Is socioeconomic deprivation associated with worse quality of life, anxiety and depression in liver transplant recipients? A cross-sectional study in a national transplantation programme.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), anxiety and depression following liver transplantation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Liver transplant recipients within a national transplantation programme. METHODS: Participants completed the condition-specific 'Short Form of Liver Disease Quality of Life' Questionnaire, the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The aggregate HR-QoL Score (range 0-100) was derived, and multivariable linear regression was performed based on sociodemographic and clinical variables to estimate its independent association with Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) quintiles. The GAD-7 Questionnaire and PHQ-9 were used to screen respondents for anxiety and depression, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate their independent association with SIMD quintiles. RESULTS: Some 331 patients completed the questionnaires. Quintiles were equally distributed in the cohort, with no significant differences observed in underlying patient characteristics. Following multivariable adjustment, greater socioeconomic deprivation was associated with lower post-transplantation HR-QoL scores, with a difference of 9.7 points (95% CI: 4.6 to 14.9, p<0.001) between the most and least deprived quintiles. Recipients living in areas of least deprivation were less likely to suffer from anxiety (OR 0.05, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.28, p=0.003) or depression (OR 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.56, p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Despite the highly selected nature of liver transplant recipients, those living in the most deprived areas have a significantly lower HR-QoL and are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

Equity of access to renal transplantation: a European perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Renal transplantation offers the chance for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) to have a significantly longer, healthier and better quality life compared with remaining on dialysis. Inequities have been demonstrated at multiple points in the transplantation pathway. In this review, the factors contributing to inequity in access to renal transplantation will be explored from a European perspective. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite improvements in patient assessment and revision of organ-offering schemes, there remain persistent inequities in access to the waiting list, allocation of a deceased donor transplant, receiving a living donor transplant and achieving preemptive transplantation. Older age, lower socioeconomic status and health literacy are key factors that continue to impact equity of access to transplantation. SUMMARY: A number of modifiable factors have been identified affecting access to transplantation, Increased patient education together with a better access to and promotion of living donation may help address some of these inequities.

Improving metronidazole prescription practices in surgical patients: a full cycle audit.

INTRODUCTION: Metronidazole is commonly prescribed for intra-abdominal infections. Oral metronidazole has high bioavailability (>95%) and intravenous metronidazole should be reserved for patients not suitable for oral preparations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This full cycle audit evaluated the type of metronidazole preparation prescribed in adult emergency surgical patients requiring first-line empirical antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections. The criterion for audit was the proportion of patients who were prescribed intravenous metronidazole when the oral route was available. The first cycle included all consecutive eligible patients between 20 April and 14 May 2020. After an intervention phase educating prescribers about the similar pharmacokinetic properties of oral and intravenous metronidazole, clinical practice was reaudited between 22 June and 16 July 2020. Data were collected by case note and drug chart review. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were included in the first audit cycle. Of these, 11 (20.4%) were prescribed oral metronidazole and 43 (79.6%) were prescribed intravenous metronidazole. In the majority of cases (35/43, 81.4%), intravenous metronidazole was prescribed in the absence of clear contraindications to the oral preparation. Of the 61 patients included in the reaudit cycle, 23 (37.7%) were prescribed oral metronidazole and 38 (62.3%) were prescribed intravenous metronidazole. The proportion of patients prescribed intravenous metronidazole despite being suitable for oral preparation decreased from 81.4% in the first cycle to 34.2% (13/38) in the reaudit cycle (risk ratio 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.67, p<0.0001). Prescribing oral metronidazole when suitable saved up to £10.53/day per patient. CONCLUSION: This full cycle audit led to a significant improvement in the use of oral metronidazole in suitable patients, as well as a considerable reduction in healthcare costs.

Recipient Comorbidity and Survival Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation: A UK-wide Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is increasingly common in kidney transplant recipients, yet the implications for transplant outcomes are not fully understood. We analyzed the relationship between recipient comorbidity and survival outcomes in a UK-wide prospective cohort study-Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM). METHODS: A total of 2100 adult kidney transplant recipients were recruited from all 23 UK transplant centers between 2011 and 2013. Data on 15 comorbidities were collected at the time of transplantation. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to analyze the relationship between comorbidity and 2-year graft survival, patient survival, and transplant survival (earliest of graft failure or patient death) for deceased-donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients (n = 1288) and living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (n = 812). RESULTS: For DDKT recipients, peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 3.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37-6.74; P = 0.006) and obesity (HR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.27-4.06; P = 0.006) were independent risk factors for graft loss, while heart failure (HR 3.77, 95% CI: 1.79-7.95; P = 0.0005), cerebrovascular disease (HR 3.45, 95% CI: 1.72-6.92; P = 0.0005), and chronic liver disease (HR 4.36, 95% CI: 1.29-14.71; P = 0.018) were associated with an increased risk of mortality. For LDKT recipients, heart failure (HR 3.83, 95% CI: 1.15-12.81; P = 0.029) and diabetes (HR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.03-4.81; P = 0.042) were associated with poorer transplant survival. CONCLUSIONS: The key comorbidities that predict poorer 2-year survival outcomes after kidney transplantation have been identified in this large prospective cohort study. The findings will facilitate assessment of individual patient risks and evidence-based decision making.

Barriers to living donor kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom: a national observational study.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) provides more timely access to transplantation and better clinical outcomes than deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). This study investigated disparities in the utilization of LDKT in the UK. METHODS: A total of 2055 adults undergoing kidney transplantation between November 2011 and March 2013 were prospectively recruited from all 23 UK transplant centres as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) study. Recipient variables independently associated with receipt of LDKT versus DDKT were identified. RESULTS: Of the 2055 patients, 807 (39.3%) received LDKT and 1248 (60.7%) received DDKT. Multivariable modelling demonstrated a significant reduction in the likelihood of LDKT for older age {odds ratio [OR] 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.17], P < 0.0001 for 65-75 years versus 18-34 years}; Asian ethnicity [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.39-0.77), P = 0.0006 versus White]; Black ethnicity [OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.42-0.99), P = 0.047 versus White]; divorced, separated or widowed [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.46-0.88), P = 0.030 versus married]; no qualifications [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.74), P < 0.0001 versus higher education qualifications]; no car ownership [OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.37-0.72), P = 0.0001] and no home ownership [OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.85-0.79), P = 0.002]. The odds of LDKT varied significantly between countries in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing kidney transplantation in the UK, there are significant age, ethnic, socio-economic and geographic disparities in the utilization of LDKT. Further work is needed to explore the potential for targeted interventions to improve equity in living donor transplantation.

Global trends and challenges in deceased donor kidney allocation.

Worldwide, the number of patients able to benefit from kidney transplantation is greatly restricted by the severe shortage of deceased donor organs. Allocation of this scarce resource is increasingly challenging and complex. Striking an acceptable balance between efficient use of (utility) and fair access to (equity) the limited supply of donated kidneys raises controversial but important debates at ethical, medical, and social levels. There is no international consensus on the recipient and donor factors that should be considered in the kidney allocation process. There is a general trend toward a reduction in the influence of human leukocyte antigen mismatch and an increase in the importance of other factors shown to affect posttransplant outcomes, such as cold ischemia, duration of dialysis, donor and recipient age, and comorbidity. Increased consideration of equity has led to improved access to transplantation for disadvantaged patient groups. There has been an overall improvement in the transparency and accountability of allocation policies. Novel and contentious approaches in kidney allocation include the use of survival prediction scores as a criterion for accessing the waiting list and at the point of organ offering with matching of predicted graft and recipient survival. This review compares the diverse international approaches to deceased donor kidney allocation and their evolution over the last decade.