Essays in Development Economics and Global Health

The chapters in this dissertation provide insights into different aspects of the SDG research agenda. The chapters also both incorporate publicly available secondary data sources as well as newly collected survey data. Depending on the chapter, analyses were done either for a pooled sample or a single country. Chapters II-V address questions around SDGs #2 Zero Hunger and #3 Good Health and Well-Being, by incorporating secondary data from between 56-61 different low- and middle-income countries in pooled analyses. Chapter VI addresses the interface of SDGs #1 No poverty and #3 Good Health and Well-Being by looking at the Kenyan labor market impacts from COVID-19 mobility restrictions. While Kenya has been subject to extensive development research before, it is important to highlight that there are certain restrictions regarding representability of Chapter VI for other low-and middle-income countries, given that Kenya varies considerably in terms of social structure, culture, and political environment from other African countries, let alone other LMICs from Asia or South America.2023-10-0

The transplant cohort of the German center for infection research (DZIF Tx-Cohort) : study design and baseline characteristics

Infectious complications are the major cause of morbidity and mortality after solid organ and stem cell transplantation. To better understand host and environmental factors associated with an increased risk of infection as well as the effect of infections on function and survival of transplanted organs, we established the DZIF Transplant Cohort, a multicentre prospective cohort study within the organizational structure of the German Center for Infection Research. At time of transplantation, heart-, kidney-, lung-, liver-, pancreas- and hematopoetic stem cell- transplanted patients are enrolled into the study. Follow-up visits are scheduled at 3, 6, 9, 12 months after transplantation, and annually thereafter; extracurricular visits are conducted in case of infectious complications. Comprehensive standard operating procedures, web-based data collection and monitoring tools as well as a state of the art biobanking concept for blood, purified PBMCs, urine, and faeces samples ensure high quality of data and biosample collection. By collecting detailed information on immunosuppressive medication, infectious complications, type of infectious agent and therapy, as well as by providing corresponding biosamples, the cohort will establish the foundation for a broad spectrum of studies in the field of infectious diseases and transplant medicine. By January 2020, baseline data and biosamples of about 1400 patients have been collected. We plan to recruit 3500 patients by 2023, and continue follow-up visits and the documentation of infectious events at least until 2025. Information about the DZIF Transplant Cohort is available at https://www.dzif.de/en/working-group/transplant-cohort

Impact of deceased-donor characteristics on early graft function: outcome of kidney donor pairs accepted for transplantation

IntroductionThe impact of deceased donor characteristics on kidney transplant outcomes is controversial. Correspondingly, the predictive performance of deceased donor scores remains moderate, and many transplant centers lack validated criteria for graft acceptance decisions. To better dissect donor-related risk from recipient and periprocedural variables, we analyzed outcomes of kidney donor pairs transplanted in different individuals.MethodsThis study explored (a)symmetry of early outcomes of 328 cadaveric kidney transplant recipients from 164 donor pairs transplanted at three Eurotransplant centers. The primary discriminatory factor was (a)symmetry of partner graft function, defined as early graft loss or impaired graft function [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min] 3 months after transplantation. We reasoned that a relevant impact of donor factors would result in a high concordance rate of limited graft function or failure.ResultsThe observed number of symmetric graft failure after transplantation was less than statistically expected (3 months: 1 versus 2, p = 0.89; and 12 months: 3 versus 5, p = 0.26). However, we found a trend toward an impaired 5-year graft survival of grafts with good function 3 months after transplantation but a failed or impaired partner graft compared to symmetrically well-functioning grafts (p = 0.09). Subsequently, we explored the impact of individual donor and recipient variables on early transplant outcomes. Generalized estimating equations after feature selection with LassoGEE bootstrap selected donor age, donor body mass index, and donor eGFR as the relevant risk factors.DiscussionOur findings indicate that donor factors impact early outcomes in kidney transplantation but may have a limited role in long-term graft survival, once a graft has been accepted for transplantation. Utilizing donor-based clinical scores has the potential to aid clinicians in acceptance decisions, giving them an estimate of individual posttransplant outcomes. However, the ultimate decision for acceptance should rest with clinicians, who must consider the complex interplay of donor factors, as well as recipient and periprocedural characteristics

Evaluation of deceased-donor kidney offers: development and validation of novel data driven and expert based prediction models for early transplant outcomes

In the face of growing transplant waitlists and aging donors, sound pre-transplant evaluation of organ offers is paramount. However, many transplant centres lack clear criteria on organ acceptance. Often, previous scores for donor characterisation have not been validated for the Eurotransplant population and are not established to support graft acceptance decisions. Here, we investigated 1353 kidney transplantations at three different German centres to develop and validate novel statistical models for the prediction of early adverse graft outcome (EAO), defined as graft loss or CKD ≥4 within three months. The predictive models use generalised estimating equations (GEE) accounting for potential correlations between paired grafts from the same donor. Discriminative accuracy and calibration were determined via internal and external validation in the development (935 recipients, 309 events) and validation cohort (418 recipients, 162 events) respectively. The expert model is based on predictor ratings by senior transplant nephrologists, while for the data-driven model variables were selected via high-dimensional lasso generalised estimating equations (LassoGee). Both models show moderate discrimination for EAO (C-statistic expert model: 0,699, data-driven model 0,698) with good calibration. In summary, we developed novel statistical models that represent current clinical consensus and are tailored to the older deceased donor population. Compared to KDRI, our described models are sparse with only four and three predictors respectively and account for paired grafts from the same donor, while maintaining a discriminative accuracy equal or better than the established KDRI-score

Assessment of Undernutrition Among Children in 55 Low- and Middle-Income Countries Using Dietary and Anthropometric Measures

Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 202

High-urgency kidney transplantation in the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System: success or waste of organs? The Eurotransplant 15-year all-centre survey.

BACKGROUND: In the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS), transplant candidates can be considered for high-urgency (HU) status in case of life-threatening inability to undergo renal replacement therapy. Data on the outcomes of HU transplantation are sparse and the benefit is controversial. METHODS: We systematically analysed data from 898 ET HU kidney transplant recipients from 61 transplant centres between 1996 and 2010 and investigated the 5-year patient and graft outcomes and differences between relevant subgroups. RESULTS: Kidney recipients with an HU status were younger (median 43 versus 55 years) and spent less time on the waiting list compared with non-HU recipients (34 versus 54 months). They received grafts with significantly more mismatches (mean 3.79 versus 2.42; P < 0.001) and the percentage of retransplantations was remarkably higher (37.5 versus 16.7%). Patient survival (P = 0.0053) and death with a functioning graft (DwFG; P < 0.0001) after HU transplantation were significantly worse than in non-HU recipients, whereas graft outcome was comparable (P = 0.094). Analysis according to the different HU indications revealed that recipients listed HU because of an imminent lack of access for dialysis had a significantly worse patient survival (P = 0.0053) and DwFG (P = 0.0462) compared with recipients with psychological problems and suicidality because of dialysis. In addition, retransplantation had a negative impact on patient and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Facing organ shortages, increasing wait times and considerable mortality on dialysis, we question the current policy of HU allocation and propose more restrictive criteria with regard to individuals with vascular complications or repeated retransplantations in order to support patients on the non-HU waiting list with a much better long-term prognosis