Faculty Bibliography

With U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance of clinical trials of kidney xenotransplantation (XTx) in living humans, understanding the recipient experience is critical. Semi-structured interviews with the three living XTx recipients identified core domains of the recipient experience, including quality of life (QoL), fears about XTx, and healthcare team communication and support. Transcribed interviews were analyzed by two qualitative researchers using an inductive thematic approach and were mapped onto the Warwick Patient Experience Model, a validated framework to assess key aspects of patient satisfaction with the healthcare experience. All three recipients (53-year-old female; 66-year-old male; 54-year old male) described a restoration of hope, contrasted with their poor quality of life on dialysis. They emphasized that access to XTx and graft survival requires mutual confidence and commitment between recipients and healthcare teams. XTx recipients use dialysis as a point of reference when describing changes in their post-transplant QoL and seemed well-situated to handle the possibility of graft failure. These insights may aid in the creation of decision aids and educational materials tailored to the specific needs of XTx recipients.

BACKGROUND:Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires 2 years of follow-up for living kidney donors (LKDs); however, many transplant hospitals struggle to meet this requirement. We developed and tested a mobile health (mHealth) system for LKD follow-up in a pilot randomized-controlled trial (RCT). METHODS:LKDs were randomly assigned to either the intervention (mHealth + standard of care) or control arm (standard of care). We assessed OPTN policy-defined completeness and timeliness of 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. Four hundred LKDs were enrolled in the study (June 2018 to February 2021). RESULTS:At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of the intervention arm participants completed composite visits (97.5% vs. 91.5%, p = 0.01). Both arms had similar compliance rates at 1- and 2-year follow-up (92.0% vs. 89.5%, p = 0.49, and 66.5% vs. 65.0%, p = 0.83). Intervention arm participants completed 6-month follow-up 11 days earlier than their counterparts (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:mHealth technologies improved 6-month follow-up, but did not impact 1- and 2-year LKD follow-up in this single-center RCT. Other strategies, such as providing services beyond data collection, may be necessary to improve donor engagement and support LDK's long-term follow-up.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, and the field of kidney transplantation (KT) is no exception. While much of the AI-related work has focused on deceased donor KT, there is a growing body of research applying AI tools to living kidney donation (LKD). This review explores AI's current and potential roles in LKD, focusing on predictive and social applications of AI in LKD. Additionally, we discuss the challenges and limitations of implementing AI in clinical settings and highlight emerging research trends. This review consolidates existing research and provides a foundation for both transplant professionals and data scientists seeking to integrate AI responsibly into living donor programs.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The United States Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network mandates collection of 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year post-donation follow-up data on living kidney donors (LKDs), but many centers struggle to meet these requirements. This study investigated whether providing a financial incentive (mailed gift card) could increase patient compliance with LKD follow-up. METHODS:A parallel, non-blinded, 1:1 superiority randomized control trial of LKDs was conducted at two centers from March 2017 to February 2021. The control arm received standard of care (SOC): instructions to complete the mandated LKD follow-up consisting of a health questionnaire and laboratory measurements at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post-donation. The intervention arm received SOC and was mailed a $25 gift card for each timely completed follow-up. Compliance rates were compared at each timepoint using Poisson regression. RESULTS:at 2 years). Similarly, no differences were observed in compliance with clinical follow-up, laboratory follow-up, or individual questions or lab values. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Mailed gift cards did not improve patient compliance with LKD follow-up requirements; such interventions may be counterproductive among LKDs. Further research is needed to investigate and address barriers to completing LKD follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03090646.

BACKGROUND:The HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act legalized transplantation from both living and deceased donors with HIV to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+). Since its enactment, only a few living organ donations from people with HIV (PWH) have occurred compared to more deceased donations. The study aims to understand the perspectives of infectious disease providers and their awareness of HIV-positive donors with a reactive status (HIV D+/R+) to inform the practice, as kidney and liver transplants from these donors can now be conducted outside of research protocols. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with infectious disease providers (n = 18) from October 2023 to March 2024 to assess their perceptions and knowledge of HIV D+/R+ living organ donation. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted to identify major themes. RESULTS:Most providers had a positive view of HIV D+/R+ living donation, noting its potential to expand the donor pool, reduce wait times, and reduce stigma surrounding organ transplantation for PWH. However, they expressed concerns about the long-term outcomes of donors and emphasized the importance of thorough evaluations, including assessments of the disease stage and comorbidities. Additionally, providers mentioned that they had limited knowledge of the HIV D+/R+ donation process and highlighted the need for educational resources and establishing formal relationships with transplant programs. CONCLUSIONS:The study findings highlight the need for evidence-based information resources for healthcare providers on HIV D+/R+ living donations.

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.