Context

For adults with end-stage kidney disease, live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) has better outcomes than long-term dialysis and deceased donor kidney transplant. However, black patients receive LDKT at a much lower rate than adults of any other race or ethnicity.

Objective

To examine the LDKT readiness stage of black patients on the transplant waiting list and its association with LDKT knowledge, concerns, and willingness.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial to improve knowledge and reduce concerns about LDKT.Patients and Setting-One hundred fifty-two black patients on the kidney transplant waiting list at a single transplant center in the northeastern United States.

Main outcome measures

LDKT readiness stage, knowledge, concerns, and willingness to talk to others about living donation.

Results

Sixty percent of patients were not considering or not yet ready to pursue LDKT, and only 11% had taken action to talk to family members or friends about the possibility of living kidney donation. Patients in later stages of LDKT readiness (ie, who had talked to others about donation or were preparing to do so) had significantly more knowledge (P<.001), fewer concerns (P=.002), and more willingness (P=.001) to talk to others about living donation than those in earlier readiness stages.

Conclusions

The large percentage of black patients who are in the earlier stages of LDKT readiness may account for the low rate of LDKT in this patient population at our transplant center. Innovative and tailored LDKT educational strategies for black patients are needed to help reduce racial disparities in LDKT.

Background

Blacks receive live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) less often than patients of all other races. We evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions in removing barriers to LDKT for blacks.

Methods

Patients were randomized to three interventions in which health educator(s) delivered an intervention to (a) the patient and his/her guests in the patient's home (house calls [HC], n=54), (b) clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (group based [GB], n=49), and (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (individual counseling [IC], n=49).

Results

At the 2-year endpoint, 15% (n=8), 8% (n=4), and 6% (n=3) of HC, GB, and IC patients, respectively, received LDKT (P=0.30). Patients in the HC group were more likely than patients in the GB and IC groups to have at least one donor inquiry (82% vs. 61% vs. 47%, P=0.001) and evaluation (65% vs. 39% vs. 27%, P<0.001). Patients in the HC group also were more likely to have higher knowledge, fewer concerns, and higher willingness to talk to others about donation 6 weeks after intervention.

Conclusions

These findings underscore the importance of including the patient's social network in LDKT education and the potential of the HC intervention to reduce racial disparity in LDKT rates.

End-stage kidney disease patients in the United States may have family members or friends who are not US citizens or residents but are willing to serve as their living kidney donor in the United States (international donors). In July 2017, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) convened a multidisciplinary workgroup of experts in living donation care, including coordinators, social workers, donor advocates, administrators, and physicians, to evaluate educational gaps related to the evaluation and care of international donors. The evaluation of international living donor candidates is a resource-intensive process that raises key considerations for assessing risk of exploitation/inducement and addressing communication barriers, logistics barriers, and access to care in their home country. Through consensus-building discussions, we developed recommendations related to: (a) establishing program guidelines for international donor candidate evaluation and selection; (b) initial screening; (c) logistics planning; (d) comprehensive evaluation; and (e) postdonation care and follow-up. These recommendations are not intended to direct formal policy, but rather as guidance to help programs more efficiently and effectively structure and execute evaluations and care coordination. We also offer recommendations for research and advocacy to optimize the care of this unique group of living donors.

Background

Despite the institution of a new Kidney Allocation System in 2014, A2/A2B to B transplantation has not increased as expected. The current Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy requires subtyping on two separate occasions, and in the setting of discrepant results, defaulting to the A1 subtype. However, there is significant inherent variability in the serologic assays used for blood group subtyping and genotyping is rarely done.

Methods

The National Kidney Registry, a kidney paired donation (KPD) program, performs serological typing on all A/AB donors, and in cases of non-A1/non-A1B donors, confirmatory genotyping is performed.

Results

Between 2/18/2018 and 9/15/2020, 13.0% (145) of 1,111 type A donors registered with the NKR were ultimately subtyped as A2 via genotyping. Notably, 49.6% (72) of these were subtyped as A1 at their donor center, and in accordance with OPTN policy, ineligible for allocation as A2.

Conclusion

Inaccurate A2 subtyping represents a significant lost opportunity in transplantation, especially in KPD where A2 donors can not only facilitate living donor transplantation for O and highly sensitized candidates, but can also facilitate additional living donor transplants. This study highlights the need for improved accuracy of subtyping technique, and the need for policy changes encouraging optimal utilization of A2 donor kidneys.

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.