Lung Donation and Transplant Recipient Outcomes at Independent vs Hospital-Based Donor Care Units.

Importance: Centralizing deceased organ donor management and organ recovery into donor care units (DCUs) may mitigate the critical organ shortage by positively impacting donation and recipient outcomes. Objective: To compare donation and lung transplant outcomes between 2 common DCU models: independent (outside of acute-care hospitals) and hospital-based. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study of Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network deceased donor registry and lung transplant recipient files from 21 US donor service areas with an operating DCU. Characteristics and lung donation rates among deceased donors cared for in independent vs hospital-based DCUs were compared. Eligible participants included deceased organ donors (aged 16 years and older) after brain death, who underwent organ recovery procedures between April 26, 2017, and June 30, 2022, and patients who received lung transplants from those donors. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Organ recovery in an independent DCU (vs hospital-based DCU). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was duration of transplanted lung survival (through December 31, 2023) among recipients of lung(s) transplanted from cohort donors. A Cox proportional hazards model stratified by transplant year and program, adjusting for donor and recipient characteristics was used to compare graft survival. Results: Of 10 856 donors in the starting sample (mean [SD] age, 42.8 [15.2] years; 6625 male [61.0%] and 4231 female [39.0%]), 5149 (primary comparison group) underwent recovery procedures in DCUs including 1466 (28.4%) in 11 hospital-based DCUs and 3683 (71.5%) in 10 independent DCUs. Unadjusted lung donation rates were higher in DCUs than local hospitals, but lower in hospital-based vs independent DCUs (418 donors [28.5%] vs 1233 donors [33.5%]; P < .001). Among 1657 transplant recipients, 1250 (74.5%) received lung(s) from independent DCUs. Median (range) duration of follow-up after transplant was 734 (0-2292) days. Grafts recovered from independent DCUs had shorter restricted mean (SE) survival times than grafts from hospital-based DCUs (1548 [27] days vs 1665 [50] days; P = .04). After adjustment, graft failure remained higher among lungs recovered from independent DCUs than hospital-based DCUs (hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.28-2.65). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of national donor and transplant recipient data, although lung donation rates were higher from deceased organ donors after brain death cared for in independent DCUs, lungs recovered from donors in hospital-based DCUs survived longer. These findings suggest that further work is necessary to understand which factors (eg, donor transfer, management, or lung evaluation and acceptance practices) differ between DCU models and may contribute to these differences.

Identifying Major Barriers to Home Dialysis (The IM-HOME Study): Findings From a National Survey of Patients, Care Partners, and Providers.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers. STUDY DESIGN: This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We convened a seven-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers-through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to: 1) rank their top three major barriers (quantitative); and 2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We compiled a list of the top three patient/care partner-perceived and top three provider-perceived barriers (quantitative) and conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative). RESULTS: There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top three patient/care partner-perceived barriers were: fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top three provider-perceived barriers were: poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified nine themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favor in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency. LIMITATIONS: This was an online survey that is subject to non-response bias. CONCLUSIONS: The top three barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic.

Using structured problem solving to promote fluid consumption in the prevention of urinary stones with hydration (PUSH) trial.

BACKGROUND: Structured Problem Solving (SPS) is a patient-centered approach to promoting behavior change that relies on productive collaboration between coaches and participants and reinforces participant autonomy. We aimed to describe the design, implementation, and assessment of SPS in the multicenter Prevention of Urinary Stones with Hydration (PUSH) randomized trial. METHODS: In the PUSH trial, individuals with a history of urinary stone disease and low urine output were randomized to control versus a multicomponent intervention including SPS that was designed to promote fluid consumption and thereby prevent recurrent stones. We provide details specifically about training and fidelity assessment of the SPS coaches. We report on implementation experiences related to SPS during the initial conduct of the trial. RESULTS: With training and fidelity assessment, coaches in the PUSH trial applied SPS to help participants overcome barriers to fluid consumption. In some cases, coaches faced implementation barriers such as variable participant engagement that required tailoring their work with specific participants. The coaches also faced challenges including balancing rapport with problem solving, and role clarity for the coaches. CONCLUSIONS: We adapted SPS to the setting of kidney stone prevention and overcame challenges in implementation, such as variable patient engagement. Tools from the PUSH trial may be useful to apply to other health behavior change settings in nephrology and other areas of clinical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03244189.

Prognostic score-based methods for estimating center effects based on survival probability: Application to post-kidney transplant survival.

In evaluating the performance of different facilities or centers on survival outcomes, the standardized mortality ratio (SMR), which compares the observed to expected mortality has been widely used, particularly in the evaluation of kidney transplant centers. Despite its utility, the SMR may exaggerate center effects in settings where survival probability is relatively high. An example is one-year graft survival among U.S. kidney transplant recipients. We propose a novel approach to estimate center effects in terms of differences in survival probability (ie, each center versus a reference population). An essential component of the method is a prognostic score weighting technique, which permits accurately evaluating centers without necessarily specifying a correct survival model. Advantages of our approach over existing facility-profiling methods include a metric based on survival probability (greater clinical relevance than ratios of counts/rates); direct standardization (valid to compare between centers, unlike indirect standardization based methods, such as the SMR); and less reliance on correct model specification (since the assumed model is used to generate risk classes as opposed to fitted-value based 'expected' counts). We establish the asymptotic properties of the proposed weighted estimator and evaluate its finite-sample performance under a diverse set of simulation settings. The method is then applied to evaluate U.S. kidney transplant centers with respect to graft survival probability.

The 10-Year Effects of Intensive Lifestyle Intervention on Kidney Outcomes.

Rationale & Objective: Limited data exist on longitudinal kidney outcomes after nonsurgical obesity treatments. We investigated the effects of intensive lifestyle intervention on kidney function over 10 years. Study Design: Post hoc analysis of Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) randomized controlled trial. Setting & Participants: We studied 4,901 individuals with type 2 diabetes and body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 enrolled in Look AHEAD (2001-2015). The original Look AHEAD trial excluded individuals with 4+ urine dipstick protein, serum creatinine level of >1.4 mg/dL (women), 1.5 mg/dL (men), or dialysis dependence. Exposures: Intensive lifestyle intervention versus diabetes support and education (ie, usual care). Outcome: Primary outcome was estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2) slope. Secondary outcomes were mean eGFR, slope, and mean urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR, mg/mg). Analytical Approach: Linear mixed-effects models with random slopes and intercepts to evaluate the association between randomization arms and within-individual repeated measures of eGFR and UACR. We tested for effect modification by baseline eGFR. Results: At baseline, mean eGFR was 89, and 83% had a normal UACR. Over 10 years, there was no difference in eGFR slope (+0.064 per year; 95% CI: -0.036 to 0.16; P = 0.21) between arms. Slope or mean UACR did not differ between arms. Baseline eGFR, categorized as eGFR of <80, 80-100, or >100, did not modify the intervention's effect on eGFR slope or mean. Limitations: Loss of muscle may confound creatinine-based eGFR. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function, intensive lifestyle intervention did not change eGFR slope over 10 years. Among participants with baseline eGFR <80, lifestyle intervention had a slightly higher longitudinal mean eGFR than usual care. Further studies evaluating the effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in people with kidney disease are needed.

Lifestyle interventions can improve chronic kidney disease risk factors, specifically diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. But, the effects of lifestyle intervention on change in kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) over time are not well established. We studied Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial data because all participants were affected by diabetes and overweight or obesity. Look AHEAD randomized participants to intensive lifestyle intervention or diabetes support and education (ie, usual care). We compared eGFR change over 10 years between groups, but found no difference. However, the intervention group maintained slightly higher eGFR than usual care, especially if eGFR was relatively low at baseline. Our study suggests lifestyle intervention may preserve eGFR, but dedicated studies in individuals with chronic kidney disease are needed.

Kidney Transplant Outcomes From Deceased Donors Who Received Dialysis.

Importance: Recipient outcomes after kidney transplant from deceased donors who received dialysis prior to kidney donation are not well described. Objective: To compare outcomes of transplant recipients who received kidneys from deceased donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation vs recipients of kidneys from deceased donors who did not undergo dialysis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted including data from 58 US organ procurement organizations on deceased kidney donors and kidney transplant recipients. From 2010 to 2018, 805 donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation were identified. The donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation were matched 1:1 with donors who did not undergo dialysis using a rank-based distance matrix algorithm; 1944 kidney transplant recipients were evaluated. Exposure: Kidney transplants from deceased donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation compared with kidney transplants from deceased donors who did not undergo dialysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 4 study outcomes were delayed graft function (defined as receipt of dialysis by the kidney recipient ≤1 week after transplant), all-cause graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and death. Results: From 2010 to 2018, 1.4% of deceased kidney donors (805 of 58 155) underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation. Of these 805 individuals, 523 (65%) donated at least 1 kidney. A total of 969 kidneys (60%) were transplanted and 641 kidneys (40%) were discarded. Among the donors with kidneys transplanted, 514 (mean age, 33 years [SD, 10.8 years]; 98 had hypertension [19.1%] and 36 had diabetes [7%]) underwent dialysis prior to donation and were matched with 514 (mean age, 33 years [SD, 10.9 years]; 98 had hypertension [19.1%] and 36 had diabetes [7%]) who did not undergo dialysis. Kidney transplants from donors who received dialysis prior to donation (n = 954 kidney recipients) were associated with a higher risk of delayed graft function compared with kidney transplants from donors who did not receive dialysis (n = 990 kidney recipients) (59.2% vs 24.6%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 4.17 [95% CI, 3.28-5.29]). The incidence rates did not significantly differ at a median follow-up of 34.1 months for all-cause graft failure (43.1 kidney transplants per 1000 person-years from donors who received dialysis prior to donation vs 46.9 kidney transplants per 1000 person-years from donors who did not receive dialysis; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.15]), for death-censored graft failure (22.5 vs 20.6 per 1000 person-years, respectively; adjusted HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.83-1.69]), or for death (24.6 vs 30.8 per 1000 person-years; adjusted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.55-1.04]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with receiving a kidney from a deceased donor who did not undergo dialysis, receiving a kidney from a deceased donor who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation was associated with a significantly higher incidence of delayed graft function, but no significant difference in graft failure or death at follow-up.

Referral and Beyond: Restructuring the Kidney Transplant Process to Support Greater Access in the United States.

Advocates for improved equity in kidney transplants in the United States have recently focused their efforts on initiatives to increase referral for transplant evaluation. However, because donor kidneys remain scarce, increased referrals are likely to result in an increasing number of patients proceeding through the evaluation process without ultimately receiving a kidney. Unfortunately, the process of referral and evaluation can be highly resource-intensive for patients, families, transplant programs, and payers. Patients and families may incur out-of-pocket expenses and be required to complete testing and treatments that they might not have chosen in the course of routine clinical care. Kidney transplant programs may struggle with insufficient capacity, inefficient workflow, and challenging programmatic finances, and payers will need to absorb the increased expenses of upfront pretransplant costs. Increased referral in isolation may risk simply transmitting system stress and resulting disparities to downstream processes in this complex system. We argue that success in efforts to improve access through increased referrals hinges on adaptations to the pretransplant process more broadly. We call for an urgent re-evaluation and redesign at multiple levels of the pretransplant system in order to achieve the aim of equitable access to kidney transplantation for all patients with kidney failure.

Design, cohort profile and comparison of the KTD-Innov study: a prospective multidimensional biomarker validation study in kidney allograft rejection.

There is an unmet need for robust and clinically validated biomarkers of kidney allograft rejection. Here we present the KTD-Innov study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03582436), an unselected deeply phenotyped cohort of kidney transplant recipients with a holistic approach to validate the clinical utility of precision diagnostic biomarkers. In 2018-2019, we prospectively enrolled consecutive adult patients who received a kidney allograft at seven French centers and followed them for a year. We performed multimodal phenotyping at follow-up visits, by collecting clinical, biological, immunological, and histological parameters, and analyzing a panel of 147 blood, urinary and kidney tissue biomarkers. The primary outcome was allograft rejection, assessed at each visit according to the international Banff 2019 classification. We evaluated the representativeness of participants by comparing them with patients from French, European, and American transplant programs transplanted during the same period. A total of 733 kidney transplant recipients (64.1% male and 35.9% female) were included during the study. The median follow-up after transplantation was 12.3 months (interquartile range, 11.9-13.1 months). The cumulative incidence of rejection was 9.7% at one year post-transplant. We developed a distributed and secured data repository in compliance with the general data protection regulation. We established a multimodal biomarker biobank of 16,736 samples, including 9331 blood, 4425 urinary and 2980 kidney tissue samples, managed and secured in a collaborative network involving 7 clinical centers, 4 analytical platforms and 2 industrial partners. Patients' characteristics, immune profiles and treatments closely resembled those of 41,238 French, European and American kidney transplant recipients. The KTD-Innov study is a unique holistic and multidimensional biomarker validation cohort of kidney transplant recipients representative of the real-world transplant population. Future findings from this cohort are likely to be robust and generalizable.

Association of Race and Ethnicity With High Longevity Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Under the US Kidney Allocation System.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The US Kidney Allocation System (KAS) prioritizes candidates with a≤20% estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) to receive high-longevity kidneys defined by a≤20% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI). Use of EPTS in the KAS deprioritizes candidates with older age, diabetes, and longer dialysis durations. We assessed whether this use also disadvantages race and ethnicity minority candidates, who are younger but more likely to have diabetes and longer durations of kidney failure requiring dialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult candidates for and recipients of kidney transplantation represented in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2015 through December 2020. EXPOSURE: Race and ethnicity. OUTCOME: Age-adjusted assignment to≤20% EPTS, transplantation of a≤20% KDPI kidney, and posttransplant survival in longevity-matched recipients by race and ethnicity. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Multivariable logistic regression, Fine-Gray competing risks survival analysis, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: The cohort included 199,444 candidates (7% Asian, 29% Black, 19% Hispanic or Latino, and 43% White) listed for deceased donor kidney transplantation. Non-White candidates had significantly higher rates of diabetes, longer dialysis duration, and were younger than White candidates. Adjusted for age, Asian, Black, and Hispanic or Latino candidates had significantly lower odds of having a ETPS score of≤20% (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81-0.91], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.50-0.54], and 0.49 [95% CI, 0.47-0.51]), and were less likely to receive a≤20% KDPI kidney (sub-hazard ratio, 0.70 [0.66-0.75], 0.89 [0.87-0.92], and 0.73 [0.71-0.76]) compared with White candidates. Among recipients with≤20% EPTS scores transplanted with a≤20% KDPI deceased donor kidney, Asian and Hispanic recipients had lower posttransplant mortality (HR, 0.45 [0.27-0.77] and 0.63 [0.47-0.86], respectively) and Black recipients had higher but not statistically significant posttransplant mortality (HR, 1.22 [0.99-1.52]) compared with White recipients. LIMITATIONS: Provider reported race and ethnicity data and 5-year post transplant follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The US kidney allocation system is less likely to identify race and ethnicity minority candidates as having a≤20% EPTS score, which triggers allocation of high-longevity deceased donor kidneys. These findings should inform the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network about how to remedy the race and ethnicity disparities introduced through KAS's current approach of allocating allografts with longer predicted longevity to recipients with longer estimated posttransplant survival. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The US Kidney Allocation System prioritizes giving high-longevity, high-quality kidneys to patients on the waiting list who have a high estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) score. EPTS is calculated based on the patient's age, whether the patient has diabetes, whether the patient has a history of organ transplantation, and the number of years spent on dialysis. Our analyses show that Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino patients were less likely to receive high-longevity kidneys compared with White patients, despite having similar or better posttransplant survival outcomes.

Knowledge gaps in heart and lung donation after the circulatory determination of death: Report of a workshop of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In a workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified current knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the scientific, conceptual, and ethical understanding of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death and its technologies. To minimize organ injury from warm ischemia and produce better recipient outcomes, innovative techniques to perfuse and oxygenate organs postmortem in situ, such as thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion, are being implemented in several medical centers in the US and elsewhere. These technologies have improved organ outcomes but have raised ethical and legal questions. Re-establishing donor circulation postmortem can be viewed as invalidating the condition of permanent cessation of circulation on which the earlier death determination was made and clamping arch vessels to exclude brain circulation can be viewed as inducing brain death. Alternatively, TA-NRP can be viewed as localized in-situ organ perfusion, not whole-body resuscitation, that does not invalidate death determination. Further scientific, conceptual, and ethical studies, such as those identified in this workshop, can inform and help resolve controversies raised by this practice.

Characterizing proximity and transfers of deceased organ donors to donor care units in the United States.

Some United States organ procurement organizations transfer deceased organ donors to donor care units (DCUs) for recovery procedures. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data, from April 2017 to June 2021, to describe the proximity of adult deceased donors after brain death to DCUs and understand the impact of donor service area (DSA) boundaries on transfer efficiency. Among 19 109 donors (56.1% of the cohort) in 25 DSAs with DCUs, a majority (14 593 [76.4%]) were in hospitals within a 2-hour drive. In areas with DCUs detectable in the study data set, a minority of donors (3582 of 11 532 [31.1%]) were transferred to a DCU; transfer rates varied between DSAs (median, 27.7%, range, 4.0%-96.5%). Median hospital-to-DCU driving times were not meaningfully shorter among transferred donors (50 vs 51 minutes for not transferred, P < .001). When DSA boundaries were ignored, 3241 cohort donors (9.5%) without current DCU access were managed in hospitals within 2 hours of a DCU and thus potentially eligible for transfer. In summary, approximately half of United States deceased donors after brain death are managed in hospitals in DSAs with a DCU. Transfer of donors between DSAs may increase DCU utilization and improve system efficiency.

A Machine Learning-Driven Virtual Biopsy System For Kidney Transplant Patients.

In kidney transplantation, day-zero biopsies are used to assess organ quality and discriminate between donor-inherited lesions and those acquired post-transplantation. However, many centers do not perform such biopsies since they are invasive, costly and may delay the transplant procedure. We aim to generate a non-invasive virtual biopsy system using routinely collected donor parameters. Using 14,032 day-zero kidney biopsies from 17 international centers, we develop a virtual biopsy system. 11 basic donor parameters are used to predict four Banff kidney lesions: arteriosclerosis, arteriolar hyalinosis, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, and the percentage of renal sclerotic glomeruli. Six machine learning models are aggregated into an ensemble model. The virtual biopsy system shows good performance in the internal and external validation sets. We confirm the generalizability of the system in various scenarios. This system could assist physicians in assessing organ quality, optimizing allograft allocation together with discriminating between donor derived and acquired lesions post-transplantation.

A randomized, controlled, prehabilitation intervention to maximize early recovery (PRIMER) in liver transplantation.

Frailty and impaired functional status are associated with adverse outcomes on the liver transplant (LT) waitlist and after transplantation. Prehabilitation prior to LT has rarely been tested. We conducted a 2-arm patient-randomized pilot trial to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a 14-week behavioral intervention to promote physical activity prior to LT. Thirty patients were randomized 2:1 to intervention (n = 20) versus control (n = 10). The intervention arm received financial incentives and text-based reminders linked to wearable fitness trackers. Daily step goals were increased by 15% in 2-week intervals. Weekly check-ins with study staff assessed barriers to physical activity. The primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Secondary outcomes included mean end-of-study step counts, short physical performance battery, grip strength, and body composition by phase angle. We fit regression models for secondary outcomes with the arm as the exposure adjusting for baseline performance. The mean age was 61, 47% were female, and the median Model for End-stage Liver Disease sodium (MELD-Na) was 13. One-third were frail or prefrail by the liver frailty index, 40% had impaired mobility by short physical performance battery, nearly 40% had sarcopenia by bioimpedance phase angle, 23% had prior falls, and 53% had diabetes. Study retention was 27/30 (90%; 2 unenrolled from intervention, 1 lost to follow-up in control arm). Self-reported adherence to exercise during weekly check-ins was about 50%; the most common barriers were fatigue, weather, and liver-related symptoms. End-of-study step counts were nearly 1000 steps higher for intervention versus control: adjusted difference 997, 95% CI, 147-1847; p = 0.02. On average, the intervention group achieved daily step targets 51% of the time. A home-based intervention with financial incentives and text-based nudges was feasible, highly accepted, and increased daily steps in LT candidates with functional impairment and malnutrition.

Temporal trends in kidney paired donation in the United States: 2006-2021 UNOS/OPTN database analysis.

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a major innovation that is changing the landscape of kidney transplantation in the United States. We used the 2006-2021 United Network for Organ Sharing data to examine trends over time. KPD is increasing, with 1 in 5 living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) in 2021 facilitated by KPD. The proportion of LDKT performed via KPD was comparable for non-Whites and Whites. An increasing proportion of KPD transplants are going to non-Whites. End-chain recipients are not identified in the database. To what extent these trends reflect how end-chain kidneys are allocated, as opposed to increase in living donation among minorities, remains unclear. Half the LDKT in 2021 in sensitized (panel reactive antibody ≥ 80%) and highly sensitized (panel reactive antibody ≥ 98%) groups occurred via KPD. Yet, the proportion of KPD transplants performed in sensitized recipients has declined since 2013, likely due to changes in the deceased donor allocation policies and newer KPD strategies such as compatible KPD. In 2021, 40% of the programs reported not performing any KPD transplants. Our study highlights the need for understanding barriers to pursuing and expanding KPD at the center level and the need for more detailed and accurate data collection at the national level.

Transplant recipient, care partner, and clinician perceptions of medication adherence monitoring technology: A mixed methods study.

Medication nonadherence is a leading cause of graft loss. Adherence monitoring technologies-reminder texts, smart bottles, video-observed ingestion, and digestion-activated signaling pills-may support adherence. However, patient, care partner, and clinician perceptions of these tools are not well studied. We conducted qualitative individual semistructured interviews and focus groups among 97 participants at a single center: kidney and liver transplant recipients 2 weeks to 18 months posttransplant, their care partners, and transplant clinicians. We assessed adherence practices, reactions to monitoring technologies, and opportunities for care integration. One-size-fits-all approaches were deemed infeasible. Interviewees considered text messages the most acceptable approach; live video checks were the least acceptable and raised the most concerns for inconvenience and invasiveness. Digestion-activated signaling technology produced both excitement and apprehension. Patients and care partners generally aligned in perceptions of adherence monitoring integration into clinical care. Key themes were importance of routine, ease of use, leveraging technology for actionable medication changes, and aversion to surveillance. Transplant clinicians similarly considered text messages most acceptable and video checks least acceptable. Clinicians reported that early posttransplant use and real-time adherence tracking with patient feedback may facilitate successful implementation. The study provides initial insights that may inform future adherence technology implementation.

Deceased Organ Donor Management and Organ Distribution From Organ Procurement Organization-Based Recovery Facilities Versus Acute-Care Hospitals.

Introduction: Organ recovery facilities address the logistical challenges of hospital-based deceased organ donor management. While more organs are transplanted from donors in facilities, differences in donor management and donation processes are not fully characterized. Research Question: Does deceased donor management and organ transport distance differ between organ procurement organization (OPO)-based recovery facilities versus hospitals? Design: Retrospective analysis of Organ Procurement and Transplant Network data, including adults after brain death in 10 procurement regions (April 2017-June 2021). The primary outcomes were ischemic times of transplanted hearts, kidneys, livers, and lungs. Secondary outcomes included transport distances (between the facility or hospital and the transplant program) for each transplanted organ. Results: Among 5010 deceased donors, 51.7% underwent recovery in an OPO-based recovery facility. After adjustment for recipient and system factors, mean differences in ischemic times of any transplanted organ were not significantly different between donors in facilities and hospitals. Transplanted hearts recovered from donors in facilities were transported further than hearts from hospital donors (median 255 mi [IQR 27, 475] versus 174 [IQR 42, 365], P = .002); transport distances for livers and kidneys were significantly shorter (P < .001 for both). Conclusion: Organ recovery procedures performed in OPO-based recovery facilities were not associated with differences in ischemic times in transplanted organs from organs recovered in hospitals, but differences in organ transport distances exist. Further work is needed to determine whether other observed differences in donor management and organ distribution meaningfully impact donation and transplantation outcomes.

Cognitive function, self-management, and outcomes among liver transplant recipients: LivCog, a multicenter, prospective study.

Liver transplantation is a life-saving option for decompensated cirrhosis. Liver transplant recipients require advanced self-management skills, intact cognitive skills, and care partner support to improve long-term outcomes. Gaps remain in understanding post-liver transplant cognitive and health trajectories, and patient factors such as self-management skills, care partner support, and sleep. Our aims are to (1) assess pre-liver transplant to post-liver transplant cognitive trajectories and identify risk factors for persistent cognitive impairment; (2) evaluate associations between cognitive function and self-management skills, health behaviors, functional health status, and post-transplant outcomes; and (3) investigate potential mediators and moderators of associations between cognitive function and post-liver transplant outcomes. LivCog is a longitudinal, prospective observational study that will enroll 450 adult liver transplant recipients and their caregivers/care partners. The duration of the study is 5 years with 24 additional months of patient follow-up. Data will be collected from participants at 1, 3, 12, and 24 months post-transplant. Limited pre-liver transplant data will also be collected from waitlisted candidates. Data collection methods include interviews, surveys, cognitive assessments, and actigraphy/sleep diary measures. Patient measurements include sociodemographic characteristics, pretransplant health status, cognitive function, physical function, perioperative measures, medical history, transplant history, self-management skills, patient-reported outcomes, health behaviors, and clinical outcomes. Caregiver measures assess sociodemographic variables, health literacy, health care navigation skills, self-efficacy, care partner preparedness, nature and intensity of care, care partner burden, and community participation. By elucidating various health trajectories from pre-liver transplant to 2 years post-liver transplant, LivCog will be able to better characterize recipients at higher risk of cognitive impairment and compromised self-management. Findings will inform interventions targeting health behaviors, self-management, and caregiver supports to optimize outcomes.

Engineering Equity Into the Promise of Xenotransplantation.

Two of the greatest challenges facing kidney transplantation are the lack of donated organs and inequities in who receives a transplant. Xenotransplantation holds promise as a treatment approach that could solve the supply problem. Major advances in gene-editing procedures have enabled several companies to raise genetically engineered pigs for organ donation. These porcine organs lack antigens and have other modifications that should reduce the probability of immunological rejection when transplanted into humans. The US Food and Drug Administration and transplantation leaders are starting to chart a path to test xenotransplants in clinical trials and later integrate them into routine clinical care. Here we provide a framework that industry, regulatory authorities, payers, transplantation professionals, and patient groups can implement to promote equity during every stage in this process. We also call for immediate action. Companies developing xenotransplant technology should assemble patient advocacy boards to bring the concerns of individuals with end-stage kidney disease to the forefront. For trials, xenotransplantation companies should partner with transplant programs with substantial patient populations of racial and ethnic minority groups and that have reciprocal relationships with those communities. Those companies and transplant programs should reach out now to those communities to inform them about xenotransplantation and try to address their concerns. These actions have the potential to make these communities full partners in the promise of xenotransplantation.

Social network interventions to reduce race disparities in living kidney donation: Design and rationale of the friends and family of kidney transplant patients study (FFKTPS).

INTRODUCTION: Racial/ethnic disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) are a persistent challenge. Although nearly all directed donations are from members of patients' social networks, little is known about which social network members take steps toward living kidney donation, which do not, and what mechanisms contribute to racial/ethnic LDKT disparities. METHODS: We describe the design and rationale of the Friends and Family of Kidney Transplant Patients Study, a factorial experimental fielding two interventions designed to promote LKD discussions. Participants are kidney transplant candidates at two centers who are interviewed and delivered an intervention by trained center research coordinators. The search intervention advises patients on which social network members are most likely to be LKD contraindication-free; the script intervention advises patients on how to initiate effective LKD discussions. Participants are randomized into four conditions: no intervention, search only, script only, or both search and script. Patients also complete a survey and optionally provide social network member contact information so they can be surveyed directly. This study will seek to enroll 200 transplant candidates. The primary outcome is LDKT receipt. Secondary outcomes include live donor screening and medical evaluations and outcomes. Tertiary outcomes include LDKT self-efficacy, concerns, knowledge, and willingness, measured before and after the interventions. CONCLUSION: This study will assess the effectiveness of two interventions to promote LKD and ameliorate Black-White disparities. It will also collect unprecedented information on transplant candidates' social network members, enabling future work to address network member structural barriers to LKD.