Search

Background. Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors. Methods. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry. Results. Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%). Conclusions. These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.

Background. For most patients with kidney failure, living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is their best treatment option. Compared with White people, Black people are more likely to have kidney failure but less likely to receive LDKTs. In this study, the investigators will test an educational intervention, Destination Transplant, designed to reduce this disparity, among Black people already listed for kidney transplant. Methods. The investigators will conduct a parallel group, 2-arm randomized clinical trial among 500 Black kidney transplant candidates. The main objective of this study is to test an educational and behavioral intervention that is designed to increase receipt of LDKT among transplant candidates (persons active on the deceased donor kidney transplant waiting list) who are Black. Candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list will be randomly assigned to 1 of 2 conditions: (1) a control group that will receive Usual Care, or (2) an Intervention group that will receive Destination Transplant, a 9-month intervention that includes an in-person group-based education session, postcards at monthly intervals, and a follow-up phone call from a transplant educator. At baseline and during 18 months of follow-up, demographic and clinical variables will be collected, as well as variables such as transplant derailers (factors that might be sources of delay, difficulty, or challenge to pursuing transplant), transplant knowledge, and health literacy, small steps taken to pursue LDKT, readiness for LDKT, decisional balance and self-efficacy LDKT, decisional conflict, family support, availability of potential living donors, and general health status. Conclusions. This educational intervention aims to increase both readiness to pursue LDKT and actual receipt of LDKTs among Black and African American patients who are already on the kidney transplant waiting list. The aim of the intervention is to reduce racial disparities in access to LDKT.

Background. Socioeconomic barriers can prevent successful kidney transplant (KT) but are difficult to measure efficiently in clinical settings. We created and validated an individual-level, single score Kidney Transplant Derailers Index (KTDI) and assessed its association with waitlisting and living donor KT (LDKT) rates. Methods. The dataset included 733 patients presenting for KT evaluation in a transplant center in California. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify socioeconomic barriers to KT (derailers) to include in the index. Potential KT derailers included health insurance, employment, financial insecurity, educational attainment, perception of neighborhood safety, access to a vehicle, having a washer/dryer, and quality of social support. Validity was tested with associations between KTDI scores and the following: (1) the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and (2) time to KT waitlisting and LDKT. Results. Nine derailers were retained, omitting only social support level from the original set. The KTDI was scored by summing the number of derailers endorsed (mean: 3.0; range: 0–9). Black patients had higher estimated KTDI scores than other patient groups (versus White patients, 3.8 versus 2.1; P < 0.001, effect size = 0.81). In addition, the KTDI was associated with the ADI (γ = 0.70, SE = 0.07; P < 0.001). Finally, in comparison to the lower tertile, patients in the upper and middle KTDI tertiles had lower hazard of waitlisting (upper tertile hazard ratio [HR]: 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.45; middle tertile HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40-0.72) and receiving an LDKT (upper tertile HR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.08-0.30; middle tertile HR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.20-0.62). These associations remained significant when adjusting for the ADI and other patient characteristics. Conclusions. The KTDI is a valid indicator of socioeconomic barriers to KT for individual patients that can be used to identify patients at risk for not receiving a KT.