Dr Rose-marie Scarlato1,2, Dr Nicole De La Mata2, A/Prof Philip Clayton3, Dr Sophie Harmos4, Prof Kate Wyburn1,2, Dr Melanie Wyld2,5
1Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, 2University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia, 3Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), Adelaide, Australia, 4Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, 5Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
Biography:
Early career Nephrologist who completed her training at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney. This research forms part of the completion of her advanced training in 2023 and ongoing Masters of Philosophy via research through the University of Sydney. Research interests include equity, gender disparity and intersectionality in clinical and academic nephrology.
Abstract:
Background:
Australia has fewer living donors (LD) now than it did 10-15 years ago, while New Zealand (NZ) has seen continued growth. It was hypothesised over time the LD population has become less medically complex and socio-demographically diverse.
Aim:
We aimed to assess changes over time in Australian and New Zealand LD’s ethnicity, sex, age, socio-economic position (SEP) and donor risk status. Methods: Using the ANZDATA Living Kidney Donor Registry, we included all living donors between 2004 and 2021. We used logistic and linear regression for analysis.
Results:
Of the 5764 living donors, 4556(79%) were from Australia and 1207(21%) from NZ. Mean age at donation was 50±11yrs in Australia and 45±12yrs in NZ. In NZ, donors were predominantly female(59%) and Caucasian(73%). Over time there was no change in sex(p=0.63) or age(p=0.53), but an increase in Māori(p=0.005) and non-white donors(p<0.001). In Australia donors were typically female(57%), Caucasian(82%), and SEP privileged. Over the study period Australian donors became older(p<0.001), more socio-economically advantaged(p<0.001), and less likely to be First Peoples(p<0.001). During the study period 21%(n,1229) of donors were defined ‘at risk’ of renal decline. The proportion of ‘at risk’ donors declined over time. The likelihood of donor risk acceptance was greater in Australia than New Zealand and increased with age and female gender.
Conclusion:
The donor landscape has changed over time in Australia and New Zealand with regards to age, ethnicity and socio-economic position. Donor risk acceptance has declined and shown to be impacted by socio-demographic factors.