Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The 240,000 rural patients with end stage kidney disease in the United States have less access to nephrology care and higher mortality than those in urban settings. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative aims to increase the use of home renal replacement therapy. Little is known about how rural patients access home dialysis and the availability and quality of rural dialysis facilities. METHODS:Incident dialysis patients in 2017 and their facilities were identified in the United States Renal Data System. Facility quality and service availability were analyzed with descriptive statistics. We assessed the availability of home dialysis methods, depending on rural versus urban counties, and then we used multivariate logistic regression to identify the likelihood of rural patients with home dialysis as their initial modality and the likelihood of rural patients changing to home dialysis within 90 days. Finally, we assessed mortality after dialysis initiation on the basis of patient home location. RESULTS:=0.004). CONCLUSIONS:Despite having fewer facilities that offer home dialysis, rural patients were more often on home dialysis methods because they traveled to urban facilities, representing an access gap. Even if rural patients accessed home dialysis at urban facilities, rural patients still suffered worse mortality. Future dialysis policy should address this access gap to improve care and overall mortality for rural patients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:The shortage of deceased donor kidneys identified for potential transplantation in the United States is exacerbated by a high proportion of deceased donor kidneys being discarded after procurement. We estimated the impact of a policy proposal aiming to increase organ utilization by extending eligibility for waiting time reinstatement for recipients experiencing early allograft failure after transplantation. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Decision analysis informed by clinical registry data. SETTING & POPULATION/METHODS:We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to identify 76,044 deceased-donor kidneys procured in the United States from 2013 to 2017, 80% of which were transplanted and 20% discarded. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Extend waiting time reinstatement for recipients experiencing allograft failure from the current 90 days to 1 year after transplantation. OUTCOME/RESULTS:Net impact to the waitlist, defined as the estimated number of additional transplants minus estimated increase in waiting list reinstatements. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME/METHODS:We estimated (1) the number of additional deceased donor kidneys that would be transplanted if there was a 5%-25% relative reduction in discards, and (2) the number of recipients who would regain waiting time under a 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month reinstatement policy. RESULTS:Reinstating a waiting time for recipients experiencing allograft failure up to 1 year after transplantation yielded more additional transplants than growth in additions to the waiting list for all model assumptions except the combination of a very low relative reduction in discards (5%) and a very high failure rate of transplanted kidneys that would previously have been discarded (≥5 times the rate of currently transplanted kidneys). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Lack of empirical evidence supporting the proposed impact of such a policy change. CONCLUSIONS:A policy change reinstating waiting time for deceased donor kidneys recipients with allograft failure up to 1 year after transplantation should explored as a decision science-based intervention to improve organ utilization.

Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is the best treatment for end-stage kidney disease, but there are racial disparities in LDKT rates. To study putative mechanisms of these disparities, we identified 58 752 adult kidney transplant candidates first activated on the United States kidney transplant waitlist 2015-2016 and defined four exposure groups by race/primary payer: African American/Medicaid, African American/NonMedicaid, Non-African American/Medicaid, Non-African American/NonMedicaid. We performed competing risk regression to compare risk of LDKT between groups. Among included candidates, 30% had African American race and 9% had Medicaid primary payer. By the end of follow up, 16% underwent LDKT. The cumulative incidence of LDKT was lowest for African American candidates regardless of payer. Compared to African American/Non-Medicaid candidates, the adjusted likelihood of LDKT was higher for both Non-African American/Medicaid (HR 1.60, 95%CI 1.43-1.78) and Non-African American/Non-Medicaid candidates (HR 2.66, 95%CI 2.50-2.83). Results were similar when analyzing only candidates still waitlisted > 2 years after initial activation or candidates with type O blood. Among 9639 candidates who received LDKT, only 13% were African American. Donor-recipient relationships were similar for African American and Non-African American recipients. These findings indicate African American candidates have a lower incidence of LDKT than candidates of other races, regardless of primary payer.

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic poses a great threat to global health, particularly in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). A 3-dose mRNA vaccination protocol has been implemented for the majority of SOTRs, yet their immune responses are less effective compared to healthy controls (HCs). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We analyzed the humoral immune responses against the vaccine strain and variants of concern (VOC), including the highly mutated-omicron variant in 113 SOTRs, of whom 44 had recovered from COVID-19 (recovered-SOTRs) and 69 had not contracted the virus (COVID-naïve). In addition, 30 HCs, 8 of whom had recovered from COVID-19, were also studied. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 47). Only 34.0% of this group of patients demonstrated both detectable anti-RBD IgG with neutralization activities against alpha, beta, and delta variants, and only 8.5% of them showed additional omicron neutralizing capacities. In contrast, 79.5% of the recovered-SOTRs who received two doses of vaccine demonstrated both higher anti-RBD IgG levels and neutralizing activities against all VOC, including omicron. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:These findings illustrate a significant impact of previous infection on the development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in vaccinated SOTRs and highlight the need for alternative strategies to protect a subset of a lesser-vaccine responsive population.