Catherine M Sullivan1, Kitty V Barnswell2, Kate Greenway3, Cindy M Kamps4, Derrick Wilson5, Jeffrey M Albert6, Jacqueline Dolata1, Anne Huml1,7,8, Julie A Pencak1, John T Ducker5, Roberto Gedaly4, Christopher M Jones2, Todd Pesavento3, Ashwini R Sehgal9,6,8,10. 1. Center for Reducing Health Disparities and. 2. Transplant Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. 3. Transplant Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Transplant Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 5. Transplant Center, Lutheran Hospital, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 6. Departments of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences and. 7. Division of Nephrology, University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio; and. 8. Division of Nephrology, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 9. Center for Reducing Health Disparities and axs81@cwru.edu. 10. Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients with ESKD face barriers in completing the steps required to obtain a transplant. These eight sequential steps are medical suitability, interest in transplant, referral to a transplant center, first visit to center, transplant workup, successful candidate, waiting list or identify living donor, and receive transplant. This study sought to determine the effect of navigators on helping patients complete these steps. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Our study was a cluster randomized, controlled trial involving 40 hemodialysis facilities and four transplant centers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. Four trained kidney transplant recipients met regularly with patients on hemodialysis at 20 intervention facilities, determined their step in the transplant process, and provided tailored information and assistance in completing that step and subsequent steps. Patients at 20 control facilities continued to receive usual care. Primary study outcomes were waiting list placement and receipt of a deceased or living donor transplant. An exploratory outcome was first visit to a transplant center. RESULTS: Before the trial, intervention (1041 patients) and control (836 patients) groups were similar in the proportions of patients who made a first visit to a transplant center, were placed on a waiting list, and received a deceased or living donor transplant. At the end of the trial, intervention and control groups were also similar in first visit (16.1% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 5.5%), waitlisting (16.3% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2% to 6.1%), deceased donor transplantation (2.8% versus 2.2%; difference, 0.6%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 2.1%), and living donor transplantation (1.2% versus 1.0%; difference, 0.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of trained kidney transplant recipients as navigators did not increase first visits to a transplant center, waiting list placement, and receipt of deceased or living donor transplants.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients with ESKD face barriers in completing the steps required to obtain a transplant. These eight sequential steps are medical suitability, interest in transplant, referral to a transplant center, first visit to center, transplant workup, successful candidate, waiting list or identify living donor, and receive transplant. This study sought to determine the effect of navigators on helping patients complete these steps. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Our study was a cluster randomized, controlled trial involving 40 hemodialysis facilities and four transplant centers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. Four trained kidney transplant recipients met regularly with patients on hemodialysis at 20 intervention facilities, determined their step in the transplant process, and provided tailored information and assistance in completing that step and subsequent steps. Patients at 20 control facilities continued to receive usual care. Primary study outcomes were waiting list placement and receipt of a deceased or living donor transplant. An exploratory outcome was first visit to a transplant center. RESULTS: Before the trial, intervention (1041 patients) and control (836 patients) groups were similar in the proportions of patients who made a first visit to a transplant center, were placed on a waiting list, and received a deceased or living donor transplant. At the end of the trial, intervention and control groups were also similar in first visit (16.1% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 5.5%), waitlisting (16.3% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2% to 6.1%), deceased donor transplantation (2.8% versus 2.2%; difference, 0.6%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 2.1%), and living donor transplantation (1.2% versus 1.0%; difference, 0.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of trained kidney transplant recipients as navigators did not increase first visits to a transplant center, waiting list placement, and receipt of deceased or living donor transplants.
Authors: A M Epstein; J Z Ayanian; J H Keogh; S J Noonan; N Armistead; P D Cleary; J S Weissman; J A David-Kasdan; D Carlson; J Fuller; D Marsh; R M Conti Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bertram L Kasiske; Charles B Cangro; Sundaram Hariharan; Dondald E Hricik; Ronald H Kerman; David Roth; David N Rush; Miguel A Vazquez; Matthew R Weir Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2001 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Daniel S Reuland; Alison T Brenner; Richard Hoffman; Andrew McWilliams; Robert L Rhyne; Christina Getrich; Hazel Tapp; Mark A Weaver; Danelle Callan; Laura Cubillos; Brisa Urquieta de Hernandez; Michael P Pignone Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jesse D Schold; Jon A Gregg; Jeffrey S Harman; Allyson G Hall; Pamela R Patton; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Chike Nathan Okechukwu; Tempie E Hulbert-Shearon; Roger C Wiggins; Robert A Wolfe; Friedrich K Port Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Mohua Basu; Lisa Petgrave-Nelson; Kayla D Smith; Jennie P Perryman; Kevin Clark; Stephen O Pastan; Thomas C Pearson; Christian P Larsen; Sudeshna Paul; Rachel E Patzer Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Ajay K Israni; Nicholas Salkowski; Sally Gustafson; Jon J Snyder; John J Friedewald; Richard N Formica; Xinyue Wang; Eugene Shteyn; Wida Cherikh; Darren Stewart; Ciara J Samana; Adrine Chung; Allyson Hart; Bertram L Kasiske Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Ali Taha; Yasmin Iman; Jay Hingwala; Nicole Askin; Priyanka Mysore; Claudio Rigatto; Clara Bohm; Paul Komenda; Navdeep Tangri; David Collister Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2022-08-24
Authors: Ahmed A Al-Jaishi; Kelly Carroll; Cory E Goldstein; Stephanie N Dixon; Amit X Garg; Stuart G Nicholls; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Charles Weijer; Jamie Brehaut; Lehana Thabane; P J Devereaux; Monica Taljaard Journal: Trials Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 2.279