Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:) and long-term premature cognitive aging. We tested whether CMV was associated with post-KT cognitive impairment. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In a 2-center prospective cohort study of 574 KTRs (mean age: 54.7 y), we obtained CMV donor/recipient (D/R) serostatus and measured pre- and post-KT cognitive function using the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination. We estimated post-KT global cognitive function trajectories by CMV serostatus using adjusted mixed effect models with linear spline terms. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:(slope = 0.01 points/year; 95% CI, -1.87 to 1.89). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:KTRs may be at elevated risk for post-KT cognitive impairment; clinicians may prioritize early interventions in this population.

Older (aged ≥55 years) kidney transplant (KT) recipients diagnosed with a sleep disorder after transplantation may be at increased risk for developing dementia. Using the United States Renal Data System/Medicare claims (2010-2020), we identified 16 573 older KT recipients with a functioning graft 1-year post-KT. First-time sleep disorders and newly prescribed sleep medications were ascertained within the first year post-KT. We used cause-specific hazard models to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio of diagnosed dementia with inverse probability of treatment weights. Overall, 3615 (21.8%) KT recipients were newly diagnosed with sleep disorders. Recipients diagnosed with a sleep disorder had a 1.32-fold increased risk for dementia (95% CI:1.15-1.51); those with insomnia had a 1.56-fold increased risk (95% CI:1.20-2.03). Of those diagnosed with insomnia, only 7.5% underwent cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Of the recipients, 12.9% with a sleep disorder were prescribed sleep medications. Recipients prescribed sleep medication had a 1.44-fold increased risk for dementia (95% CI:1.16-1.77). Those prescribed zolpidem, the most commonly prescribed medication (80.1%), had a 1.41-fold increased risk (95% CI:1.12-1.78) for dementia; those prescribed other sleep medications had 3.13-fold (95% CI:1.41-6.98) increased risk for dementia. Post-KT sleep disorders are modifiable dementia risk factors; medication-associated dementia risk should be weighed against other therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia during management.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.lana.2024.100895.].

BACKGROUND:Extensive literature has highlighted the psychological burden experienced by kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and its association with adverse outcomes. Psychological resilience can serve as a measure of baseline vulnerability, and low resilience is associated with poor mental health. We aimed to synthesize the existing literature that has explored the concept of resilience in kidney transplantation. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted due to the anticipated heterogeneity of the literature. Any empirical study that measured resilience using a validated tool in KTRs was included. Resilience could be a variable, a predictor, or an outcome. All study designs were considered with no time restrictions. RESULTS:Of the 4525 titles and abstracts screened, 14 were eligible for inclusion. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 505 KTRs. One study exclusively focused on developing and validating a resilience scale while others used existing tools. Three studies compared resilience between different populations and the results were heterogeneous: similar resilience between KTRs and dialysis/pre-KT patients (n = 2) and another reporting better resilience in KTRs (n = 1). A decline in resilience scores after pediatric-adult transition (n = 1) and 3 months post-transplant (n = 1) was reported. In terms of outcomes, higher resilience was associated with medication adherence (n = 1), lower frailty (n = 2), and lower risk of psychopathology (n = 2). Two of the three included studies reported improvements in resilience scores with an exercise program and a resilience-enhancing program. CONCLUSIONS:Our review highlights that resilience is an underused and poorly explored construct in KTRs. We recommend explorative and interventional work as resilience is measurable and modifiable.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Despite national efforts, the uptake of home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis) remains low. Characteristics of the built environment may differentially impact home dialysis use. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study (2010-2019). SETTING & PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:1,103,695 adults (aged≥18 years) initiating dialysis in the US Renal Data System. EXPOSURE/METHODS:We examined 3 built environment domains based on residential ZIP code: (1) medically underserved areas (MUAs), defined as neighborhoods with limited primary care access; (2) distance to the nearest dialysis facility; and (3) distribution of housing characteristics (structure and overcrowding). OUTCOME/RESULTS:Uptake of home dialysis modalities at dialysis initiation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/METHODS:We quantified associations between built environment characteristics and home dialysis initiation using multilevel logistic regression stratified by urbanicity type (urban, suburban, small-town, and rural). RESULTS:Among adults initiating dialysis, 40.8% lived in MUAs. Across ZIP codes, the mean percentage of overcrowded housing was 4.2% (SD, 4.7%), and the percentage of detached housing was 61.1% (SD, 21.1%); mean distance to the nearest dialysis facility was 5.5km (SD, 9.1km). Living in MUAs was associated with reduced home dialysis use only in urban (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96) and suburban (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94) areas. Similarly, housing overcrowding was associated with decreased home dialysis use only in urban (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.89) and suburban (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93) areas. Longer distance to a dialysis facility was the most salient neighborhood factor associated with increased home dialysis use in small towns (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16) and rural areas (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.15-1.19). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Housing characteristics were measured at the ZIP code level. CONCLUSIONS:Built environment characteristics associated with home dialysis uptake vary by urbanicity. Policies should address built environment barriers that are specific to urbanicity level. For example, increasing the frequency of dialysate delivery schedules could address housing space constraints in urban and suburban areas, and promoting home dialysis might be more effective for patients living far from dialysis centers in small-town and rural areas.

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.

BACKGROUND:Given the cardiovascular, renal, and survival benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes, these agents could be effective among kidney transplant recipients. However, kidney transplant recipients are distinct from GLP-1 receptor agonist trial participants, with longer diabetes duration and severity, greater end-organ damage, increased cardiovascular risk, and multimorbidity. We examined GLP-1 receptor agonist real-world effectiveness and safety in kidney transplant recipients with diabetes. METHODS:This USA-based retrospective cohort study included kidney transplant recipients with type 2 diabetes at transplantation and Medicare as their primary insurance from a national registry linked with Medicare claims. Post-transplantation GLP-1 receptor agonist use was identified through Medicare claims. Death-censored graft loss was estimated using the Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard model and extended Cox models were used for mortality and safety endpoints. Models incorporated inverse probability of treatment weights. To further test whether bias could affect the main results, a cohort was created in which each GLP-1 receptor agonist user was matched with a kidney transplant recipient who had not started a GLP-1 receptor agonist, was alive with a functioning graft, and had accrued the same amount of post-transplant survival time. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between Jan 1, 2013 and Dec 31, 2020, we identified 44 536 first time kidney transplant recipients with Medicare as primary payer in the 6 months before and at transplantation. 24 192 patients were excluded as they did not have type 2 diabetes. 2328 patients were ineligible (1916 had missing values and 412 used GLP-1 receptor agonists before transplantation). The primary cohort thus consisted of 18 016 kidney transplant recipients with diabetes. Of these patients, 1969 (10·9%) had at least one GLP-1 receptor agonist prescription filled post-transplant. Compared with patients who had not received a GLP-1 receptor agonist, GLP-1 receptor agonist users were younger (median age at transplant 57 years [IQR 49-64] vs 60 years [51-66], p<0·0001) and more likely to be female (786 [39·9%] vs 5645 [35·2%], p<0·0001). Among GLP-1 receptor agonist users, 552 [28·0%] were non-Hispanic White, 703 [35·7%] were non-Hispanic Black, and 568 [28·8%] were Hispanic. The 5-year unadjusted cumulative incidence of death-censored graft loss from a cohort matched on survival time before GLP-1 receptor agonist initiation was 6·0% for GLP-1 receptor agonist users and 10·7% for non-users (Gray's test p=0·004). The 5-year unadjusted cumulative incidence for mortality from a cohort matched on survival time before GLP-1 receptor agonist initiation was 17·0% for GLP-1 receptor agonist users and 25·8% for non-users (log-rank p=0·0006). The 5-year unadjusted cumulative incidence for mortality was 13·5% for GLP-1 receptor agonist users and 19·9% for non-users (log-rank p<0·0001). GLP-1 receptor agonist use was associated with a 49% lower incidence of death-censored graft loss (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·36-0·71; p=0·0001) and 31% lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·86; p=0·001). Inferences were robust when matched on survival time (death-censored graft loss aSHR 0·53, 95% CI 0·37-0·75; p=0·0005; mortality aHR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·88; p=0·003). Safety endpoints were rare and not associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists, with the exception of diabetic retinopathy (aHR 1·49, 1·11-2·00; p=0·008). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:GLP-1 receptor agonists were associated with better graft and patient survival. Clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:National Institutes of Health.

Unauthorized immigrants and permanent residents may experience challenges in accessing kidney transplantation due to limited healthcare access, socioeconomic and cultural barriers. Understanding the United States (US) national landscape of kidney transplantation for non-citizens may inform policy changes. To evaluate this, we utilized two cohorts from the US national registry (2013-2023): 287,481 adult candidates for first transplant listing and 190,176 adult first transplant recipients. Citizenship was categorized as US citizen (reference), permanent resident, and presumed unauthorized immigrant. Negative binomial regression was used to quantify the incidence rate ratio over time by citizenship status. Cause-specific hazards models, with clustering at the state of listing/transplant, were used to calculate the adjusted hazard ratio of waitlist mortality, kidney transplant, and post-transplant outcomes (mortality/death-censored graft failure) by citizenship category. The crude proportion of presumed unauthorized immigrants listed increased over time (2013: 0.9%, 2023:1.9%). However, after accounting for case mix and waitlist size, there was no change in listing over time. Presumed unauthorized immigrants were less likely to experience waitlist mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio 0.54, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.46-0.62), were more likely to obtain deceased donor kidney transplant (1.11: 1.05-1.18), but less likely to receive live donor (0.80: 0.71-0.90) or preemptive kidney transplant (0.52: 0.43- 0.62). When stratified by insurance status, presumed unauthorized immigrants on Medicaid were less likely to receive deceased donor kidney transplants compared to their citizen counterparts; however, presumed unauthorized immigrants with Private insurance or Medicare were more likely to receive deceased donor kidney transplants. Presumed unauthorized immigrants were less likely to experience post-transplant death (0.56: 0.43-0.69) and graft failure (0.69: 0.57-0.84). Residents had similar pre- and post-transplant outcomes. Despite the barriers to kidney transplantation faced by presumed unauthorized immigrants and residents in the US, better post-transplant outcomes for presumed unauthorized immigrants compared to citizens persisted, even after accounting for differences in patient characteristics.

KEY POINTS:In frail kidney transplant (KT) candidates with obesity, unintentional weight loss preceding KT evaluation is associated with lower chance of listing. In frail candidates with obesity, both unintentional and intentional weight loss is associated with higher waitlist mortality. Results suggest that in frail candidates with obesity, careful supervision of weight loss prior to KT should be considered, emphasizing strategies to preserve muscle mass and function. BACKGROUND:Unintentional weight loss, a hallmark of frailty, predicts worse post–kidney transplantation (KT) outcomes. However, weight loss in candidates with obesity is often recommended to enhance transplant eligibility. We tested whether pre-evaluation weight change is associated with listing/waitlist mortality, considering intentionality and frailty. METHODS:) enrolled in a prospective multicenter cohort study. We estimated the association between pre-evaluation weight change (stable, gain, unintentional/intentional loss) with chance of listing/waitlist mortality using Cox proportional hazards/competing-risks models. RESULTS:Among candidates with obesity, 48% had stable weight, 17% had weight gain, 16% had unintentional weight loss, and 20% had intentional weight loss over the year before evaluation. Among frail candidates with obesity, stable weight was associated with a 27% lower chance of listing (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.55 to 0.96), weight gain with a 47% lower chance of listing (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.80), and unintentional weight loss with a 48% lower chance of listing (aHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.84) compared with nonfrail candidates with stable weight. However, in frail candidates with obesity, intentional weight loss was not associated with a significantly lower chance of listing compared with nonfrail candidates with stable weight. In addition, among frail candidates with obesity, stable weight (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.90), unintentional weight loss (aSHR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.23 to 6.27), and intentional weight loss (aSHR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.85) were associated with higher waitlist mortality compared with nonfrail candidates with stable weight. Among nonfrail candidates, no associations were observed for weight change and frailty status with either chance of listing or waitlist mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Among frail candidates with obesity, unintentional pre-KT weight loss is associated with a lower chance of listing; however, any weight loss is associated with higher waitlist mortality. Our findings suggest that frail candidates with obesity may benefit from clinician supervision of pre-KT weight loss.