Frailty and cognitive function are often measured during kidney transplant evaluation. However, patient perspectives on the ethical considerations of this practice are unclear. What are patient perspectives on the use of aging metrics in kidney transplant decision-making? One hundred participants who were evaluated for kidney transplantation and were enrolled in an ongoing prospective cohort study (response rate = 61.3%) were surveyed. Participants were informed of the definitions of frailty and cognitive impairment and then asked survey questions regarding the use of these measures of aging to determine kidney transplant candidacy. Participants (75.6%) thought it was unfair to prevent older adults from receiving a kidney transplant based on age, but there was less agreement on whether it was fair to deny frail (46.5%) and cognitively impaired (45.9%) patients from accessing kidney transplantation. Compared to older participants, younger participants had 5.36-times (95%CI:1.94-14.81) the odds of choosing a hypothetical younger, frail patient to list for kidney transplantation than an older, non-frail patient; they also had 3.56-times (95%CI:1.33-9.56) the odds of choosing the hypothetical frail patient with social support rather than a non-frail patient without social support. Participants disagreed on the use of patient age as a listing criterion; 19.5% ranked it as the fairest and 28.7% as the least fair. The patient views highlighted in this study are an important step toward developing ethical guidelines to ensure fair use of frailty, cognitive function, and chronological age for kidney transplant decision-making.

Introduction: Neurocognitive and motor impairments are often observed both before and after liver transplantation, resulting in inefficiencies in dual-task performance. Specific aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the motor-cognitive dual-task performance in liver recipients, with a particular emphasis on cognition, performance status, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: A prospective, cross-sectional, web-based design with a control group was used. The study included 22 liver transplant recipients and 23 controls. Participants completed a motor-cognitive dual-task test (timed up and go test, TUG), a cognitive assessment (mini mental state examination), and a physical performance test (5-repetition sit-to-stand test). The study also used a functional performance status scale (The Karnofsky performance status) and assessed fear of coronavirus disease (fear of COVID-19 scale). Dual-task interference was assessed and the rate of correct responses per second was calculated to assess cognitive performance. Results: The results indicated no statistically significant difference in TUG time and TUG correct responses per second between the groups (group × condition interactions; P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in cognitive and motor dual-task interference during the TUG test between the two groups (P > 0.05). The Karnofsky Performance Status score was significantly correlated with TUG motor dual-task interference (r = -0.424 and P = 0.049). Conclusion: This study suggests that dual-task performance does not differ in cognitive or motor performance between liver recipients and healthy controls under the same dual-task condition. However, further controlled studies are needed to improve the generalizability of these findings.

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and alcohol-induced deaths have increased dramatically over the last 2 decades. Patients are often referred to liver transplant programs critically ill with a life expectancy of less than 6 months. Historically, less than 6 months sobriety has been an absolute contraindication for transplant listing as ALD is stigmatized as a choice, as patients are responsible for their condition because they did not stop drinking. It has been recommended that 6 months of sobriety should not be considered the determining factor for access to transplantation. However, changing years of clinical practice involves developing new protocols, finding available resources, reworking systems, transforming team, and institutional culture. Steps taken by a large, urban, academic liver transplant program to develop a program for patients with end stage ALD with less than 6 months of sobriety are outlined.

Introduction: Improving public awareness about the opportunity to become a vascularized composite allograft (VCA) donor is crucial to increasing access to organs. Prior research identified a need for comprehensive and comprehensible public education materials. A 2-round Delphi panel was conducted to garner US expert consensus on the topics and language to include in public education materials via an organ procurement organization-hosted website. Methods: The round 1 survey assessed the importance of educational topics and statements (n = 19) using 5-point Likert scales. The round 2 survey asked experts to rate new and repeated educational topics (n = 27). Open-ended comment boxes elicited experts' feedback and language revisions for educational statements. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid qualitative analysis. Findings: Eighteen experts responded to the round 1 survey and 15 to round 2. After round 2, 20 topics had mean (M) importance greater than neutral (M > 3.00) and were retained in the educational materials. The 5 most important topics by mean Likert ratings were: consent process for donation (M = 4.73), potential recipients (M = 4.73), most common vascularized composite organs transplanted (M = 4.47), purpose (M = 4.47), and definition (M = 4.47). Seven themes emerged from experts' open-ended comments about the importance and language of educational statements. Conclusions: Delphi panel findings identified expert-endorsed topics and educational statements for public education about vascularized composite organ donation via an educational website. Future research should assess the website's impact on public knowledge of VCA donation.

Introduction: Medication education and adherence assessments are integral to kidney transplant success. This program evaluation aimed to describe candidate-reported findings using a standardized medication adherence assessment in candidates undergoing living-donor kidney transplantation. Design: This was a single-center retrospective description of medication adherence on adult HIV-negative living-donor candidates from July 1, 2018 to December 1, 2018 who had ≥6 months post-operative follow-up. Medication adherence assessments were performed by a pharmacist at the pre-operative visit within 2 weeks prior to transplant. Candidates were considered to (a) have adherence concerns if they reported missed/late medications within 2 weeks of assessment or ever stopped a medication without medical advice and (b) considered using adherence strategies if they reported active use of pill box, method to keep track of refills/auto-refill use, medication list, or medication reminder(s). Missed medication data were collected at 3- and 6-months posttransplant. Results: Among 181 candidates included, 81 (45%) had adherence concerns and 169 (93%) reported using adherence strategies. There were no significant differences with adherence concerns by age ≤ 29 years, sex, race, prior transplant/dialysis, or less than a high school education. More candidates with greater than a high school education used adherence strategies (96% vs 86%, P = .002). Too few candidates had documentation on missing medications at 3 and 6 months. Conclusions: Over 40% of candidates reported characteristics concerning medication nonadherence despite over 90% reporting adherence strategies used. Medication adherence assessments can assist with identification of medication nonadherence and education individualization.