Dataset Information

Effectiveness of informational decision aids and a live donor financial assistance program on pursuit of live kidney transplants in African American hemodialysis patients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:African Americans have persistently poor access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT). We conducted a small randomized trial to provide preliminary evidence of the effect of informational decision support and donor financial assistance interventions on African American hemodialysis patients' pursuit of LDKT. METHODS:Study participants were randomly assigned to receive (1) Usual Care; (2) the Providing Resources to Enhance African American Patients' Readiness to Make Decisions about Kidney Disease (PREPARED); or (3) PREPARED plus a living kidney donor financial assistance program. Our primary outcome was patients' actions to pursue LDKT (discussions with family, friends, or doctor; initiation or completion of the recipient LDKT medical evaluation; or identification of a donor). We also measured participants' attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of interventions' usefulness. RESULTS:Of 329 screened, 92 patients were eligible and randomized to Usual Care (n?=?31), PREPARED (n?=?30), or PREPARED plus financial assistance (n?=?31). Most participants reported interventions helped their decision making about renal replacement treatments (62%). However there were no statistically significant improvements in LDKT actions among groups over 6 months. Further, no participants utilized the living donor financial assistance benefit. CONCLUSIONS:Findings suggest these interventions may need to be paired with personal support or navigation services to overcome key communication, logistical, and financial barriers to LDKT. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov [ NCT01439516 ] [August 31, 2011].

SUBMITTER: Boulware LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5934897 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of informational decision aids and a live donor financial assistance program on pursuit of live kidney transplants in African American hemodialysis patients.

Boulware L Ebony LE Ephraim Patti L PL Ameling Jessica J Lewis-Boyer LaPricia L Rabb Hamid H Greer Raquel C RC Crews Deidra C DC Jaar Bernard G BG Auguste Priscilla P Purnell Tanjala S TS Lamprea-Monteleagre Julio A JA Olufade Tope T Gimenez Luis L Cook Courtney C Campbell Tiffany T Woodall Ashley A Ramamurthi Hema H Davenport Cleomontina A CA Choudhury Kingshuk Roy KR Weir Matthew R MR Hanes Donna S DS Wang Nae-Yuh NY Vilme Helene H Powe Neil R NR

BMC nephrology 20180503 1

<h4>Background</h4>African Americans have persistently poor access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT). We conducted a small randomized trial to provide preliminary evidence of the effect of informational decision support and donor financial assistance interventions on African American hemodialysis patients' pursuit of LDKT.<h4>Methods</h4>Study participants were randomly assigned to receive (1) Usual Care; (2) the Providing Resources to Enhance African American Patients' Readiness to Make ...[more]

PMID: 29724177

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals who have failed one or more full thickness penetrating keratoplasties may be offered repeat corneal surgery using an artificial or donor cornea. An artificial or prosthetic cornea is known as a keratoprosthesis. Both donor and artificial corneal transplantations involve removal of the diseased and opaque recipient cornea (or the previously failed cornea) and replacement with another donor or prosthetic cornea.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of artificial versus donor corneas in individuals who have had one or more failed donor corneal transplantations.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 November 2019.Selection criteriaTwo review authors independently assessed reports from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or consultation.Data collection and analysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For discussion purposes, we summarized findings from relevant comparative case series. We performed no data synthesis.Main resultsWe did not identify any randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing artificial corneas with donor corneas for repeat corneal transplantations.Authors' conclusionsThe optimal management for those individuals who have failed a conventional corneal transplantation is unknown. Currently, in some centers, artificial corneal devices are routinely recommended after just one graft failure, while in other centers, they are not recommended until after multiple graft failures, or not at all. To date, there have been no controlled trials comparing the visual outcomes and complications of artificial corneal devices (particularly the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis, which is the most commonly implanted artificial corneal device) with repeat donor corneal transplantation, in order to guide surgeons and their patients. Such a trial is needed and would offer significant benefit to an ever-increasing pool of people with visual disability due to corneal opacification, most of whom are still in productive stages of their lives.

Project description:A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear.In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study.Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded.This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).

Project description:ImportanceAlthough independent charity patient assistance programs improve patient access to costly prescription drugs, recent federal investigations have raised questions about their potential to increase pharmaceutical spending and to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Little is known about the design of the programs, patient eligibility, or drug coverage.ObjectiveTo examine the eligibility criteria of the independent charity patient assistance programs and the drugs covered by them.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive cross-sectional study of the 6 largest independent charities offering patient assistance programs for patients including, but not limited to, Medicare beneficiaries in 2018. These charities offered 274 different disease-specific patient assistance programs. Drugs were identified for subgroup analysis that had any use reported on the Medicare Part D spending dashboard and any off-patent brand-name drugs that incurred more than $10 000 in Medicare spending per beneficiary in 2016.ExposuresSupport by independent charity patient assistance programs.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the characteristics of patient assistance programs, including assistance type, insurance coverage (vs uninsured), and income eligibility. The secondary outcomes were the cost of the drugs covered by the patient assistance programs and the coverage of expensive off-patent brand-name drugs vs substitutable generic drugs.ResultsAmong the 6 independent charity foundations included in the analysis, their total revenue in 2017 ranged from $24 million to $532 million, and expenditures on patient assistance programs ranged from $24 million to $353 million, representing on average, 86% of their revenue. Of the 274 patient assistance programs offered by these organizations, 168 (61%) provided only co-payment assistance, and the most common therapeutic area covered was cancer or cancer treatment-related symptoms (113 patient assistance programs; 41%). A total of 267 programs (97%) required insurance coverage as an eligibility criterion (ie, excluded uninsured patients). The most common income eligibility limit was 500% of the federal poverty level. The median annual cost of the drugs per beneficiary covered by the programs was $1157 (interquartile range, $247-$5609) compared with $367 (interquartile range, $100-$1500) for the noncovered drugs. Off-patent brand-name drugs (cost: >$10 000) were covered by a mean of 3.1 (SD, 2.0) patient assistance programs, whereas their generic equivalents were covered by a mean of 1.2 (SD, 1.0) patient assistance programs.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2018, among 274 patient assistance programs operated by the 6 independent charity foundations, the majority did not provide coverage for uninsured patients. Medications that were covered by the patient assistance programs were generally more expensive than those that were not covered.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of informational decision aids and a live donor financial assistance program on pursuit of live kidney transplants in African American hemodialysis patients.

Publications

Effectiveness of informational decision aids and a live donor financial assistance program on pursuit of live kidney transplants in African American hemodialysis patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets