Searched for: in-biosketch:yes
person:levanm01
CAN FINANCIAL INCENTIVES IMPROVE LIVING DONOR FOLLOW-UP?: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL [Meeting Abstract]
Henderson, Macey; Waldram, Madeleine; Thomas, Alvin; Al Almmary, Fawaz; Di Brito, Sandra; Ottman, Shane; Segev, Dorry; Garonzik-Wang, Jacqueline
ISI:000491488703152
ISSN: 0934-0874
CID: 5480772
PERSONALIZED MOBILE IMMUNOSUPPRESSION ADHERENCE MONITORING: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL OF MDOT FOR TRANSPLANTATION [Meeting Abstract]
Henderson, Macey; Saha, Amrita; Langlee, Julie; Lees, Laura; Helfer, David; Love, Arthur; Rivera, Francisco; Waldram, Madeleine; Segev, Dorry; Brennan, Daniel
ISI:000491488705238
ISSN: 0934-0874
CID: 5480782
mKidney: A novel mobile health application to improve follow-up and post-donation care management in living kidney donors. [Meeting Abstract]
Henderson, Macey; Waldram, Madeleine M.; Thomas, Alvin G.; Levan, Michael; Massie, Allan B.; Bingaman, Adam W.; Segev, Dorry L.
ISI:000509690900046
ISSN: 0041-1337
CID: 5480872
Mobile directly observed therapy for immunosuppression adherence in adult kidney transplant recipients: A pilot randomized controlled trial. [Meeting Abstract]
Henderson, Macey; Saha, Amrita; Langlee, Julie; Lees, Laura; Helfer, David; Waldram, Madeleine M.; Love, Arthur; Rivera, Francisco; Massie, Allan B.; Segev, Dorry L.; Brennan, Daniel C.
ISI:000509690900067
ISSN: 0041-1337
CID: 5480882
Do financial incentives improve patient compliance with living donor follow-up? An analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial. [Meeting Abstract]
Henderson, Macey; Waldram, Madeleine M.; DiBrito, Sandra R.; Thomas, Alvin G.; Al Ammary, Fawaz; Ottman, Shane; Bannon, Jaclyn; Brennan, Daniel C.; Massie, Allan B.; Segev, Dorry L.; Wang, Jacqueline M. Garonzik
ISI:000509690900096
ISSN: 0041-1337
CID: 5480892
How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons
Henderson, Macey L; Adler, Joel T; Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Sarah E; Thomas, Alvin G; Herron, Patrick D; Waldram, Madeleine M; Ruck, Jessica M; Purnell, Tanjala S; DiBrito, Sandra R; Holscher, Courtenay M; Haugen, Christine E; Alimi, Yewande; Konel, Jonathan M; Eno, Ann K; Garonzik Wang, Jacqueline M; Gordon, Elisa J; Lentine, Krista L; Schaffer, Randolph L; Cameron, Andrew M; Segev, Dorry L
BACKGROUND:Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation. METHODS:We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics. RESULTS:Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least 1 purpose. Although most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (P = 0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (P = 0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (P < 0.01), increasing awareness about deceased organ donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01). Individual characteristics influence opinions about the role and clinical usefulness of social media. CONCLUSIONS:Transplant center involvement and support for social media may influence clinician perceptions and practices. Increasing use of social media among transplant professionals may provide an opportunity to deliver high-quality information to patients.
PMCID:6196114
PMID: 29684002
ISSN: 1534-6080
CID: 5128612
Early Hypertension and Diabetes After Living Kidney Donation: A National Cohort Study
Holscher, Courtenay M; Bae, Sunjae; Thomas, Alvin G; Henderson, Macey L; Haugen, Christine E; DiBrito, Sandra R; Muzaale, Abimereki D; Garonzik Wang, Jacqueline M; Massie, Allan B; Lentine, Krista L; Segev, Dorry L
BACKGROUND:Living kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease, with hypertension and diabetes as the predominant causes. In this study, we sought to better understand the timeline when these diseases occur, focusing on the early postdonation period. METHODS:We studied 41 260 living kidney donors in the United States between 2008 and 2014 from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and modeled incidence rates and risk factors for hypertension and diabetes. RESULTS:At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, there were 74, 162, and 310 cases, respectively, of hypertension per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y, adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.51), male (aIRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.14-1.50), had higher body mass index (per 5 units, aIRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.43), and were related to their recipient (first-degree relative: aIRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; spouse: aIRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66) were more likely to develop hypertension, whereas donors who were Hispanic/Latino were less likely (aIRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, there were 2, 6, and 15 cases of diabetes per 10 000 donors. Donors who were older (per 10 y: aIRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11-1.82), had higher body mass index (per 5 units: aIRR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21), and were Hispanic/Latino (aIRR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.14-5.26) were more likely to develop diabetes. CONCLUSIONS:In this national study, new-onset diabetes was rare, but 3% of donors developed hypertension within 2 years of nephrectomy. These findings reaffirm that disease pathways for kidney failure differ by donor phenotype and estimate the population most at-risk for later kidney failure.
PMCID:6428622
PMID: 30247449
ISSN: 1534-6080
CID: 5128992
Better graft outcomes from offspring donor kidneys among living donor kidney transplant recipients in the United States
Holscher, Courtenay M; Luo, Xun; Massie, Allan B; Purnell, Tanjala S; Garonzik Wang, Jacqueline M; Bae, Sunjae; Henderson, Macey L; Al Ammary, Fawaz; Ottman, Shane E; Segev, Dorry L
A recent study reported that kidney transplant recipients of offspring living donors had higher graft loss and mortality. This seemed counterintuitive, given the excellent HLA matching and younger age of offspring donors; we were concerned about residual confounding and other study design issues. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2001-2016 to evaluate death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality for recipients of offspring versus nonoffspring living donor kidneys, using Cox regression models with interaction terms. Recipients of offspring kidneys had lower DCGF than recipients of nonoffspring kidneys (15-year cumulative incidence 21.2% vs 26.1%, PÂ <Â .001). This association remained after adjustment for recipient and transplant factors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] =Â 0.73 0.770.82 , PÂ <Â .001), and was attenuated among African American donors (aHR 0.77 0.850.95 ; interaction: PÂ =Â .01) and female recipients (aHR 0.77 0.840.91 , PÂ <Â .001). Although offspring kidney recipients had higher mortality (15-year mortality 56.4% vs 37.2%, PÂ <Â .001), this largely disappeared with adjustment for recipient age alone (aHRÂ =Â 1.02 1.061.10 , PÂ =Â .002) and was nonsignificant after further adjustment for other recipient characteristics (aHRÂ =Â 0.93 0.971.01 , PÂ =Â .1). Kidneys from offspring donors provided lower graft failure and comparable mortality. An otherwise eligible donor should not be dismissed because they are the offspring of the recipient, and we encourage continued individualized counseling for potential donors.
PMID: 30253051
ISSN: 1600-6143
CID: 5129002
Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non-HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change
Ishaque, Tanveen; Massie, Allan B; Bowring, Mary G; Haugen, Christine E; Ruck, Jessica M; Halpern, Samantha E; Waldram, Madeleine M; Henderson, Macey L; Garonzik Wang, Jacqueline M; Cameron, Andrew M; Philosophe, Benjamin; Ottmann, Shane; Rositch, Anne F; Segev, Dorry L
Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6Â months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39 Â 350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHRÂ =Â 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHRÂ =Â 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHRÂ =Â 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHRÂ =Â 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.
PMCID:6349527
PMID: 30312530
ISSN: 1600-6143
CID: 5129022
Use of Twitter in communicating living solid organ donation information to the public: An exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals
Ruck, Jessica M; Henderson, Macey L; Eno, Ann K; Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Sarah E; DiBrito, Sandra R; Thomas, Alvin G; Li, Rebecca; Singer, Lauren; Massie, Indraneel; Waldram, Madeleine M; Konel, Jonathan M; Helfer, David R; Garonzik Wang, Jacqueline M; Purnell, Tanjala S; Mogul, Douglas B; Lentine, Krista L; Waterman, Amy D; Segev, Dorry L
BACKGROUND:As transplant centers start leveraging Twitter for information dissemination and public engagement, it is important to understand current living solid organ donation-related Twitter use. METHODS:We identified public Twitter profiles available in 01/2017 that referenced living organ donation and analyzed the use of donation-related Twitter handles, names, or profile information. Tweets were manually abstracted and qualitatively analyzed for common themes. Social media influence of those tweeting about living donation was evaluated using Klout score. RESULTS:We identified 93 donors, 61 professionals, 12 hospitals, and 19 organizations that met eligibility criteria. Social media influence was similar across these groups (PÂ =Â 0.4). Donors (16%) and organizations (23%) were more likely than professionals (7%) or hospitals (0%) to include transplant-related educational information in their profiles (PÂ =Â 0.007). Living donation-related tweets were most commonly donation stories (33%), news reports (20%), reports about new transplant research (15%), and sharing transplant candidates' searches for donors (14%). CONCLUSIONS:This exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals, hospitals, and organizations on Twitter provides insight into how the social media platform may be used to communicate about and disseminate information about living donation.
PMCID:6352984
PMID: 30421841
ISSN: 1399-0012
CID: 5129082