Effectiveness of an Evidence-Based Induction Therapy Protocol Revision in Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Induction immunosuppression significantly improves graft outcomes after kidney transplantation, but protocols vary among transplant centers due to the lack of data identifying an optimal induction agent. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an evidence-based protocol change in induction therapy in adult kidney transplant recipients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large tertiary care academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 349 patients transplanted between August 2011 and December 2013 were included in the study. A protocol revision in 2012 reserved the use of lymphocyte-depleting induction therapy to a select group of traditionally high-risk patients based on the findings of a previous randomized controlled trial performed at this center. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was biopsy-proved acute rejection and graft loss. The use of nondepleting induction therapy increased significantly after the protocol revision, with no significant differences in rejection or infection rates identified between protocols. When comparing graft survival between the protocol cohorts, there was no significant difference. A cost-minimization analysis indicated that the revised protocol was associated with considerable medication cost savings. CONCLUSION: A protocol targeting the use of lymphocyte-depleting induction to a select group of high-risk recipients appears to have equivalent efficacy and safety and is less costly compared with a more traditional induction protocol.

Predicting and preventing readmissions in kidney transplant recipients.

A lack of research exploring post-transplant process optimization to reduce readmissions and increasing readmission rates at our center from 2009 to 2013 led to this study, aimed at assessing the effect of patient and process factors on 30-d readmission rates after kidney transplantation. This was a retrospective case-control study in adult kidney transplant recipients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were utilized to assess patient and process determinants of 30-d readmissions. 384 patients were included; 30-d readmissions were significantly associated with graft loss and death (p = 0.001). Diabetes (p = 0.049), pharmacist identification of poor understanding or adherence, and prolonged time on hemodialysis prior to transplant were associated with an increased risk of 30-d readmissions. After controlling for risk factors, readmission rates were only independently predicted by pharmacist identification of patient lack of understanding or adherence regarding post-transplant medications and dialysis exposure for more than three yr (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.10-4.71, p = 0.026 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.22, 3.70, respectively), both of which were significantly modified by history of diabetes. Thirty-d readmissions are attributable to both patient and process-level factors. These data suggest that a lack of post-transplant medication knowledge in high-risk patients drives early hospital readmission.

Optimizing finite resources: Pharmacist chart reviews in an outpatient kidney transplant clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a pharmacist-executed comprehensive chart review could serve as sufficient substitution for direct participation during outpatient clinic visits in the postdischarge follow-up treatment of kidney transplant recipients. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Acute and chronic transplant clinics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. PARTICIPANTS: 219 individual kidney transplant recipients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness of chart review assessments (with written notes) as compared with in-clinic assessments (with verbal communication with transplant providers followed by documentation by pharmacists). An independent transplant provider graded pharmacist recommendations by severity. All recommendations were compared with the provider's plan to determine if the recommendations were incorporated. RESULTS: During the 3-month study period, 170 pharmacist chart reviews were written and 175 clinic visits involved direct pharmacist participation. Providers accepted a greater percentage of recommendations that were delivered directly compared with recommendations presented via a note in the patient folder following chart review (92% vs. 28%, respectively; P <0.0001). Directly provided recommendations were also associated with higher severity scores. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that comprehensive chart review by pharmacists prior to patient clinic visits may not be as effective as in-person consultation in communicating recommendations to providers. Further research is needed in similar clinic settings.

Survey of transplant-related pharmacy services at large comprehensive transplant centers in the United States.

CONTEXT: United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) 2011 bylaws and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations require a transplant pharmacist to be an active participant in the care of transplant patients. Transplant centers must be members in good standing with UNOS in order to perform transplants and must be certified by CMS to participate with Medicare. OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics of transplant-related pharmacy services at comprehensive transplant centers. DESIGN: Survey regarding number of full-time equivalent (FTE) transplant pharmacists relative to number of annual transplants, transplant pharmacy model, roles in inpatient and clinic environments, training and specialization, funding sources, and expansion plans.Participants-Surveys were received from 14 (74%) of 19 identified centers that performed 200 to 400 kidney, liver, pancreas, simultaneous kidney/pancreas, heart, and lung transplants in 2010, representing 55 transplant pharmacists. RESULTS: A mean of 325 transplants were performed in 2010 at the surveyed centers. The mean number of pharmacist FTEs was 4.25, which yielded a transplant-to-pharmacist ratio of 76.5. Nine centers (64%) practiced in a pharmacy specialist-only model, 12 (86%) practiced in a service-based fashion, and 10 (71%) saw patients in clinic. Fifty-four pharmacists (98%) had obtained a PharmD degree, 45 (82%) had completed 1 postgraduate year, and 28 (51%) had completed 2 postgraduate years of training. Nine centers (64%) funded FTEs solely through the pharmacy department. Ten centers (71%) plan to expand transplant pharmacist staff by a mean of 1.4 FTEs. CONCLUSIONS: Large comprehensive transplant centers use multiple transplant pharmacists to perform patient care in the inpatient and outpatient environments. Most centers plan to expand FTEs. Further characterization of transplant pharmacists appears warranted.