Browsing by Author "Patzer, Rachel E."
Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Baseline Racial and Ethnic Differences in Access to Transplantation in Medicare’s ESRD Treatment Choices Payment Model(Elsevier, 2023-12-15) Drewry, Kelsey M.; Mora, Ariana N.; Kim, Daeho; Koukounas, Kalli; Wilk, Adam S.; Trivedi, Amal N.; Patzer, Rachel E.; Surgery, School of MedicineItem Effect of a Novel Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Patient Access to Kidney Transplant and Living Kidney Donation: The EnAKT LKD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial(American Medical Association, 2023) Garg, Amit X.; Yohanna, Seychelle; Naylor, Kyla L.; McKenzie, Susan Q.; Mucsi, Istvan; Dixon, Stephanie N.; Luo, Bin; Sontrop, Jessica M.; Beaucage, Mary; Belenko, Dmitri; Coghlan, Candice; Cooper, Rebecca; Elliott, Lori; Getchell, Leah; Heale, Esti; Ki, Vincent; Nesrallah, Gihad; Patzer, Rachel E.; Presseau, Justin; Reich, Marian; Treleaven, Darin; Wang, Carol; Waterman, Amy D.; Zaltzman, Jeffrey; Blake, Peter G.; Surgery, School of MedicineImportance: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have the best chance for a longer and healthier life if they receive a kidney transplant. However, many barriers prevent patients from receiving a transplant. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent intervention designed to target several barriers that prevent eligible patients from completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Design, setting, and participants: This pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, superiority, cluster randomized clinical trial included all 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. These programs provide care for patients with advanced CKD (patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis). Interventions: Using stratified, covariate-constrained randomization, allocation of the CKD programs at a 1:1 ratio was used to compare the multicomponent intervention vs usual care for 4.2 years. The intervention had 4 main components, (1) administrative support to establish local quality improvement teams; (2) transplant educational resources; (3) an initiative for transplant recipients and living donors to share stories and experiences; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by administrative leaders. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the rate of steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant. Each patient could complete up to 4 steps: step 1, referred to a transplant center for evaluation; step 2, had a potential living donor contact a transplant center for evaluation; step 3, added to the deceased donor waitlist; and step 4, received a transplant from a living or deceased donor. Results: The 26 CKD programs (13 intervention, 13 usual care) during the trial period included 20 375 potentially transplant-eligible patients with advanced CKD (intervention group [n = 9780 patients], usual-care group [n = 10 595 patients]). Despite evidence of intervention uptake, the step completion rate did not significantly differ between the intervention vs usual-care groups: 5334 vs 5638 steps; 24.8 vs 24.1 steps per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.15). Conclusions and relevance: This novel multicomponent intervention did not significantly increase the rate of completed steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Improving access to transplantation remains a global priority that requires substantial effort.Item Geographic Differences in Racial Disparities in Access to Kidney Transplantation(Elsevier, 2023-08-11) McPherson, Laura J.; Di, Mengyu; Adams, Ayrenne A.; Plantinga, Laura; Pastan, Stephen O.; Patzer, Rachel E.; Surgery, School of MedicineItem Implementation of the ASCENT Trial to Improve Transplant Waitlisting Access(Elsevier, 2023-11-02) Urbanski, Megan; Lee, Yi-Ting Hana; Escoffery, Cam; Buford, Jade; Plantinga, Laura; Pastan, Stephen O.; Hamoda, Reem; Blythe, Emma; Patzer, Rachel E.; Surgery, School of MedicineIntroduction: The Allocation System for changes in Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a hybrid type 1 trial of a multicomponent intervention among 655 US dialysis facilities with low kidney transplant waitlisting to educate staff and patients about kidney allocation system (KAS) changes and increase access to and reduce racial disparities in waitlisting. Intervention components included a staff webinar, patient and staff educational videos, and facility-specific feedback reports. Methods: Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework. Postimplementation surveys were administered among intervention group facilities (n = 334); interviews were conducted with facility staff (n = 6). High implementation was defined as using 3 to 4 intervention components, low implementation as using 1 to 2 components, and nonimplementation as using no components. Results: A total of 331 (99%) facilities completed the survey; 57% were high implementers, 31% were low implementers, and 12% were nonimplementers. Waitlisting events were higher or similar among high versus low implementer facilities for incident and prevalent populations; for Black incident patients, the mean proportion waitlisted in low implementer facilities was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.87) at baseline and 0.55% at 1-year (95% CI: 0.48-0.62) versus 0.83% (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) at baseline and 1.40% at 1-year (95% CI: 1.35-1.45) in high implementer facilities. Interviews revealed that the intervention helped facilities prioritize transplant education, but that intervention components were not uniformly shared. Conclusion: The findings provide important context to interpret ASCENT effectiveness results and identified key barriers and facilitators to consider for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings.Item Kidney Transplantation Contraindications: Variation in Nephrologist Practice and Training Vintage(Elsevier, 2024-01-19) Wilk, Adam S.; Drewry, Kelsey M.; Escoffery, Cam; Lea, Janice P.; Pastan, Stephen O.; Patzer, Rachel E.; Surgery, School of MedicineIntroduction: Health system leaders aim to increase access to kidney transplantation in part by encouraging nephrologists to refer more patients for transplant evaluation. Little is known about nephrologists' referral decisions and whether nephrologists with older training vintage weigh patient criteria differently (e.g., more restrictively). Methods: Using a novel, iteratively validated survey of US-based nephrologists, we examined how nephrologists assess adult patients' suitability for transplant, focusing on established, important criteria: 7 clinical (e.g., overweight) and 7 psychosocial (e.g., insurance). We quantified variation in nephrologist restrictiveness-proportion of criteria interpreted as absolute or partial contraindications versus minor or negligible concerns-and tested associations between restrictiveness and nephrologist age (proxy for training vintage) in logistic regression models, controlling for nephrologist-level and practice-level factors. Results: Of 144 nephrologists invited, 42 survey respondents (29% response rate) were 85% male and 54% non-Hispanic White, with mean age 52 years, and 67% spent ≥1 day/wk in outpatient dialysis facilities. Nephrologists interpreted patient criteria inconsistently; consistency was lower for psychosocial criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.28) than for clinical criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.43; P < 0.01). With each additional 10 years of age, nephrologists' odds of interpreting criteria restrictively (top tertile) doubled (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-4.07), with marginal statistical significance. This relationship was significant when interpreting psychosocial criteria (aOR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.16-8.71) but not when interpreting clinical criteria (aOR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52-2.38). Conclusion: Nephrologists interpret evaluation criteria variably when assessing patient suitability for transplant. Guideline-based educational interventions could influence nephrologists' referral decision-making differentially by age.Item Pay-for-Performance Incentives for Home Dialysis Use and Kidney Transplant(American Medical Association, 2024-06-30) Koukounas, Kalli G.; Kim, Daeho; Patzer, Rachel E.; Wilk, Adam S.; Lee, Yoojin; Drewry, Kelsey M.; Mehrotra, Rajnish; Rivera-Hernandez, Maricruz; Meyers, David J.; Shah, Ankur D.; Thorsness, Rebecca; Schmid, Christopher H.; Trivedi, Amal N.; Surgery, School of MedicineImportance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' mandatory End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC) model, launched on January 1, 2021, randomly assigned approximately 30% of US dialysis facilities and managing clinicians to financial incentives to increase the use of home dialysis and kidney transplant. Objective: To assess the ETC's association with use of home dialysis and kidney transplant during the model's first 2 years and examine changes in these outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study used claims and enrollment data for traditional Medicare beneficiaries with kidney failure from 2017 to 2022 linked to same-period transplant data from the United Network for Organ Sharing. The study data span 4 years (2017-2020) before the implementation of the ETC model on January 1, 2021, and 2 years (2021-2022) following the model's implementation. Exposure: Receiving dialysis treatment in a region randomly assigned to the ETC model. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were use of home dialysis and kidney transplant. A difference-in-differences (DiD) approach was used to estimate changes in outcomes among patients treated in regions randomly selected for ETC participation compared with concurrent changes among patients treated in control regions. Results: The study population included 724 406 persons with kidney failure (mean [IQR] age, 62.2 [53-72] years; 42.5% female). The proportion of patients receiving home dialysis increased from 12.1% to 14.3% in ETC regions and from 12.9% to 15.1% in control regions, yielding an adjusted DiD estimate of -0.2 percentage points (pp; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.3 pp). Similar analysis for transplant yielded an adjusted DiD estimate of 0.02 pp (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.04 pp). When further stratified by sociodemographic measures, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollment, and poverty quartile, there was not a statistically significant difference in home dialysis use across joint strata of characteristics and ETC participation. Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the first 2 years of the ETC model were not associated with increased use of home dialysis or kidney transplant, nor changes in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in these outcomes.Item Race, Age, and Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Among Patients Receiving Incident Dialysis in the United States(Elsevier, 2023-08-05) Buford, Jade; Retzloff, Samantha; Wilk, Adam S.; McPherson, Laura; Harding, Jessica L.; Pastan, Stephen O.; Patzer, Rachel E.; Surgery, School of MedicineRationale & objective: Patients with kidney failure from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to the transplant waitlist relative to White and younger patients. Although racial disparities in the waitlisting group have declined after the 2014 kidney allocation system change, whether there is intersectionality of race and age in waitlisting access is unknown. Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting & participants: 439,455 non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black US adults initiating dialysis between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the United States Renal Data System, and followed through 2020. Exposures: Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black) and age group (18-29, 30-49, 50-64, and 65-80 years). Outcomes: Placement on the United Network for Organ Sharing deceased donor waitlist. Analytical approach: Age- and race-stratified waitlisting rates were compared. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, censored for death, examined the association between race and waitlisting, and included interaction term for race and age. Results: Over a median follow-up period of 1 year, the proportion of non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients waitlisted was 20.7% and 20.5%, respectively. In multivariable models, non-Hispanic Black patients were 14% less likely to be waitlisted (aHR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Relative differences between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients were different by age group. Non-Hispanic Black patients were 27%, 12%, and 20% less likely to be waitlisted than non-Hispanic White patients for ages 18-29 years (aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86), 50-64 (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98), and 65-80 years (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), respectively, but differences were attenuated among patients aged 30-49 years (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.02). Limitations: Race and ethnicity data is physician reported, residual confounding, and analysis is limited to non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients. Conclusions: Racial disparities in waitlisting exist between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals and are most pronounced among younger patients with kidney failure. Results suggest that interventions to address inequalities in waitlisting may need to be targeted to younger patients with kidney failure. Plain-language summary: Research has shown that patients from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to transplant waitlisting relative to White and younger patients; nevertheless, how age impacts racial disparities in waitlisting is unknown. We compared waitlisting between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients with incident kidney failure, within age strata, using registry data for 439,455 US adults starting dialysis (18-80 years) during 2015-2019. Overall, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to be waitlisted and relative differences between the two racial groups differed by age. After adjusting for patient-level factors, the largest disparity in waitlisting was observed among adults aged 18-29 years. These results suggest that interventions should target younger adults to reduce disparities in access to kidney transplant waitlisting.Item Referral and Evaluation for Kidney Transplantation among Patients with Lupus Nephritis-Related End-Stage Kidney Disease(Sage, 2024) McPherson, Laura; Plantinga, Laura C.; Howards, Penelope P.; Kramer, Michael; Pastan, Stephen O.; Patzer, Rachel E.; Surgery, School of MedicineObjective: For the majority of patients with lupus nephritis-related end-stage kidney disease (LN-ESKD), kidney transplant is associated with better outcomes than dialysis. Access to kidney transplant requires an initial referral to a transplant center and medical evaluation prior to waitlisting. The study's objective was to examine access to these early steps in the kidney transplant process among patients with LN-ESKD. Methods: Adults who began treatment for ESKD in the Southeast, Northeast, New York, or Ohio River Valley U.S. regions from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2019, followed through 6/30/2021, were identified from the United States Renal Data System. Referral and evaluation start data were collected from 28 of 48 transplant centers across these regions. The exposure was primary cause of ESKD (LN-ESKD vs other-ESKD). The outcomes were referral and evaluation start at a transplant center. Cox models quantified the association between LN-ESKD (vs other-ESKD) and referral and evaluation start. Results: Among 192,318 patients initiating treatment for ESKD, 0.4% had LN-ESKD. Over half (58%) of LN-ESKD patients were referred before study end, and among those referred, 66% started the evaluation. In adjusted analyses, patients with LN-ESKD were referred (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.19) and started the transplant evaluation (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.28) at a higher rate than patients with other-ESKD. Among referred patients with LN-ESKD, the median time from ESKD start to referral was 2.9 months (IQR: <1 to 11.7 months), which is similar to patients with other-ESKD (median 2.6 months, IQR: <1 to 8.8 months). Conclusions: Among incident patients with ESKD, having a primary diagnosis of LN-ESKD versus other-ESKD is associated with higher rates of early transplant access outcomes. Despite this, patients with LN-ESKD (vs other-ESKD) are less likely to be preemptively referred (i.e., referred prior to ESKD start) for kidney transplant. While providers may no longer be delaying the early steps in the kidney transplantation process among this patient population, there is still room for improvement in the rates of preemptive referral. Access to kidney transplant referral prior to ESKD could result in increased transplant rates and better transplant outcomes for patients with LN-ESKD.Item Social Risk and Dialysis Facility Performance in the First Year of the ESRD Treatment Choices Model(American Medical Association, 2024) Koukounas, Kalli G.; Thorsness, Rebecca; Patzer, Rachel E.; Wilk, Adam S.; Drewry, Kelsey M.; Mehrotra, Rajnish; Rivera-Hernandez, Maricruz; Meyers, David J.; Kim, Daeho; Trivedi, Amal N.; Surgery, School of MedicineImportance: The End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC) model randomly selected 30% of US dialysis facilities to receive financial incentives based on their use of home dialysis, kidney transplant waitlisting, or transplant receipt. Facilities that disproportionately serve populations with high social risk have a lower use of home dialysis and kidney transplant raising concerns that these sites may fare poorly in the payment model. Objective: To examine first-year ETC model performance scores and financial penalties across dialysis facilities, stratified by their incident patients' social risk. Design, setting, and participants: A cross-sectional study of 2191 US dialysis facilities that participated in the ETC model from January 1 through December 31, 2021. Exposure: Composition of incident patient population, characterized by the proportion of patients who were non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, living in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood, uninsured, or covered by Medicaid at dialysis initiation. A facility-level composite social risk score assessed whether each facility was in the highest quintile of having 0, 1, or at least 2 of these characteristics. Main outcomes and measures: Use of home dialysis, waitlisting, or transplant; model performance score; and financial penalization. Results: Using data from 125 984 incident patients (median age, 65 years [IQR, 54-74]; 41.8% female; 28.6% Black; 11.7% Hispanic), 1071 dialysis facilities (48.9%) had no social risk features, and 491 (22.4%) had 2 or more. In the first year of the ETC model, compared with those with no social risk features, dialysis facilities with 2 or more had lower mean performance scores (3.4 vs 3.6, P = .002) and lower use of home dialysis (14.1% vs 16.0%, P < .001). These facilities had higher receipt of financial penalties (18.5% vs 11.5%, P < .001), more frequently had the highest payment cut of 5% (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and were less likely to achieve the highest bonus of 4% (0% vs 2.7%; P < .001). Compared with all other facilities, those in the highest quintile of treating uninsured patients or those covered by Medicaid experienced more financial penalties (17.4% vs 12.9%, P = .01) as did those in the highest quintile in the proportion of patients who were Black (18.5% vs 12.6%, P = .001). Conclusions: In the first year of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' ETC model, dialysis facilities serving higher proportions of patients with social risk features had lower performance scores and experienced markedly higher receipt of financial penalties.