Original ArticlesTransplantation
Open Access

Mortality and Access to Kidney Transplantation in Patients with Sickle Cell Disease–Associated Kidney Failure

Sunjae Bae, Morgan Johnson, Allan B. Massie, Xun Luo, Carlton Haywood, Sophie M. Lanzkron, Morgan E. Grams, Dorry L. Segev and Tanjala S. Purnell
CJASN March 2021, 16 (3) 407-414; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02720320

Abstract

Background and objectives Patients with sickle cell disease–associated kidney failure have high mortality, which might be lowered by kidney transplantation. However, because they show higher post-transplant mortality compared with patients with other kidney failure etiologies, kidney transplantation remains controversial in this population, potentially limiting their chance of receiving transplantation. We aimed to quantify the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation in this population and determine the chance of receiving transplantation with sickle cell disease as the cause of kidney failure as compared with other etiologies of kidney failure.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements Using a national registry, we studied all adults with kidney failure who began maintenance dialysis or were added to the kidney transplant waiting list in 1998–2017. To quantify the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation, we measured the absolute risk difference and hazard ratio for mortality in matched pairs of transplant recipients versus waitlisted candidates in the sickle cell and control groups. To compare the chance of receiving transplantation, we estimated hazard ratios for receiving transplantation in the sickle cell and control groups, treating death as a competing risk.

Results Compared with their matched waitlisted candidates, 189 transplant recipients with sickle cell disease and 220,251 control recipients showed significantly lower mortality. The absolute risk difference at 10 years post-transplant was 20.3 (98.75% confidence interval, 0.9 to 39.8) and 19.8 (98.75% confidence interval, 19.2 to 20.4) percentage points in the sickle cell and control groups, respectively. The hazard ratio was also similar in the sickle cell (0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.91) and control (0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.55) groups (interaction P=0.8). Nonetheless, the sickle cell group was less likely to receive transplantation than the controls (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.87). Similar disparities were found among waitlisted candidates (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.72).

Conclusions Patients with sickle cell disease–associated kidney failure exhibited similar decreases in mortality associated with kidney transplantation as compared with those with other kidney failure etiologies. Nonetheless, the sickle cell population was less likely to receive transplantation, even after waitlist registration.

Introduction

Patients who initiate dialysis due to sickle cell disease–associated kidney failure have poor prognosis, with a 1.5- to 2.8-fold hazard of mortality compared with those with other etiologies of kidney failure (1,2). Kidney transplantation is a potential treatment option to reduce the high mortality risk in this population. Nonetheless, it is still controversial whether transplantation is desirable in patients with sickle cell disease–associated kidney failure due to their higher post-transplant mortality; historical evidence suggests two- to three-fold post-transplant mortality in recipients with sickle cell disease–associated kidney failure compared with those with other etiologies (3⇓–5).

The high post-transplant mortality in the sickle cell population might also affect the access to transplant in this population. Clinicians could be reluctant to offer transplantation to this population because their mortality might still be higher after transplantation compared with counterparts with other kidney failure etiologies. Moreover, transplant centers are effectively disincentivized to perform transplantation in the sickle cell population because each center’s aggregate post-transplant mortality rate is closely monitored, and increases in this aggregate rate can lead to administrative consequences (6).

However, post-transplant mortality alone is an inadequate measure of candidacy for transplantation; this decision should be driven by the expected decrease in mortality associated with transplantation as compared with dialysis (7,8). Although post-transplant mortality is higher in the sickle cell population, the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation could be similar or greater in this population than in others because their dialysis mortality is also drastically higher compared with their non–sickle cell counterparts. The lower mortality associated with transplantation has not been measured in this population.

Given these knowledge gaps, we conducted a national cohort study with two objectives. First, we examined mortality rates and measured decreases in mortality associated with transplantation in patients with kidney failure due to sickle cell disease versus other etiologies. Second, we compared access to transplantation between the sickle cell and non–sickle cell populations, from dialysis initiation, to transplant waitlist registration, to receipt of a kidney transplant.

Materials and Methods

Data Sources

This study used two national registries: the United States Renal Disease System (USRDS) and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). USRDS collects data on all individuals diagnosed with kidney failure, in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), and the ESKD networks. The SRTR data system includes data on all donors, waitlisted candidates, and transplant recipients in the United States, submitted by the members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, provides oversight to the activities of the OPTN and SRTR contractors. Details on these datasets are provided elsewhere (9). The clinical and research activities being reported are consistent with the Principles of the Declaration of Istanbul as outlined in the “Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism.”

Both USRDS and SRTR receive their waitlist and transplant datasets from UNOS/OPTN. However, USRDS data include everyone diagnosed with kidney failure, unlike SRTR data, which only include those who were waitlisted for or received a transplant. Additionally, SRTR data include more transplantation-related variables, allowing for deeper analyses on waitlisted candidates and transplant recipients. Throughout this study, we used either of the two datasets, depending on the scope of each specific analysis, without an explicit linkage between the two.

Study Population

The first study population (“dialysis cohort”) included all adults (≥18 years) who started maintenance dialysis with incident diagnosis of kidney failure between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2017, from USRDS data. We identified the patients who had sickle cell disease as the “primary cause of renal failure” on the ESKD Medical Evidence Report (Form CMS-2728), with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes 282.6 or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes D57 (“sickle cell group”). All others were included in the controls.

The second study population (“waitlist cohort”) included all adults added to the national kidney transplant waiting list (“waitlist registration”) between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2017, from SRTR data. We identified the candidates whose primary diagnoses were sickle cell disease (diagnosis code, 3029) or “other” (diagnosis code, 999), accompanied by a clear specification of sickle cell disease on the UNOS/OPTN Transplant Candidate Registration Form. All others were included in the controls. Multiple waitlist registrations of a single person were consolidated into one record. We excluded waitlisted candidates with missing dialysis start date (n=18,501; 4%) (Supplemental Figure 1).

Mortality

We compared dialysis, waitlist, and post-transplant mortality in the sickle cell group versus controls. All three outcomes were defined as the time until death, with different time origins: dialysis initiation, waitlist registration, and receipt of a kidney transplant, respectively. We used the dialysis cohort to study dialysis mortality, and the waitlist cohort to study waitlist and post-transplant mortality. Post-transplant mortality analysis was restricted to those who received a transplant during the study period. Death was ascertained from multiple sources, including the ESKD Death Notification Form and Social Security Death Master File (8).

Decreases in Mortality Associated with Transplantation

To quantify the decreases in mortality associated with transplantation, we used sequential stratification (10) to match recipients of transplants and waitlisted candidates on a 1:1 ratio (Supplemental Appendix 1 and Supplemental Figure 2). We created match sets of transplant recipients from the sickle cell group with transplant recipients from the controls using methods analogous to stepwise model building. Match set 1 included all controls. Match set 2 restricted the controls to only those identified as Black or African American (AA). Match set 3 also involved variable-ratio (up to 1:5) matching of transplant recipients from the sickle cell group with transplant recipients from the controls, on the basis of age, sex, panel-reactive antibody (PRA), diabetes, previous kidney transplants, time on dialysis, and donor type (deceased versus living), as captured on the OPTN/UNOS Kidney Transplant Candidate Registration Worksheet.

Access to Kidney Transplantation

We first examined the overall access to transplantation, defined as the time from dialysis initiation to receipt of a kidney transplant. Then, we divided this process into two segments: dialysis initiation to waitlist registration, and waitlist registration to receipt of a transplant. Patients may receive a transplant from a living donor without waitlist registration, but such events were rare (<1% of the population) and, therefore, not studied. We used the dialysis cohort to study the overall access to transplantation and the segment from dialysis initiation to waitlist registration, and the waitlist cohort to study the segment from waitlist registration to receipt of a transplant.

Statistical Analyses

To compare mortality, we conducted Cox regression with stepwise model building to identify factors that may explain any observed differences in survival between the sickle cell group and the controls. Model 1 was unadjusted. Model 2 only included those identified as Black or AA in the controls, because sickle cell disease is strongly associated with ancestry, and race is associated with mortality in patients with kidney failure (11⇓⇓–14). Model 3 included multiple covariables on model 2. For dialysis mortality, we adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and current tobacco use), body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin, serum albumin, dialysis type, for-profit status of the dialysis center, and primary payer, collected from Form CMS-2728. For waitlist mortality, we adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, BMI, history of previous kidney transplant, and time from dialysis initiation to waitlist registration, collected from the OPTN/UNOS Kidney Transplant Candidate Registration Worksheet. For post-transplant mortality, we adjusted for recipient factors (age at transplant, sex, diabetes, hypertension, BMI, PRA, time on dialysis at transplant, serum albumin, peripheral vascular disease, malignancy, hepatitis C virus and hepatitis B virus seropositivity, previous kidney transplant, education level, primary payer, and number of HLA-A/B/DR mismatches), donor factors (age, sex, race, BMI, hepatitis C virus seropositivity, diabetes, and hypertension), and additional factors for deceased donors (donation after cardiac death, stroke as the cause of donor death, terminal serum creatinine, and cold ischemic time), collected from the OPTN/UNOS Kidney Transplant Recipient Registration Worksheet.

To estimate the decreases in mortality associated with transplantation, we used the absolute risk difference for mortality because the proportional-hazards assumption is invalid in comparing mortality between transplant recipients and waitlisted candidates (8,15,16). Specifically, we first estimated the differences in Kaplan–Meier mortality estimates at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years post-transplant between the transplant recipients and waitlisted candidates in the sickle cell and control groups. For this analysis, we estimated 98.75% confidence intervals (CIs) after Bonferroni correction. Additionally, we conducted Cox regression to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality in the transplant recipients versus the matched waitlisted candidates, which can be interpreted as the average association over the course of follow-up, even when the proportional-hazards assumption is invalid (10,17). We used interaction terms to test whether the amount of decrease in mortality associated with transplantation differed between the sickle cell group and the controls.

To evaluate access to transplantation, we estimated subdistribution HRs (sHRs; E. S. Kawaguchi et al., unpublished observations) (18) using the Fine and Gray method (treating death as a competing risk) and cause-specific HRs using Cox models (censoring at death). The former measures the difference in access in the presence of any mortality differences, whereas the latter does so while adjusting any mortality differences away (19). Comparing the two measures may reveal whether an apparent decrease in access to transplantation is a consequence of higher mortality in that population rather than an actual disparity. This analysis was also conducted in stepwise models. Model 1 was unadjusted. Model 2 restricted the non–sickle cell disease group to only those identified as Black or AA. Model 3 included multiple covariables on model 2. For dialysis initiation to kidney transplant and to waitlist registration, we adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and current tobacco use), BMI, hemoglobin, serum albumin, dialysis type, for-profit status of the dialysis center, and primary payer, as captured on Form CMS-2728. For waitlist registration to kidney transplant, we adjusted for candidate PRA, age, ABO blood type, maximum acceptable cold ischemic time and number of HLA mismatches, and willingness to accept expanded criteria donors and donors positive for hepatitis B/C virus stratified by organ procurement organization, as captured on the OPTN/UNOS Kidney Transplant Candidate Registration Worksheet.

Lastly, because we identified the sickle cell group from the primary diagnosis reported on Form CMS-2728, we conducted a sensitivity analysis where we used Medicare claims data to identify patients with diagnoses of sickle cell disease (Supplemental Appendix 2).

Missing covariables (Supplemental Table 1) were handled via the conventional missing-indicator method by using product terms of the covariables and their missing indicators (20). All analyses were censored at the end of study on December 31, 2017. We used a familywise significance level of 0.05. All analyses were performed using Stata 15.1/MP for Linux (21) and R version 3.6.1 (22).

Results

Study Populations

The dialysis cohort included 1970 patients in the sickle cell group, and 2,047,790 patients in the control group. Compared with the controls, the sickle cell group was younger (median [interquartile range; IQR] age, 44 [35–53] versus 65 [54–75] years), more likely to be Black/AA (92% versus 27%), and had fewer comorbidities (Table 1). The waitlist cohort included 507 patients in the sickle cell group and 463,298 in the control group. The sickle cell group was younger (median [IQR] age, 39 [31–49] versus 53 [42–61] years), more likely to be Black/AA (94% versus 28%) or have PRA ≥80% (19% versus 10%), and less likely to have diabetes (3% versus 42%) than the control group (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1.

Population characteristics

Mortality

The sickle cell group showed higher mortality in all analyses (Table 2). The 10-year Kaplan–Meier estimates for dialysis, waitlist, and post-transplant mortality were, respectively, 85%, 61%, and 50% in the sickle cell group, and 81%, 41%, and 32% in the control group (Supplemental Figure 3). Before any adjustments (model 1), the sickle cell group showed 1.21-fold (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.27) dialysis mortality, 1.98-fold (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.23) waitlist mortality, and 1.81-fold (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.27) post-transplant mortality. The fully adjusted model (model 3) indicated greater differences in mortality, with adjusted HRs of 2.14 (95% CI, 2.03 to 2.25) for dialysis mortality, 3.21 (95% CI, 2.84 to 3.62) for waitlist mortality, and 3.03 (95% CI, 2.42 to 3.80) for post-transplant mortality. Our sensitivity analysis suggested these findings are robust to how we identified the sickle cell group (Supplemental Appendix 2).

View this table:
Table 2.

Hazard of mortality in the sickle cell disease group compared with the controls

Decreases in Mortality Associated with Transplantation

In the waitlist cohort, 507 candidates had sickle cell disease as their primary diagnosis. Of these, 192 patients subsequently received transplants. Three transplant recipients from the sickle cell group could not be matched to waitlisted candidates from the sickle cell group and were excluded, yielding 189 matched pairs in the sickle cell group. Of the 463,298 candidates from the controls, 243,045 subsequently received transplants. Among these patients, two transplant recipients from the controls could not be matched to waitlisted candidates from the controls and were excluded (match set 1). Additionally, eight transplant recipients from the sickle cell group in match set 3 could not be matched to recipients from the controls and were excluded, yielding 181 matched pairs in the sickle cell group (Supplemental Table 2). In match set 1, we ascertained 122,949 deaths from 2,604,568 person-years of follow-up, with a crude mortality rate of 4.72 (95% CI, 4.69 to 4.75) per 100 person-year over median (IQR) follow-up of 4.1 (1.7–8.0) years.

Kidney transplantation was associated with similar decreases in mortality in the sickle cell and control groups (Supplemental Figure 4 and Table 3). In match set 1, transplant recipients from the sickle cell group had lower mortality, with absolute risk differences of 6.1 (98.75% CI, −0.8 to 13.0) percentage points (pp) at 1-year post-transplant, 15.3 (98.75% CI, 3.9 to 26.7) pp at 3 years, 23.8 (98.75% CI, 9.6 to 38.0) pp at 5 years, and 20.3 (98.75% CI, 0.9 to 39.8) pp at 10 years, as compared with waitlisted candidates from the sickle cell group. Similarly, in the controls, transplantation was associated with absolute risk differences of 0.7 (98.75% CI, 0.5 to 0.8) pp at 1 year, 6.6 (98.75% CI, 6.4 to 6.9) pp at 3 years, 12.7 (98.75% CI, 12.4 to 13.1) pp at 5 years, and 19.8 (98.75% CI, 19.2 to 20.4) pp at 10 years (Figure 1). After controlling for race and clinical characteristics (match sets 2 and 3), the estimates remained overall similar.

View this table:
Table 3.

Decreases in mortality risk associated with kidney transplantation in the sickle cell disease and control groups

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Survival difference associated with kidney transplantation is similar in the sickle cell disease and control groups. (A) Match set 1, (B) match set 2, and (C) match set 3. Bands indicate 95% pointwise confidence intervals, without adjusting for multiple comparisons. The horizontal line at y=0 indicates no survival difference.

Our Cox model also suggested similar decreases in mortality associated with transplantation in both groups. Compared with the waitlisted candidates, the transplant recipients had a 0.57-fold (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.91) hazard of mortality in the sickle cell group and 0.54-fold (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.55) in the controls (match set 1; P=0.8). The HRs remained similar in all other match sets (Supplemental Table 3).

Access to Kidney Transplantation

Overall, the sickle cell group had lower access to transplantation (Table 4). Starting from dialysis initiation, the sickle cell group was less likely to receive a transplant (model 1, sHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.87). This association remained when death was treated as a censoring event (cause-specific HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97), suggesting the higher mortality in the sickle cell group does not fully explain this disparity. This association was subtly weaker when the controls were restricted to Black/AA patients (model 2, sHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93), but substantially stronger when adjusted for clinical characteristics (model 3, sHR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.56).

View this table:
Table 4.

Access to kidney transplantation in the sickle cell disease group compared with the control group

Examining each segment separately, we observed that the chance of waitlist registration was actually higher in the sickle cell group before adjustments (model 1, sHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.32) or after restricting the controls to Black/AA patients (model 2, sHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24). However, after adjusting for clinical characteristics, the sickle cell group was less likely to be waitlisted (model 3, sHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.83). In other words, they were more likely to be waitlisted than the entire control group, who were older and had more comorbidities, but less likely than the comparable patients in the control group.

After waitlist registration, the sickle cell group was less likely to receive a transplant than patients in the control group (model 1, sHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72). This association persisted after restricting the controls to Black/AA patients (model 2, sHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87), adjusting for factors constituting the kidney allocation criteria (model 3, sHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.74), and treating death as a censoring event (model 3, cause-specific HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94).

Discussion

In this national study including all adults who started maintenance dialysis or were added to the kidney transplant waiting list between 1998 and 2017, kidney transplantation was associated with a substantial decrease in mortality in both the sickle cell and control groups, with a decrease in 10-year mortality of 20.3 and 19.8 pp, respectively. Although transplant recipients from the sickle cell group experienced higher post-transplant mortality compared with recipients from the controls (10 year, 50% versus 32%), the amount of the decrease in mortality associated with transplantation was similar in both groups. However, the sickle cell group had worse access to transplantation than the control group. The waitlisted candidates from the sickle cell group were 38% less likely to receive a transplant than the controls, and this association persisted after adjusting for factors constituting the kidney allocation criteria.

Previous studies have found higher waitlist (1,2) and post-transplant (3⇓–5) mortality in patients with sickle cell disease–associated kidney failure. On the other hand, there has been only suggestive evidence on whether kidney transplantation is associated with meaningful decreases in mortality in the sickle cell population, or on how the amount of the decrease in mortality in the sickle cell population compares with that in the general kidney transplant recipient population (1,3,23). Our results substantiate the prior findings by demonstrating statistically significant decreases in mortality associated with transplantation in the sickle cell group. More importantly, we observed a similar degree of decreases in mortality associated with transplantation in the sickle cell and control groups.

The worse access to kidney transplantation in the sickle cell group was the most pronounced in the candidates who were waitlisted. This was unexpected because having sickle cell disease as the primary cause of kidney failure has never been explicitly considered in the kidney allocation criteria and, therefore, should not affect the chances of waitlisted candidates receiving a transplant (24,25). We conducted stepwise model building to understand why this disparity occurred. However, neither the sickle cell group’s higher mortality nor the factors constituting the kidney allocation criteria—such as their PRA, blood type, geographic location, or age—fully explained the disparity.

Of note, the higher post-transplant mortality in the sickle cell population can be a significant burden to the provider, considering the scrutiny that occurs over post-transplant mortality. Our findings imply that performing kidney transplants on candidates with kidney failure secondary to sickle cell disease effectively incurs the risk of administrative consequences, which may include a shutdown of the kidney transplant program (6). Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Section 482.80(c)(2)(ii)(C), CMS requires transplant centers to maintain aggregate 1-year post-transplant mortality <185% of the expected rate, which is derived from a case-mix adjustment model (26). This model includes numerous clinical variables but not the recipient’s primary diagnosis other than diabetes; i.e., it expects kidney transplant recipients whose primary diagnosis was sickle cell disease to survive at the same rate as recipients who do not have sickle cell disease and are nondiabetic. Given our observation of three-fold post-transplant mortality in the sickle cell group (Table 2; model 3), performing kidney transplants on candidates with sickle cell disease will negatively affect the center’s aggregate mortality, well above the 185% threshold. This feature is clearly a disincentive for transplant centers to perform kidney transplants on candidates with sickle cell disease.

Our study has limitations. First, confounding may still exist due to the observational nature of our study. Our analyses on the decreases in mortality associated with transplantation were restricted to waitlisted candidates because all of them were clinically evaluated and cleared for kidney transplantation. Within this population, receipt of a kidney transplant is determined by factors that are less relevant to the patient’s survival, such as regional organ availability, blood type, and HLA, reducing the risk of confounding in the context of our study. However, as a downside of restricting our study to waitlisted candidates, our findings may not be generalizable to patients who have never been added to the kidney transplant waiting list; rather, our study suggests that those deemed suitable for transplantation would exhibit the decreases in mortality associated with transplantation. Lastly, our registry dataset did not have detailed information on certain clinical factors. For example, the only information available to identify patients with sickle cell disease was the primary cause of kidney failure; therefore, patients who have sickle cell disease, but whose kidney failure was secondary to other causes, were assigned to the controls. Additionally, some of the key covariables, including hemoglobin, were not available on our dialysis cohort and waitlist cohort datasets, prohibiting a uniform selection of regression covariables.

In this national study, kidney transplantation was associated with similar and substantial decreases in mortality in the sickle cell and control groups. Nonetheless, the sickle cell group had worse access to transplantation compared with the control group, even after being placed on the national kidney transplant waiting list. Our findings suggest that access to transplantation in the sickle cell population should be improved.

Disclosures

M.E. Grams reports receiving travel support from Dialysis Clinic, Inc. in May 2019 to speak at the annual director’s meeting and grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Kidney Foundation, both during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. M. Johnson reports being employed by Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. S. Lanzkron reports receiving research funding from Global Blood Therapeutics, Ironwood, Novartis, Pfizer, and Shire, and being employed by Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. X. Luo reports being employed by University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center. T.S. Purnell reports being employed by Johns Hopkins University; serving as a scientific advisor for, or member of, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons; and receiving honoraria from LiveOnNY. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

The authors were supported by an ASN Foundation for Kidney Research Pre-Doctoral Fellowship Award (principal investigator [PI]: S. Bae); Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant K01HS024600 (PI: T.S. Purnell); National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants K01DK101677 (PI: A. Massie), K08DK092287 (PI: M.E. Grams); National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant K24AI44954 (PI: D. Segev); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant K01HL108832 (PI: C. Haywood); and a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute research project grant (PI: S. Lanzkron).

Acknowledgments

The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, interpretation of data, or preparation of the manuscript. The data reported here have been supplied by the USRDS. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US Government. The analyses described here are the responsibility of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government. The data reported here have been supplied by the Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute as the contractor for the SRTR. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy of or interpretation by the SRTR or the US Government.

Dr. Sunjae Bae and Dr. Tanjala S. Purnell had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis; Dr. Sunjae Bae, Dr. Morgan Johnson, Dr. Allan B. Massie, Dr. Xun Luo, Dr. Dorry L. Segev, and Dr. Tanjala S. Purnell were responsible for study concept and design; Dr. Sunjae Bae, Dr. Allan B. Massie, Dr. Xun Luo, Dr. Carlton Haywood, Dr. Sophie M. Lanzkron, Dr. Morgan E. Grams, and Dr. Tanjala S. Purnell were responsible for acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; Dr. Sunjae Bae, Dr. Morgan Johnson, Dr. Dorry L. Segev, and Dr. Tanjala S. Purnell were responsible for drafting the manuscript; Dr. Sunjae Bae and Dr. Xun Luo were responsible for statistical analysis; Dr. Dorry L. Segev and Dr. Tanjala S. Purnell supervised the study; and all authors were responsible for critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Supplemental Material

This article contains the following supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.02720320/-/DCSupplemental.

Supplemental Appendix 1. Sequential stratification matching between KT recipients and waitlisted candidates.

Supplemental Appendix 2. Sensitivity analysis on identifying the sickle cell group.

Supplemental Figure 1. Patient inclusion flow chart.

Supplemental Figure 2. Matching transplant recipients with waitlisted candidates via sequential stratification.

Supplemental Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curves for dialysis, waitlist, and post-transplant mortality.

Supplemental Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier curves for mortality in matched cohorts.

Supplemental Table 1. Observations with missing covariables.

Supplemental Table 2. Population characteristics of matched cohorts.

Supplemental Table 3. Relative hazard of mortality associated with kidney transplantation in matched cohorts.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • See related Patient Voice, “Life with Sickle Cell Disease and Kidney Failure: Minimizing Fear with Knowledge,” on pages 335–336.

  • Received March 3, 2020.
  • Accepted January 21, 2021.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abbott KC,
    2. Hypolite IO,
    3. Agodoa LY
    : Sickle cell nephropathy at end-stage renal disease in the United States: Patient characteristics and survival. Clin Nephrol 58: 9–15, 2002pmid:12141416
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. McClellan AC,
    2. Luthi J-C,
    3. Lynch JR,
    4. Soucie JM,
    5. Kulkarni R,
    6. Guasch A,
    7. Huff ED,
    8. Gilbertson D,
    9. McClellan WM,
    10. DeBaun MR
    : High one year mortality in adults with sickle cell disease and end-stage renal disease. Br J Haematol 159: 360–367, 2012pmid:22967259
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Ojo AO,
    2. Govaerts TC,
    3. Schmouder RL,
    4. Leichtman AB,
    5. Leavey SF,
    6. Wolfe RA,
    7. Held PJ,
    8. Port FK,
    9. Agodoa LY
    : Renal transplantation in end-stage sickle cell nephropathy. Transplantation 67: 291–295, 1999pmid:10075596
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Bleyer AJ,
    2. Donaldson LA,
    3. McIntosh M,
    4. Adams PL
    : Relationship between underlying renal disease and renal transplantation outcome. Am J Kidney Dis 37: 1152–1161, 2001pmid:11382683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Huang E,
    2. Parke C,
    3. Mehrnia A,
    4. Kamgar M,
    5. Pham P-T,
    6. Danovitch G,
    7. Bunnapradist S
    : Improved survival among sickle cell kidney transplant recipients in the recent era. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28: 1039–1046, 2013pmid:23345624
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Massie AB,
    2. Segev DL
    : Rates of false flagging due to statistical artifact in CMS evaluations of transplant programs: Results of a stochastic simulation. Am J Transplant 13: 2044–2051, 2013pmid:23890285
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Bae S,
    2. Massie AB,
    3. Thomas AG,
    4. Bahn G,
    5. Luo X,
    6. Jackson KR,
    7. Ottmann SE,
    8. Brennan DC,
    9. Desai NM,
    10. Coresh J,
    11. Segev DL,
    12. Garonzik Wang JM
    : Who can tolerate a marginal kidney? Predicting survival after deceased donor kidney transplant by donor-recipient combination. Am J Transplant 19: 425–433, 2019pmid:29935051
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Massie AB,
    2. Luo X,
    3. Chow EKH,
    4. Alejo JL,
    5. Desai NM,
    6. Segev DL
    : Survival benefit of primary deceased donor transplantation with high-KDPI kidneys. Am J Transplant 14: 2310–2316, 2014pmid:25139729
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Massie AB,
    2. Kucirka LM,
    3. Segev DL
    : Big data in organ transplantation: Registries and administrative claims [published correction appears in Am J Transplant 14: 2673, 2014 10.1111/ajt.13038]. Am J Transplant 14: 1723–1730, 2014pmid:25040084
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Schaubel DE,
    2. Wolfe RA,
    3. Port FK
    : A sequential stratification method for estimating the effect of a time-dependent experimental treatment in observational studies. Biometrics 62: 910–917, 2006pmid:16984335
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Purnell TS,
    2. Luo X,
    3. Kucirka LM,
    4. Cooper LA,
    5. Crews DC,
    6. Massie AB,
    7. Boulware LE,
    8. Segev DL
    : Reduced racial disparity in kidney transplant outcomes in the United States from 1990 to 2012. J Am Soc Nephrol 27: 2511–2518, 2016pmid:26848153
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Kucirka LM,
    2. Grams ME,
    3. Lessler J,
    4. Hall EC,
    5. James N,
    6. Massie AB,
    7. Montgomery RA,
    8. Segev DL
    : Association of race and age with survival among patients undergoing dialysis. JAMA 306: 620–626, 2011pmid:21828325
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Hart A,
    2. Smith JM,
    3. Skeans MA,
    4. Gustafson SK,
    5. Wilk AR,
    6. Robinson A,
    7. Wainright JL,
    8. Haynes CR,
    9. Snyder JJ,
    10. Kasiske BL,
    11. Israni AK
    : OPTN/SRTR 2016 annual data report: Kidney. Am J Transplant 18[Suppl 1]: 18–113, 2018pmid:29292608
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Naik RP,
    2. Derebail VK,
    3. Grams ME,
    4. Franceschini N,
    5. Auer PL,
    6. Peloso GM,
    7. Young BA,
    8. Lettre G,
    9. Peralta CA,
    10. Katz R,
    11. Hyacinth HI,
    12. Quarells RC,
    13. Grove ML,
    14. Bick AG,
    15. Fontanillas P,
    16. Rich SS,
    17. Smith JD,
    18. Boerwinkle E,
    19. Rosamond WD,
    20. Ito K,
    21. Lanzkron S,
    22. Coresh J,
    23. Correa A,
    24. Sarto GE,
    25. Key NS,
    26. Jacobs DR,
    27. Kathiresan S,
    28. Bibbins-Domingo K,
    29. Kshirsagar AV,
    30. Wilson JG,
    31. Reiner AP
    : Association of sickle cell trait with chronic kidney disease and albuminuria in African Americans. JAMA 312: 2115–2125, 2014pmid:25393378
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Merion RM,
    2. Ashby VB,
    3. Wolfe RA,
    4. Distant DA,
    5. Hulbert-Shearon TE,
    6. Metzger RA,
    7. Ojo AO,
    8. Port FK
    : Deceased-donor characteristics and the survival benefit of kidney transplantation. JAMA 294: 2726–2733, 2005pmid:16333008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Mauger EA,
    2. Wolfe RA,
    3. Port FK
    : Transient effects in the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Stat Med 14: 1553–1565, 1995pmid:7481192
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Jorge A,
    2. Wallace ZS,
    3. Lu N,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Choi HK
    : Renal transplantation and survival among patients with lupus nephritis: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med 170: 240–247, 2019pmid:30665236
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Fine JP,
    2. Gray RJ
    : A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94: 496–509, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Lau B,
    2. Cole SR,
    3. Gange SJ
    : Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol 170: 244–256, 2009pmid:19494242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Jones MP
    : Indicator and stratification methods for missing explanatory variables in multiple linear regression. J Am Stat Assoc 91: 222–230, 1996
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 15, College Station, TX, StataCorp LLC, 2017
  22. ↵
    R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019
  23. ↵
    1. Scheinman JI
    : Sickle cell disease and the kidney. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 5: 78–88, 2009pmid:19048000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Smith JM,
    2. Biggins SW,
    3. Haselby DG,
    4. Kim WR,
    5. Wedd J,
    6. Lamb K,
    7. Thompson B,
    8. Segev DL,
    9. Gustafson S,
    10. Kandaswamy R,
    11. Stock PG,
    12. Matas AJ,
    13. Samana CJ,
    14. Sleeman EF,
    15. Stewart D,
    16. Harper A,
    17. Edwards E,
    18. Snyder JJ,
    19. Kasiske BL,
    20. Israni AK
    : Kidney, pancreas and liver allocation and distribution in the United States. Am J Transplant 12: 3191–3212, 2012pmid:23157207
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Stegall MD,
    2. Stock PG,
    3. Andreoni K,
    4. Friedewald JJ,
    5. Leichtman AB
    : Why do we have the kidney allocation system we have today? A history of the 2014 kidney allocation system. Hum Immunol 78: 4–8, 2017pmid:27554430
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: SRTR risk adjustment model documentation: Posttransplant outcomes. Available at: https://www.srtr.org/reports-tools/posttransplant-outcomes/. Accessed January 31, 2020
Back to top

In this issue

View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Request Permissions
Mortality and Access to Kidney Transplantation in Patients with Sickle Cell Disease–Associated Kidney Failure
Sunjae Bae, Morgan Johnson, Allan B. Massie, Xun Luo, Carlton Haywood, Sophie M. Lanzkron, Morgan E. Grams, Dorry L. Segev, Tanjala S. Purnell
CJASN Mar 2021, 16 (3) 407-414; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02720320
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords