living organ donation is a process. Though the steps in this process are partially standardized through national health policy, they can be improved through institutional structures at the local, transplant center-level. Effective structures and practices aimed at supporting and promoting comprehensive informed consent provide more opportunities for candidates to ask questions about the risks and benefits of living donation and to opt out voluntarily Additionally, these practices could enable new ways of measuring knowledge and improving the consent process.

Rationale & Objective Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting & Participants A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017. Exposure Biological relationship of donor and recipient. Outcome ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome. Analytic Approach Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used. Results Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6). Limitations Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients. Conclusions Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.

We examined a novel linkage of national U.S. donor registry data with records from a pharmacy claims warehouse (2007–2016) to examine associations (adjusted hazard ratio, (LCL) aHR (UCL)) of postdonation fills of antidiabetic medications (ADM, insulin or non-insulin agents) with body mass index (BMI) at donation and other demographic and clinical factors. In 28,515 living kidney donors (LKDs), incidence of ADM use at 9 years rose in a graded manner with higher baseline BMI: underweight, 0.9%; normal weight, 2.1%; overweight, 3.5%; obese, 8.5%. Obesity was associated with higher risk of ADM use compared to normal BMI (aHR, (3.36)4.59(6.27)). Metformin was the most commonly used ADM and was filled more often by obese than by normal weight donors (9-year incidence, 6.87% vs. 1.85%, aHR, (3.55)5.00(7.04)). Insulin use was uncommon and did not differ significantly by BMI. Among a subgroup with BMI data at the 1-year post-donation anniversary (n=19,528), compared with stable BMI, BMI increase >0.5 kg/m(2) by year 1 was associated with increased risk of subsequent ADM use (aHR, (1.03)1.48 (2.14,) P=0.036). While this study did not assess the impact of donation on the development of obesity, these data support that among LKD, obesity is a strong correlate of ADM use.

Author(s): Lentine, Krista L; Holscher, Courtenay M; Naik, Abhijit S; Lam, Ngan N; Segev, Dorry L; Garg, Amit X; Axelrod, David; Xiao, Huiling; Henderson, Macey L; Massie, Allan B; Kasiske, Bertram L; Hess, Gregory P; Hsu, Chi-Yuan; Park, Meyeon; Schnitzler, Mark A | Abstract: BackgroundLimited data are available regarding clinical implications of lower renal function after living kidney donation. We examined a novel integrated database to study associations between postdonation estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and use of antihypertensive medication (AHM) treatment after living kidney donation.MethodsStudy data were assembled by linking national U.S. transplant registry identifiers, serum creatinine (SCr) values from electronic medical records, and pharmacy fill records for 3222 living donors (1989-2016) without predonation hypertension. Estimated GFR (mL/min per 1.73 m2) was computed from SCr values by the CKD-EPI equation. Repeated measures multivariable mixed effects modeling examined the associations (adjusted odds ratio, 95%LCLaOR95% UCL) between AHM use and postdonation eGFR levels (random effect) with fixed effects for baseline donor factors.ResultsThe linked database identified an average of 3 postdonation SCr values per donor (range: 1-38). Lower postdonation eGFR (vs ≥75) bore graded associations with higher odds of AHM use (eGFR 30-44: aOR 0.951.472.26; l30: aOR 1.082.525.90). Other independent correlates of postdonation AHM use included older age at donation (aOR per decade: 1.081.231.40), black race (aOR 1.031.512.21), body mass index g 30 kg/m2 (aOR 1.011.452.09), first-degree donor-recipient relationship (aOR 1.071.381.79), "prehypertension" at donation (systolic blood pressure 120-139: aOR 1.101.461.94; diastolic blood pressure 80-89: aOR 1.061.451.99).ConclusionsThis novel linkage illustrates the ability to identify postdonation kidney function and associate it with clinically meaningful outcomes; lower eGFR after living kidney donation is a correlate of AHM treatment requirements. Further work should define relationships of postdonation renal function, hypertension, and other morbidity measures.

Although minimized by expert evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care, the extremely low risk of perioperative mortality following living kidney or liver donation will never be eliminated. Furthermore, anticipation of poor donor outcome may simultaneously be a source of anxiety for physicians and programs, and also be a circumstance for which they are unprepared. We conducted a national survey of U.S. transplant surgeons to understand experiences with and systemic preparedness for the event of a living donor death. Respondents represented 87 unique transplant programs (71 kidney and 16 liver donor programs). Perioperative deaths were rare, as expected. Although most respondents (N=57, 64% of total respondents; 88% of liver programs) reported being moderately to extremely concerned about a future living donor death at their institution, only 30 (33% of total program respondents) had a written plan available in the case of such an event. 63% of programs would find guidance and recommendations useful. To help address this gap, the American Society of Transplantation Live Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP) developed Living Donor Crisis Management Plan Talking Points suitable to guide crisis plan development at transplant programs.

Background Living kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease, with hypertension and diabetes as the predominant causes. In this study, we sought to better understand the timeline when these diseases occur, focusing on the early postdonation period. Methods We studied 41 260 living kidney donors in the United States between 2008 and 2014 from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and modeled incidence rates and risk factors for hypertension and diabetes. Results At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, there were 74, 162, and 310 cases, respectively, of hypertension per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y, adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.51), male (aIRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.50), had higher body mass index (per 5 units, aIRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.43), and were related to their recipient (first-degree relative: aIRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; spouse: aIRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66) were more likely to develop hypertension, whereas donors who were Hispanic/Latino were less likely (aIRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, there were 2, 6, and 15 cases of diabetes per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y: aIRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11-1.82), had higher body mass index (per 5 units: aIRR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21), and were Hispanic/Latino (aIRR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.14-5.26) were more likely to develop diabetes. Conclusions In this national study, new-onset diabetes was rare, but 3% of donors developed hypertension within 2 years of nephrectomy. These findings reaffirm that disease pathways for kidney failure differ by donor phenotype and estimate the population most at-risk for later kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation. METHODS: We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least one purpose. While most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (p=0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (p=0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (p

BACKGROUND Neighborhood poverty has been associated with worse outcomes after live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), and prior work suggests that women with kidney disease may be more susceptible to the negative influence of poverty than men. As such, our goal was to examine whether poverty differentially affects women in influencing LDKT outcomes. METHODS Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and US Census, we performed multivariable Cox regression to compare outcomes among 18 955 women and 30 887 men who received a first LDKT in 2005-2014 with follow-up through December 31, 2016. RESULTS Women living in poor (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.50) and middle-income (aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.14-1.40) neighborhoods had higher risk of graft loss than men, but there were no differences in wealthy areas (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88-1.29). Women living in wealthy (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87) and middle-income (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92) neighborhoods incurred a survival advantage over men, but there were no statistically significant differences in mortality in poor areas (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01). CONCLUSIONS Given our findings that poverty is more strongly associated with graft loss in women, targeted efforts are needed to specifically address mechanisms driving these disparities in LDKT outcomes.

Background. The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood). Methods. We conducted semistructured interviews with 56 living kidney donors regarding benefits experienced from donation. Using a qualitative descriptive and constant comparative approach, themes were derived inductively from interview transcripts by 2 independent coders; differences in coding were reconciled by consensus. Results. Of 56 participants, 30 were in interdependent relationships with their recipients (shared household and/or significant caregiving responsibilities). Tangible benefits identified by participants fell into 3 major categories: health and wellness benefits, time and financial benefits, and interpersonal benefits. Participants described motivations to donate a kidney based on a more nuanced understanding of the benefits of donation than accounted for by the current “acceptable risk” paradigm. Discussion. Tangible benefits for interdependent donors may shift the “acceptable risk” paradigm (where no benefit is assumed) of kidney donor evaluation to a risk/benefit paradigm more consistent with other surgical decision-making.

Background and objectives Hypertension in older kidney donor candidates is viewed as safe. However, hypertension guidelines have evolved and long-term outcomes have not been explored. We sought to quantify the 15-year risk of ESKD and mortality in older donors (≥50 years old) with versus those without hypertension. Design, setting, participants, & measurements A United States cohort of 24,533 older donors from 1999 to 2016, including 2265 with predonation hypertension, were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and the Social Security Death Master File to ascertain ESKD development and mortality. The exposure of interest was predonation hypertension. From 2004 to 2016, hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy, regardless of systolic BP or diastolic BP; from 1999 to 2003, when there was no documentation of antihypertensive therapy, hypertension was defined as predonation systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg. Results Older donors were 82% white, 6% black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. The median follow-up was 7.1 years (interquartile range, 3.4–11.1; maximum, 18). There were 24 ESKD and 252 death events during the study period. The 15-year risk of ESKD was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.4 to 1.6) for donors with hypertension (mean systolic BP, 138 mm Hg) versus 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4) for donors without hypertension (mean systolic BP, 123 mm Hg; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.28 to 7.22; P=0.01). When predonation antihypertensive therapy was available, the risk of ESKD was 6.21-fold higher (95% CI, 1.20 to 32.17; P=0.03) for donors using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 132 mm Hg) versus those not using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 124 mm Hg). There was no significant association between donor hypertension and 15-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.66; P=0.34). Conclusions Compared with older donors without hypertension, older donors with hypertension had higher risk of ESKD, but not mortality, for 15 years postdonation. However, the absolute risk of ESKD was small.

A recent study reported that kidney transplant recipients of offspring living donors had higher graft loss and mortality. This seemed counterintuitive, given the excellent HLA matching and younger age of offspring donors; we were concerned about residual confounding and other study design issues. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2001-2016 to evaluate death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality for recipients of offspring versus nonoffspring living donor kidneys, using Cox regression models with interaction terms. Recipients of offspring kidneys had lower DCGF than recipients of nonoffspring kidneys (15-year cumulative incidence 21.2% vs 26.1%, P < .001). This association remained after adjustment for recipient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.73 0.770.82 , P < .001), and was attenuated among African American donors (aHR 0.77 0.850.95 ; interaction: P = .01) and female recipients (aHR 0.77 0.840.91 , P < .001). Although offspring kidney recipients had higher mortality (15-year mortality 56.4% vs 37.2%, P < .001), this largely disappeared with adjustment for recipient age alone (aHR = 1.02 1.061.10 , P = .002) and was nonsignificant after further adjustment for other recipient characteristics (aHR = 0.93 0.971.01 , P = .1). Kidneys from offspring donors provided lower graft failure and comparable mortality. An otherwise eligible donor should not be dismissed because they are the offspring of the recipient, and we encourage continued individualized counseling for potential donors.

Development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors is associated with increased graft loss in the recipients of their kidneys. Our goal was to investigate if this relationship was reflected at an earlier stage postdonation, possibly early enough for recipient risk prediction based on donor response to nephrectomy. Using national registry data, we studied 29 464 recipients and their donors from 2008-2016 to determine the association between donor 6-month postnephrectomy estimated GFR (eGFR) and recipient death-censored graft failure (DCGF). We explored donor BMI as an effect modifier, given the association between obesity and hyperfiltration. On average, risk of DCGF increased with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.10, P = .007). The association was attenuated with higher donor BMI (interaction P = .049): recipients from donors with BMI = 20 (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.19, P = .002) and BMI = 25 (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12, P = .001) had a higher risk of DCGF with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR, whereas recipients from donors with BMI = 30 and BMI = 35 did not have a higher risk. The relationship between postdonation eGFR, donor BMI, and recipient graft loss can inform counseling and management of living donor kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND HIV+ donor organs can now be transplanted into HIV+ recipients (HIV D+/R+) following the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. Implementation of the HOPE Act requires transplant center awareness and support of HIV D+/R+ transplants. METHODS To assess center-level barriers to implementation, we surveyed 209 transplant centers on knowledge, attitudes, and planned HIV D+/R+ protocols. RESULTS Responding centers (n = 114; 56%) represented all UNOS regions. Fifty centers (93 organ programs) planned HIV D+/R+ protocols (kidney n = 48, liver n = 34, pancreas n = 8, heart n = 2, lung = 1), primarily in the eastern United States (28/50). Most (91.2%) were aware that HIV D+/R+ transplantation is legal; 21.4% were unaware of research restrictions. Respondents generally agreed with HOPE research criteria except the required experience with ≥5 HIV+ transplants by organ type. Centers planning HIV D+/R+ protocols had higher transplant volume, HIV+ recipient volume, increased infectious risk donor utilization, and local HIV prevalence (P

BACKGROUND The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described. METHODS Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients. RESULTS The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. CONCLUSIONS Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.

Background: Every year, more than 5500 healthy people in the United States donate a kidney for the medical benefit of another person. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) requires transplant hospitals to monitor living kidney donors (LKDs) for 2 years postdonation. However, the majority (115/202, 57%) of transplant hospitals in the United States continue to fail to meet nationally mandated requirements for LKD follow-up. A novel method for collecting LKD follow-up is needed to ease both the transplant hospital-level and patient-level burden. We built mKidney—a mobile health (mHealth) system designed specifically to facilitate the collection and reporting of OPTN-required LKD follow-up data. The mKidney mobile app was developed on the basis of input elicited from LKDs, transplant providers, and thought leaders. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the mKidney smartphone app on LKD follow-up rates. Methods: We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with LKDs who undergo LKD transplantation at Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. Eligible participants will be recruited in-person by a study team member at their 1-week postdonation clinical visit and randomly assigned to the intervention or control arm (1:1). Participants in the intervention arm will receive the mHealth intervention (mKidney), and participants in the control arm will receive the current standard of follow-up care. Our primary outcome will be policy-defined complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after the expected visit date) submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year visits. Our secondary outcome will be hospital-level compliance with OPTN reporting requirements at each visit. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Additionally, we will collect quantitative and qualitative process data regarding the implementation of the mKidney system. Results: We began recruitment for this RCT in May 2018. We plan to enroll 400 LKDs over 2 years and follow participants for the 2-year mandated follow-up period. Conclusions: This pilot RCT will evaluate the impact of the mKidney system on rates of LKD and hospital compliance with OPTN-mandated LKD follow-up at a large LKD transplant hospital. It will provide valuable information on strategies for implementing such a system in a clinical setting and inform effect sizes for future RCT sample size calculations. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11000

Recent changes to United States law now permit people living with HIV (PLWH) to donate organs to HIV-infected (HIV+) recipients under research protocols. PLWH may have unique motivations for and concerns about living donation and understanding them is critical to ensuring the integrity of this novel approach to organ transplantation. We conducted in-depth interviews with PLWH from an urban HIV clinic who had previously indicated their willingness to be a living donor. Interviews elicited information on their motivations, perceived benefits, and concerns regarding living donation. Codes were identified inductively and then organized into themes and subthemes. Two coders independently analyzed the interviews and reconciled differences in coding by consensus. Thematic saturation was reached after 20 interviews. Motivations for living donation among PLWH included an altruistic desire to help others as well as HIV-specific motivations including solidarity with potential recipients and a desire to overcome HIV-related stigma. Perceived benefits of living donation included gratification from saving or improving the recipient's life and conferring a sense of normalcy for the HIV+ donor. Concerns about donation included the possibility of a prolonged recovery period, organ failure, and transmission of another strain of the virus to the recipients. PLWH had unique motivations, perceived benefits, and concerns about living donation in addition to those previously identified in the general population. These unique factors should be addressed in research protocols, informed consent processes, and the education and training of independent living donor advocates so that these endeavors are ethically sound.

The practice of kidney paired donation (KPD) is expanding annually, offering the opportunity for live donor kidney transplant to more patients. We sought to identify if voluntary KPD networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) were selecting or attracting a narrower group of donors or recipients compared with national registries. For this purpose, we merged data from the NKR database with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, from February 14, 2008, to February 14, 2017, encompassing the first 9 years of the NKR. Compared with all United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) live donor transplant patients (49 610), all UNOS living unrelated transplant patients (23 319), and all other KPD transplant patients (4236), the demographic and clinical characteristics of NKR transplant patients (2037) appear similar to contemporary national trends. In particular, among the NKR patients, there were a significantly (P .001) greater number of retransplants (25.6% vs 11.5%), hyperimmunized recipients (22.7% vs 4.3% were cPRA80%), female recipients (45.9% vs 37.6%), black recipients (18.2% vs 13%), and those on public insurance (49.7% vs 41.8%) compared with controls. These results support the need for greater sharing and larger pool sizes, perhaps enhanced by the entry of compatible pairs and even chains initiated by deceased donors, to unlock more opportunities for those harder-to-match pairs.

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39 350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.

Background Impact of geriatric consultative services (GCS) on hospital readmission and mortality outcomes for cognitively impaired (CI) patients is not known.

New regulations require living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up for two years, but donor retention remains poor. Electronic communication (e.g. text messaging, e-mail) might improve donor retention. To explore the possible impact of electronic communication, we recruited LKDs to participate in an exploratory study of communication via telephone, e-mail, or text messaging post-donation; communication through this study was purely optional and did not replace standard follow-up. Of 69 LKDs recruited, 3% requested telephone call, 52% e-mail, and 45% text messaging. Telephone response rate was 0%; these LKDs were subsequently excluded from analysis. Overall response rates with email or text messaging at 1-week, 1-month, 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years were 94%, 87%, 81%, 72%, and 72%. Lower response rates were seen in African Americans, even after adjusting for age, sex, and contact method (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse 2.075.8116.36, p=0.001). Text messaging had higher response rates than email (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse 0.110.280.71, p=0.007). Rates of nonresponse were similar by sex (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.68, p=0.4) and age (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.00, p>0.9). In summary, LKDs strongly preferred electronic messaging over telephone and were highly responsive two years post-donation, even in this non-required, non-incentivized exploratory research study. These electronic communication tools can be automated and may improve regulatory compliance and post-donation care.

Background Annual visits with a primary care provider (PCP) are recommended for living kidney donors to monitor long-term health post-donation, yet adherence to this recommendation is unknown. Methods We surveyed 1170 living donors from our center from 1970-2012 to ascertain frequency of PCP visits pre- and post-donation. Interviews occurred median (IQR) 6.6 (3.8 – 11.0) years post-transplant. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between donor characteristics and PCP visit frequency. Results Overall, only 18.6% had less-than-annual PCP follow-up post-donation. The strongest predictor of post-donation PCP visit frequency was pre-donation PCP visit frequency. Donors who had less-than-annual PCP visits before donation were substantially more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits post-donation (OR = 9.814.421.0, p

Studies have estimated the average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personalized estimation on the basis of donor characteristics remains unavailable. We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, with ESRD ascertainment via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services linkage, using Cox regression with late entries. Black race (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.25 to 3.89; P

As the organ shortage continues to grow, the creation of social media communities by transplant hospitals and the public is rapidly expanding to increase the number of living donors. Social media communities are arranged in myriad ways and without standardization, raising concerns about transplant candidates' and potential donors' autonomy and quality of care. Social media communities magnify and modify extant ethical issues in deceased and living donation related to privacy, confidentiality, professionalism, and informed consent, and increase the potential for undue influence and coercion for potential donors and transplant candidates. Currently, no national ethical guidelines have been developed in the United States regarding the use of social media to foster organ transplantation. We provide an ethical framework to guide transplant stakeholders in using social media for public and patient communication about transplantation and living donation, and offer recommendations for transplant clinical practice and future research.

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/ United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) mandated that transplant centers collect data on living kidney donors (LKDs) at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, with policy-defined thresholds for the proportion of complete living donor follow-up (LDF) data submitted in a timely manner (60 days before or after the expected visit date). While mandated, it was unclear how centers across the country would perform in meeting thresholds, given potential donor and center-level challenges of LDF. To better understand the impact of this policy, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for 31,615 LKDs between January 2010 and June 2015, comparing proportions of complete and timely LDF form submissions before and after policy implementation. We also used multilevel logistic regression to assess donor- and center-level characteristics associated with complete and timely LDF submissions. Complete and timely 2-year LDF increased from 33% prepolicy (January 2010 through January 2013) to 54% postpolicy (February 2013 through June 2015) (p

BackgroundIn 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) persist but the most effective target to eliminate these disparities remains unknown. One potential target could be delays during completion of the live donor evaluation process. We studied racial differences in progression through the evaluation process for 247 African American (AA) and 664 non-AA living donor candidates at our center between January 2011-March 2015. AA candidates were more likely to be obese (38% vs. 22%: p

Over the past 2 decades, there has been increased attention and effort to reduce disparities in live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) for black, Hispanic, and Asian patients with end-stage kidney disease. The goal of this study was to investigate whether these efforts have been successful.To estimate changes over time in racial/ethnic disparities in LDKT in the United States, accounting for differences in death and deceased donor kidney transplantation.A secondary analysis of a prospectively maintained cohort study conducted in the United States of 453 162 adult first-time kidney transplantation candidates included in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2014, with follow-up through December 31, 2016.Race/ethnicity.The primary study outcome was time to LDKT. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and competing risk models were constructed to assess changes in racial/ethnic disparities in LDKT among adults on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list and interaction terms were used to test the statistical significance of temporal changes in racial/ethnic differences in receipt of LDKT. The adjusted subhazard ratios are estimates derived from the multivariable competing risk models. Data were categorized into 5-year increments (1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014) to allow for an adequate sample size in each analytical cell.Among 453 162 adult kidney transplantation candidates (mean [SD] age, 50.9 [13.1] years; 39% were women; 48% were white; 30%, black; 16%, Hispanic; and 6%, Asian), 59 516 (13.1%) received LDKT. Overall, there were 39 509 LDKTs among white patients, 8926 among black patients, 8357 among Hispanic patients, and 2724 among Asian patients. In 1995, the cumulative incidence of LDKT at 2 years after appearing on the waiting list was 7.0% among white patients, 3.4% among black patients, 6.8% among Hispanic patients, and 5.1% among Asian patients. In 2014, the cumulative incidence of LDKT was 11.4% among white patients, 2.9% among black patients, 5.9% among Hispanic patients, and 5.6% among Asian patients. From 1995-1999 to 2010-2014, racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of LDKT increased (P .001 for all statistical interaction terms in adjusted models comparing white patients vs black, Hispanic, and Asian patients). In 1995-1999, compared with receipt of LDKT among white patients, the adjusted subhazard ratio was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.42-0.48) among black patients, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.88) among Hispanic patients, and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50-0.63) among Asian patients. In 2010-2014, compared with receipt of LDKT among white patients, the adjusted subhazard ratio was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.26-0.28) among black patients, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.50-0.54) among Hispanic patients, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.39-0.45) among Asian patients.Among adult first-time kidney transplantation candidates in the United States who were added to the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list between 1995 and 2014, disparities in the receipt of live donor kidney transplantation increased from 1995-1999 to 2010-2014. These findings suggest that national strategies for addressing disparities in receipt of live donor kidney transplantation should be revisited.

Background: There is currently a lack of scientifically designed and tested implementation strategies. Such strategies are particularly important for highly complex interventions that require coordination between multiple parts to be successful. This paper presents a protocol for the development and testing of an implementation strategy for a complex intervention known as the Housing First model (HFM). Housing First is an evidence-based practice for chronically homeless individuals demonstrated to significantly improve a number of outcomes. Methods/design: Drawing on practices demonstrated to be useful in implementation and e-learning theory, our team is currently adapting a face-to-face implementation strategy so that it can be delivered over a distance. Research activities will be divided between Chicago and Central Indiana, two areas with significantly different barriers to HFM implementation. Ten housing providers (five from Chicago and five from Indiana) will be recruited to conduct an alpha test of each of four e-learning modules as they are developed. Providers will be requested to keep a detailed log of their experience completing the modules and participate in one of two focus groups. After refining the modules based on alpha test results, we will test the strategy among a sample of four housing organizations (two from Chicago and two from Indiana). We will collect and analyze both qualitative and quantitative data from administration and staff. Measures of interest include causal factors affecting implementation, training outcomes, and implementation outcomes. Discussion: This project is an important first step in the development of an evidence-based implementation strategy to increase scalability and impact of the HFM. The project also has strong potential to increase limited scientific knowledge regarding implementation strategies in general.