David Goldberg1, Benjamin French2, Craig Newcomb3, Qing Liu3, Gurvaneet Sahota4, Anna E Wallace4, Kimberly A Forde5, James D Lewis6, Scott D Halpern7. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: david.goldberg@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. HealthCore, Inc, Wilmington, Delaware. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite recent attention to differences in access to livers for transplantation, research has focused on patients already on the wait list. We analyzed data from a large administrative database that represents the entire US population, and state Medicaid data, to identify factors associated with differences in access to wait lists for liver transplantation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of transplant-eligible patients with end-stage liver disease using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (2006-2014; n = 16,824) and Medicaid data from 5 states (2002-2009; California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; n = 67,706). Transplant-eligible patients had decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and/or liver synthetic dysfunction, based on validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-based algorithms and data from laboratory studies. Placement on the wait list was determined through linkage with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. RESULTS: In an unadjusted analysis of the HealthCore database, we found that 29% of patients with HCC were placed on the 2-year wait list (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.4%-33.0%) compared with 11.9% of patients with stage 4 cirrhosis (ascites) (95% CI, 11.0%-12.9%) and 12.6% of patients with stage 5 cirrhosis (ascites and variceal bleeding) (95% CI, 9.4%-15.2%). Among patients with each stage of cirrhosis, those with HCC were significantly more likely to be placed on the wait list; adjusted subhazard ratios ranged from 1.7 (for patients with stage 5 cirrhosis and HCC vs those without HCC) to 5.8 (for patients with stage 1 cirrhosis with HCC vs those without HCC). Medicaid beneficiaries with HCC were also more likely to be placed on the transplant wait list, compared with patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a subhazard ratio of 2.34 (95% CI, 2.20-2.49). Local organ supply and wait list level demand were not associated with placement on the wait list. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of US healthcare databases, we found patients with HCC to be more likely to be placed on liver transplant wait lists than patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Previously reported reductions in access to transplant care for wait-listed patients with decompensated cirrhosis underestimate the magnitude of this difference.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite recent attention to differences in access to livers for transplantation, research has focused on patients already on the wait list. We analyzed data from a large administrative database that represents the entire US population, and state Medicaid data, to identify factors associated with differences in access to wait lists for liver transplantation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of transplant-eligible patients with end-stage liver disease using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (2006-2014; n = 16,824) and Medicaid data from 5 states (2002-2009; California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; n = 67,706). Transplant-eligible patients had decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and/or liver synthetic dysfunction, based on validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-based algorithms and data from laboratory studies. Placement on the wait list was determined through linkage with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. RESULTS: In an unadjusted analysis of the HealthCore database, we found that 29% of patients with HCC were placed on the 2-year wait list (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.4%-33.0%) compared with 11.9% of patients with stage 4 cirrhosis (ascites) (95% CI, 11.0%-12.9%) and 12.6% of patients with stage 5 cirrhosis (ascites and variceal bleeding) (95% CI, 9.4%-15.2%). Among patients with each stage of cirrhosis, those with HCC were significantly more likely to be placed on the wait list; adjusted subhazard ratios ranged from 1.7 (for patients with stage 5 cirrhosis and HCC vs those without HCC) to 5.8 (for patients with stage 1 cirrhosis with HCC vs those without HCC). Medicaid beneficiaries with HCC were also more likely to be placed on the transplant wait list, compared with patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a subhazard ratio of 2.34 (95% CI, 2.20-2.49). Local organ supply and wait list level demand were not associated with placement on the wait list. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of US healthcare databases, we found patients with HCC to be more likely to be placed on liver transplant wait lists than patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Previously reported reductions in access to transplant care for wait-listed patients with decompensated cirrhosis underestimate the magnitude of this difference.
Authors: Hedi Schelleman; Warren B Bilker; Brian L Strom; Stephen E Kimmel; Craig Newcomb; James P Guevara; Gregory W Daniel; Mark J Cziraky; Sean Hennessy Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: S E Gentry; A B Massie; S W Cheek; K L Lentine; E H Chow; C E Wickliffe; N Dzebashvili; P R Salvalaggio; M A Schnitzler; D A Axelrod; D L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Vincent Lo Re; Joseph K Lim; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Janet Tate; Harini Bathulapalli; Marina B Klein; David Rimland; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Adeel A Butt; Cynthia L Gibert; Sheldon T Brown; Farah Kidwai; Cynthia Brandt; Zachariah Dorey-Stein; K Rajender Reddy; Amy C Justice Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Robert M Merion; Douglas E Schaubel; Dawn M Dykstra; Richard B Freeman; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Patrick Grant Northup; Nicolas Michael Intagliata; Neeral Lalit Shah; Shawn Joseph Pelletier; Carl Lansing Berg; Curtis Kent Argo Journal: Hepatology Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: David S Goldberg; James D Lewis; Scott D Halpern; Mark G Weiner; Vincent Lo Re Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-11-04 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: D E Schaubel; M K Guidinger; S W Biggins; J D Kalbfleisch; E A Pomfret; P Sharma; R M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: David Goldberg; Ivo C Ditah; Kia Saeian; Mona Lalehzari; Andrew Aronsohn; Emmanuel C Gorospe; Michael Charlton Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David S Goldberg; Craig Newcomb; Richard Gilroy; Gurvaneet Sahota; Anna E Wallace; James D Lewis; Scott D Halpern Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Ju Dong Yang; Joseph J Larson; Kymberly D Watt; Alina M Allen; Russell H Wiesner; Gregory J Gores; Lewis R Roberts; Julie A Heimbach; Michael D Leise Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: K Atiemo; A Skaro; H Maddur; L Zhao; S Montag; L VanWagner; S Goel; A Kho; B Ho; R Kang; J L Holl; M M Abecassis; J Levitsky; D P Ladner Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Tamás Benkö; Julia König; Jens M Theysohn; Clemens Schotten; Fuat H Saner; Jürgen Treckmann; Sonia Radunz Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Ju Dong Yang; Ajitha Mannalithara; Andrew J Piscitello; John B Kisiel; Gregory J Gores; Lewis R Roberts; W Ray Kim Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Mounika Kanneganti; Nadim Mahmud; David E Kaplan; Tamar H Taddei; David S Goldberg Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 5.385
Authors: Anton L V Avanceña; Nicholas Miller; Sarah E Uttal; David W Hutton; Jessica L Mellinger Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 30.083