Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The Physician Payment Sunshine Act was implemented to provide transparency to financial transactions between industry and physicians. Under this law, the Open Payments Program (OPP) was created to publicly disclose all transactions and inform patients of potential conflicts of interest. Collaboration between industry and cardiothoracic surgeon-scientists is essential in developing new approaches to treating patients with cardiac disease. The objective of this study is to characterize industry payments to cardiothoracic surgeons as reported by the OPP. METHODS:We used the first wave of Physician Payment Sunshine Act data (August 2013 to December 2013) to assess industry payments made to cardiothoracic surgeons. RESULTS:Cardiothoracic surgeons (n = 2,495) received a total of $4,417,545 during a 5-month period. Cardiothoracic surgeons comprised 0.5% of all persons in the OPP and received 0.9% of total disclosed industry funding. Among cardiothoracic surgeons receiving funding, 34% received payments less than $100, 43% received payments of $100 to $999, 19% received payments of $1,000 to $9,999, 4% received payments of $10,000 to $99,999, and 0.2% received payments of more than $100,000. The median was $181 (interquartile range [IQR]: $60 to $843) and the mean ± SD was $1,771 ± $7,664. The largest payment to an individual surgeon was $159,444. The three largest median payments made to cardiothoracic surgeons by expense category were royalty fees $8,398 (IQR: $536 to $12,316), speaker fees $3,600 (IQR: $1,500 to $8,000), and honoraria $3,344 (IQR: $1,563 to $7,350). CONCLUSIONS:Among cardiothoracic surgeons who are listed as recipients of nonresearch industry payments, 50% of cardiothoracic surgeons received less than $181. Awareness of the OPP data is critical for cardiothoracic surgeons, as it provides a means to prevent potential public misconceptions about industry payments within the specialty that may affect patient trust.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the survival benefit of kidney transplantation in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:Although kidney transplantation (KT) has emerged as a viable option for select HIV-infected patients, concerns have been raised that risks of KT in HIV-infected patients are higher than those in their HIV-negative counterparts. Despite these increased risks, KT may provide survival benefit for the HIV-infected patient with ESRD, yet this important clinical question remains unanswered. METHODS:Data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients were linked to IMS pharmacy fills (January 1, 2001 to October 1, 2012) to identify and study 1431 HIV-infected KT candidates from the first point of active status on the waiting list. Time-dependent Cox regression was used to establish a counterfactual framework for estimating survival benefit of KT. RESULTS:Adjusted relative risk (aRR) of mortality at 5 years was 79% lower after KT compared with dialysis (aRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.10-0.42; P <0.001), and statistically significant survival benefit was achieved by 194 days of KT. Among patients coinfected with hepatitis C, aRR of mortality at 5 years was 91% lower after KT compared with dialysis (aRR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.46; P < 0.004); however, statistically significant survival benefit was not achieved until 392 days after KT. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence suggests that for HIV-infected ESRD patients, KT is associated with a significant survival benefit compared with remaining on dialysis.

BACKGROUND:After kidney transplantation, early readmission is independently associated with graft loss and mortality. The mechanism of this association is poorly understood. Understanding the timeline of risk, that is, during the readmission hospitalization versus periods postreadmission, will provide additional insights. METHODS:We used national registry data to study 56 076 adult Medicare-primary first-time kidney transplant recipients from December 1999 to October 2011. Piecewise Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between graft loss, mortality, and readmission for 2 periods: readmission hospitalization and postreadmission. RESULTS:During the readmission hospitalization, graft loss was substantially higher (deceased donor kidney transplant [DDKT] without delayed graft function [DGF] hazard ratio: 24.634.447.9, P < 0.001; with DGF: 10.815.221.4, P < 0.001; live donor kidney transplant [LDKT]: 18.136.774.2, P < 0.001) and mortality was substantially higher (DDKT without DGF: 14.120.830.7, P < 0.001; with DGF: 9.0312.818.0, P < 0.001; LDKT: 9.0018.241.3, P < 0.001). Immediately after readmission discharge, graft loss (DDKT without DGF: 2.082.402.77, P < 0.001; with DGF: 1.832.142.51, P < 0.001; LDKT: 2.002.503.13, P < 0.001), and mortality (DDKT without DGF: 2.162.432.73, P < 0.001; with DGF: 1.832.162.88, P < 0.001; LDKT: 1.902.342.88, P < 0.001) remained elevated, but much less so. After readmission, the hazard of graft loss remained, but decreased 19% per year for DDKT recipients (time varying coefficient 0.780.810.85, P < 0.001) and 14% per year for LDKT recipients (0.790.860.93, P < 0.001). The hazard of mortality remained, but decreased 14% per year for DDKT recipients (0.830.860.89, P < 0.001) and 9% per year for LDKT recipients (0.850.910.98, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, readmission is most strongly associated with graft loss and mortality during the readmission hospitalization, but also portends a lasting, albeit attenuated, risk postreadmission.

Determining candidacy for live kidney donation among obese individuals remains challenging. Among healthy non-donors, body mass index (BMI) above 30 is associated with a 16% increase in risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, the impact on the ESRD risk attributable to donation and living with only one kidney remains unknown. Here we studied the risk of ESRD associated with obesity at the time of donation among 119 769 live kidney donors in the United States. Maximum follow-up was 20 years. Obese (BMI above 30) live kidney donors were more likely male, African American, and had higher blood pressure. Estimated risk of ESRD 20 years after donation was 93.9 per 10 000 for obese; significantly greater than the 39.7 per 10 000 for non-obese live kidney donors. Adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, blood pressure, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, and relationship to recipient, obese live kidney donors had a significant 86% increased risk of ESRD compared to their non-obese counterparts (adjusted hazard ratio 1.86; 95% confidence interval 1.05-3.30). For each unit increase in BMI above 27 kg/m² there was an associated significant 7% increase in ESRD risk (1.07, 1.02-1.12). The impact of obesity on ESRD risk was similar for male and female donors, African American and Caucasian donors, and across the baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate spectrum. These findings may help to inform selection criteria and discussions with persons considering living kidney donation.

BACKGROUND:The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PSSA) is a government initiative that requires all biomedical companies to publicly disclose payments to physicians through the Open Payments Program (OPP). The goal of this study was to use the OPP database and evaluate all nonresearch-related financial transactions between plastic surgeons and biomedical companies. METHODS:Using the first wave of OPP data published on September 30, 2014, we studied the national distribution of industry payments made to plastic surgeons during a 5-month period. We explored whether a plastic surgeon's scientific productivity (as determined by their h-index), practice setting (private versus academic), geographic location, and subspecialty were associated with payment amount. RESULTS:Plastic surgeons (N = 4195) received a total of US $5,278,613. The median (IQR) payment to a plastic surgeon was US $115 (US $35-298); mean, US $158. The largest payment to an individual was US $341,384. The largest payment category was non-CEP speaker fees (US $1,709,930) followed by consulting fees (US $1,403,770). Plastic surgeons in private practice received higher payments per surgeon compared with surgeons in academic practice (median [IQR], US $165 [US $81-$441] vs median [IQR], US $112 [US $33-$291], rank-sum P < 0.001). Among academic plastic surgeons, a higher h-index was associated with 77% greater chance of receiving at least US $1000 in total payments (RR/10 unit h-index increase = 1.47 1.772.11, P < 0.001). This association was not seen among plastic surgeons in private practice (RR = 0.89 1.091.32, P < 0.4). CONCLUSIONS:Plastic surgeons in private practice receive higher payments from industry. Among academic plastic surgeons, higher payments were associated with higher h-indices.

Studies have estimated the average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personalized estimation on the basis of donor characteristics remains unavailable. We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, with ESRD ascertainment via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services linkage, using Cox regression with late entries. Black race (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.25 to 3.89; P<0.001) and male sex (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.35; P<0.001) was associated with higher risk of ESRD in donors. Among nonblack donors, older age was associated with greater risk (HR per 10 years, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.59; P<0.001). Among black donors, older age was not significantly associated with risk (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.09; P=0.3). Greater body mass index was associated with higher risk (HR per 5 kg/m², 1.61; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.00; P<0.001). Donors who had a first-degree biological relationship to the recipient had increased risk (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.34; P<0.01). C-statistic of the model was 0.71. Predicted 20-year risk of ESRD for the median donor was only 34 cases per 10,000 donors, but 1% of donors had predicted risk exceeding 256 cases per 10,000 donors. Risk estimation is critical for appropriate informed consent and varies substantially across living kidney donors. Greater permissiveness may be warranted in older black candidate donors; young black candidates should be evaluated carefully.

BACKGROUND:Annual visits with a primary care provider (PCP) are recommended for living kidney donors to monitor long-term health postdonation, yet adherence to this recommendation is unknown. METHODS:We surveyed 1170 living donors from our center from 1970 to 2012 to ascertain frequency of PCP visits pre- and postdonation. Interviews occurred median (IQR) 6.6 (3.8-11.0) years post-transplant. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between donor characteristics and PCP visit frequency. RESULTS:, P=.001). CONCLUSIONS:The importance of annual PCP visits should be emphasized to all living donors, especially those with less education, men (particularly single men), and donors who did not see their PCP annually before donation.