Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Frailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years). METHODS:In a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017-4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017-2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics. RESULTS:Assessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84-0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91-0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85-0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74-0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73-0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77-0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87-0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88-0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87-0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72-0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54-0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76-1.13). CONCLUSIONS:Assessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.

BACKGROUND:Medicaid expansion has led to earlier stage diagnoses in several cancers but has not been studied in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a disease with complex risk factors. We examined the effect of Medicaid expansion on the diagnosis of HCC and associations with county-level social vulnerability. METHODS:Patients with HCC <65 years of age were identified from the SEER database (2010-2016). County-level social vulnerability factors were obtained from the CDC SVI and BRFSS. A Difference-in-Difference analysis evaluated change in early-stage diagnoses (stage I-II) between expansion and non-expansion states. A Difference-in-Difference-in-Difference analysis evaluated expansion impact among counties with higher proportions of social vulnerability. RESULTS:Of 19,751 patients identified, 81.5% were in expansion states. Uninsured status decreased in expansion states (6.3%-2.4%, p < 0.0001) and remained unchanged in non-expansion states (12.7%-14.8%, p = 0.43). There was no significant difference in the incidence of early-stage diagnoses between expansion states and non-expansion states. Results were consistent when accounting for social vulnerability. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Medicaid expansion was not associated with earlier stage diagnoses in patients with HCC, including those with higher social vulnerability. Unlike other cancers, expanded access did not translate into higher utilization of care in HCC, suggesting barriers on a multitude of levels.