Mona D Doshi1, Neeraj Singh2, Benjamin E Hippen3, Kenneth J Woodside1, Prince Mohan4, Hannah L Byford5, Matthew Cooper6, Darshana M Dadhania7, Sruthi Ainapurapu8, Krista L Lentine9. 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Willis Knighton Health System, Shreveport, Louisiana. 3. Metrolina Nephrology Associates, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina. 4. Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania. 5. Froedtert Transplant Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 6. Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC. 7. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 8. Saint Louis University Transplant Center, St. Louis, Missouri. 9. Saint Louis University Transplant Center, St. Louis, Missouri krista.lentine@health.slu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current race-based eGFR calculators assign a higher eGFR value to Black patients, which could affect the care of kidney transplant candidates and potential living donors. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a survey of staff at adult kidney transplant centers in the United States (December 17, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to assess opinions on use of race-based eGFR equations for waitlisting and living donor candidate evaluation, availability of serum cystatin C testing and measured GFR, and related practices. RESULTS: Respondents represented 57% (124 of 218) of adult kidney transplant programs, and the responding centers conducted 70% of recent kidney transplant volume. Most (93%) programs use serum creatinine-based eGFR for listing candidates. However, only 6% of respondents felt that current race-based eGFR calculators are appropriate, with desire for change grounded in concerns for promotion of health care disparities by current equations and inaccuracies in reporting of race. Most respondents (70%) believed that elimination of race would allow more preemptive waitlisting for Black patients, but a majority (79%) also raised concerns that such an approach could incur harms. More than one third of the responding programs lacked or were unsure of availability of testing for cystatin C or measured GFR. At this time, 40% of represented centers did not plan to remove race from eGFR calculators, 46% were planning to remove, and 15% had already done so. There was substantial variability in eGFR reporting and listing of multiracial patients with some Black ancestry. There was no difference in GFR acceptance thresholds for Black versus non-Black living donors. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey highlights a broad consensus that extant approaches to GFR estimation are unsatisfactory, but it also identified a range of current opinions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current race-based eGFR calculators assign a higher eGFR value to Black patients, which could affect the care of kidney transplant candidates and potential living donors. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a survey of staff at adult kidney transplant centers in the United States (December 17, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to assess opinions on use of race-based eGFR equations for waitlisting and living donor candidate evaluation, availability of serum cystatin C testing and measured GFR, and related practices. RESULTS: Respondents represented 57% (124 of 218) of adult kidney transplant programs, and the responding centers conducted 70% of recent kidney transplant volume. Most (93%) programs use serum creatinine-based eGFR for listing candidates. However, only 6% of respondents felt that current race-based eGFR calculators are appropriate, with desire for change grounded in concerns for promotion of health care disparities by current equations and inaccuracies in reporting of race. Most respondents (70%) believed that elimination of race would allow more preemptive waitlisting for Black patients, but a majority (79%) also raised concerns that such an approach could incur harms. More than one third of the responding programs lacked or were unsure of availability of testing for cystatin C or measured GFR. At this time, 40% of represented centers did not plan to remove race from eGFR calculators, 46% were planning to remove, and 15% had already done so. There was substantial variability in eGFR reporting and listing of multiracial patients with some Black ancestry. There was no difference in GFR acceptance thresholds for Black versus non-Black living donors. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey highlights a broad consensus that extant approaches to GFR estimation are unsatisfactory, but it also identified a range of current opinions.
Authors: Didier A Mandelbrot; Martha Pavlakis; Seth J Karp; Scott R Johnson; Douglass W Hanto; James R Rodrigue Journal: Transplantation Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Inga Soveri; Ulla B Berg; Jonas Björk; Carl-Gustaf Elinder; Anders Grubb; Ingegerd Mejare; Gunnar Sterner; Sten-Erik Bäck Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Peter P Reese; Sumit Mohan; Kristen L King; Winfred W Williams; Vishnu S Potluri; Meera N Harhay; Nwamaka D Eneanya Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Neetika Garg; Krista L Lentine; Lesley A Inker; Amit X Garg; James R Rodrigue; Dorry L Segev; Didier A Mandelbrot Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Eric L Knight; Jacobien C Verhave; Donna Spiegelman; Hans L Hillege; Dick de Zeeuw; Gary C Curhan; Paul E de Jong Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Silvia M Titan; Neil R Powe; Josef Coresh; Lesley A Inker Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Krista L Lentine; Vidya A Fleetwood; Yasar Caliskan; Henry Randall; Jason R Wellen; Melissa Lichtenberger; Craig Dedert; Richard Rothweiler; Gary Marklin; Diane Brockmeier; Mark A Schnitzler; Syed A Husain; Sumit Mohan; Bertram L Kasiske; Matthew Cooper; Roslyn B Mannon; David A Axelrod Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2022-03-28
Authors: Benjamin E Hippen; David A Axelrod; Kennan Maher; Ruixin Li; Deepali Kumar; Yasar Caliskan; Tarek Alhamad; Mark Schnitzler; Krista L Lentine Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Amber B Kernodle; Valerie Thompson; Xiaomeng Chen; Silas P Norman; Dorry L Segev; Tanjala S Purnell; Mara McAdams-DeMarco Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2022-09-16