Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:To encourage high-quality, reduced-cost care for total joint arthroplasty (TJA), the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services mandated a pay-for-performance model, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The CJR incentivizes cost containment, and it was anticipated that its implementation would reduce access to TJA for high-cost populations. Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing kidney replacement therapy (dialysis and kidney transplant) are costly compared with healthier patients, but it was unknown whether this population lost access to hip and knee replacement because of CJR implementation. This population allows study of whether TJA is accessible for medically complex patients whose risk of surgical complications has been mitigated, as kidney transplantation improves outcomes compared with dialysis, allowing evaluation as to whether access improved when patients crossed over from dialysis to transplantation. Because all patients with ESKD are included in a mandated national registry, we can quantify whether access changed for patients who underwent dialysis and transplantation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:(1) How did the rate of TJA change amid the shift to bundled payments for patients with ESKD receiving dialysis? (2) How did the rate of TJA change amid the shift to bundled payments for patients with ESKD after kidney transplant? METHODS:This was an observational cohort study from 2008 to 2018 using the United States Renal Data System, a mandatory national registry that allows for the opportunity to study all individuals with ESKD. During the study period, we identified 1,324,614 adults undergoing routine dialysis and 187,212 adult kidney transplant recipients; after exclusion for non-Medicare primary insurance (n = 785,224 for dialysis and 78,011 for transplant), patients who were 100 years or older (n = 79 and 0, respectively), those who resided outside of 50 US states and Puerto Rico (n = 781 and 87, respectively), missing dialysis status for the dialysis cohort (n = 8658), and multiorgan transplant recipients for the transplant cohort (n = 2442), our study population was 40% (529,872) of patients who underwent routine dialysis and 57% (106,672) of adult kidney transplant recipients, respectively. TJA was ascertained using Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups and ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. We divided the study period by PPACA (January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016) and CJR (April 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018) implementation and compared the incidence of TJA by era using mixed-effects Poisson regression adjusting for calendar time and clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS:After adjustment for linear temporal trend and patient case mix, there was no evidence of association between policy implementation and the incidence of TJA. In the dialysis cohort, the adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for TJA was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 to 1.14; p = 0.2) comparing PPACA with the previous period and 1.02 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; p = 0.6) comparing CJR with the previous periods. Similarly, in the transplant cohort, the adjusted IRR for TJA was 0.82 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p = 0.07) comparing PPACA with the previous period and 1.10 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.28; p = 0.9) comparing CJR with the previous periods. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was no loss in access to TJA for medically complex patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. The increase in TJA incidence for patients after kidney transplant and decrease for patients receiving dialysis suggest that surgeons continued to provide care for higher risk patients whose risk of morbidity or mortality with total joint replacement has been maximally improved after transplantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, prognostic study.

Community input enhances the impact of research. Yet, there are challenges when eliciting community perspectives in nephrology/transplant research: recruitment of patients across a wide spectrum of familiarity with kidney disease; a lack of trust from marginalized patients because of health care barriers, institutionalized structural racism, and historical harm; and retention of members facing high burden of care. To address these challenges, we drafted a mission and formed a community advisory board to provide input on nephrology/transplant research. We worked with kidney disease community organizations that prioritize diversity and equity to recruit members with chronic kidney disease, end-stage kidney disease, or a kidney transplant, as well as nephrology/transplant caregivers and kidney donors. We formed a diverse group of 9 members and received feedback on 5 research proposals over 4 quarterly meetings, bridging a communication gap between community perspectives and researchers. The collaborative environment stimulated feedback that improved our nephrology/transplant research to reflect the perspectives of those most affected by research findings. Eight members have remained active for more than 1 year. In this collaborative paper, we describe our process of forming a nephrology/transplant community advisory board, and participants highlight the benefits of sharing their lived experiences to improve and amplify the impact of nephrology/transplant research.

BACKGROUND:Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) provide survival benefits in people with diabetes, including kidney transplant (KT) recipients with pre-existing diabetes. Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is common, but the benefits of GLP1RAs remain undefined in this population. We aim to describe current usage practices and outcomes in PTDM. METHODS:We used USRDS and Medicare claims data (2013-2022) to conduct a drug utilization profile of GLP1RA among 7681 first-time adult KT recipients with PTDM. We used survival analysis to estimate GLP1RA initiation incidence and associated patient, graft, and safety outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 430 adult KT recipients with PTDM were prescribed GLP1RA. Dulaglutide was the most commonly prescribed medication (46.1%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of GLP-1 receptor agonists prescription was 9.8%. Median (interquartile range) time from PTDM diagnosis to first prescription was 1.7 (0.6, 3.4) years. GLP1RA use was not associated with a difference in the risk of mortality or graft failure but was associated with a 1.80-fold (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-2.91) increased risk of diabetic retinopathy. No increased risk of pancreatitis, biliary complications, or medullary thyroid cancer were identified. CONCLUSIONS:GLP1RA use in KT recipients with PTDM was not associated with graft or patient survival, though longer follow-up is necessary. GLP1RA use was associated with an increased risk of diabetic retinopathy, and care should be taken when initiating these agents.

The benefits of bilateral lung transplantation (BLT) versus single lung transplantation (SLT) are still debated. One impediment to clinical recommendations is that BLT vs. SLT advantages may vary based on underlying disease. Since both options are clinically tenable in patients with emphysema, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of lung allograft survival in this population. Using U.S. registry data, we studied time to all-cause allograft failure in 8,092 patients 12 years or older transplanted from 2006 to 2022, adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant factors by inverse propensity weighting. Median allograft survival was 6.6 years in BLT compared to 5.3 years in SLT, a 25% risk-adjusted survival advantage of _0.81.3_1.8 years. Risk-adjusted bilateral survival advantages varied between 0.9 and 2.4 years across eleven subgroups. Median allograft survival in BLT was 1.2 years greater than right SLT and 2.0 years greater than left SLT. During the 16-year study period, allograft survival steadily improved for BLT but not for SLT. Although the 25% BLT survival advantage pre-dated the pandemic, COVID-19 may have contributed to an apparent SLT survival decline. Recognizing the possible influence of residual confounding due to selection biases, these findings may aid offer decision-making when both donor lungs are available.

Historically, liver transplant (LT) candidates with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have experienced high waitlist mortality. Since the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act expands access to organs from donors with HIV, we assessed the impact of HOPE on LT rate and wait time for this population. We linked data from a multicenter HOPE in Action study to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (February 21, 2019 to June 1, 2024) and used Poisson regression to compare transplant rates among 99 candidates willing to accept HOPE donors (HOPE candidates) to 13 495 candidates with or without HIV not listed as willing to accept HOPE donors (non-HOPE candidates) matched on transplant center. The median time to any deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) was 2.3 months for HOPE and 1.1 years for non-HOPE candidates. Within 2 years of listing, 90.9% of HOPE versus 58.5% of non-HOPE candidates received a DDLT (P < .001). HOPE was associated with an overall 3.11-fold higher DDLT incident rate ratio (95% CI 2.48-3.88, P < .001). Stratified by model for end-stage liver disease score categories 6 to 14, 15 to 24, 25 to 34, and 35 to 40/status 1; HOPE candidates had 10.12-fold, 5.31-fold, 1.41-fold and 2.90-fold higher DDLT rates, respectively. Willingness to accept livers from donors with HIV improves access to liver transplantation for candidates with HIV.

Liver transplant (LT) recipients experience a wide range of comorbidities, leading to frequent healthcare encounters. Until now, national registries, which have limited exposures and outcomes, and laborious small cohort studies have been the main data sources for LT research. Cosmos database offers electronic health record (EHR)-based insights into LT recipients at the national level with granular data. We evaluated if Cosmos data is representative of the entire US LT recipient population. Using Cosmos (N=20,235) and the national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) (N=51,281), we identified adult, first-time LT recipients between 7/2016-12/2022. We compared demographics, clinical data, and mortality across datasets, calculating Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and multi-variable Cox regressions. Recipient characteristics were highly comparable (e.g., female: Cosmos=36.5% vs. SRTR=36.4%, Black: 6.8% vs. 7.2%; BMI: 28.5 kg/m2 [24.8-32.9] vs. 28.2 [24.6-32.4]). Lab values were similar across cohorts, including MELD (24 [17-30] vs. 23 [16-30]). Transplant indications, donor characteristics, and 5-year survival (Cosmos 83.1% [82.3-83.8) vs. SRTR 80.9% [80.4-81.3]) were similar. The associations of clinical factors with survival were similar across both groups. Cosmos database demonstrated acceptable generalizability to the general US LT recipient population, which may advance LT research through a better understanding about LT recipients' experiences and outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Donor pool expansion is critical as lung candidates suffer high mortality, yet older donor lungs remain underutilized. We evaluated whether accepting an older donor (defined 4 ways: donor age 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, or 60-69 y) lung transplant was associated with a survival benefit over waiting for a younger donor offer. METHODS:Adult candidates who received a lung offer were identified using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, 2015-2022. Offers were categorized by donor age and candidate lung allocation score (LAS; <40, 40-55, >55). Postoffer mortality was compared between candidates for whom the offer was accepted ("acceptors") versus declined ("decliners") within each age-LAS category using weighted Cox regression. RESULTS:A total of 21 426 candidates received an offer from a donor age ≥30 y; 11 679 accepted. For LAS >55 candidates, a survival benefit was observed for acceptors of donors ages 30-39 y (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] of mortality: 0.450.520.59), 40-49 y (wHR: 0.610.700.79), and 50-59 y (wHR: 0.670.770.88); P < 0.001. For candidates with LAS 40-55, results suggest a survival benefit of accepting lung offers from donors age 30-39 y (wHR: 0.770.870.99) and 40-49 y (wHR: 0.760.870.99); P = 0.03. However, for candidates with LAS <40, a survival benefit was not observed for accepting any older donor transplant, with possible harm in accepting an age 50+ donor offer. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with declining and waiting for a younger donor offer, accepting an older donor lung transplant was associated with a survival advantage in candidates with high LAS in the precontinuous distribution era. Decision makers should consider these findings while recognizing potential changes in waiting time dynamics in the current era.