Stauffer, William M.

AbstractBackgroundForeign‐born kidney transplant recipients (FBKTRs) are at increased risk for reactivation of latent infections that may impact outcomes. We aimed to compare the etiology of infections and outcomes between FBKTR and United States KTRs (USKTR).MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent kidney transplantation between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 at two transplant centers in Minnesota. Frequency and etiology of infections as well as outcomes (graft function, rejection, and patient survival) at 1‐year post‐transplant between FBKTR and USKTR were compared.ResultsOf the 573 transplant recipients, 124 (21.6%) were foreign‐born and 449 (78.4%) US‐born. At least one infection occurred in 411 (71.7%) patients (38.2% bacterial, 55% viral, 9.4% fungal). Viral infections were more frequent in FBKTR, particularly BK viremia (38.7% vs. 21.2%, p < .001). No statistical differences were found for bacterial or fungal infections; no parasitic infections were identified in either group. No geographically‐restricted infections were noted aside from a single case of Madura foot in a FBKTR. Rejection episodes were more common in USKTR (p = .037), but stable/improving graft function (p = .976) and mortality (p = .451) at 1‐year posttransplantation were similar in both groups. After adjusting for covariates, previous transplantation was associated with a higher number of infections (IRR 1.35, 95% confidence intervals 1.05–1.73, p = .020).ConclusionAlthough viral infections were more frequent in FBKTR, overall frequency and etiology of most infections and outcomes were similar between FBKTR and USKTR suggesting that comprehensive transplant care is providing timely prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of latent infections in FBKTR. image

ABSTRACT. Global health education programs should strive continually to improve the quality of education, increase access, create communities that foster excellence in global health practices, and ensure sustainability. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the University of Minnesota’s extensive global health education programs, which includes a decade of hybrid online and in-person programing, to move completely online. We share our experience, a working framework for evaluating global health educational programming, and lessons learned. Over the decades we have moved from a predominantly passive, lecture-based, in-person course to a hybrid online (passive) course with an intensive hands-on 2-week requirement. The pandemic forced us to explore new active online learning models. We retained our on-demand, online passive didactics, which used experts’ time efficiently and was widely accessible and well received. In addition, we developed a highly effective synchronous online component that we felt replaced some of the hands-on activities effectively and led us to develop new and innovative “hands-on” experiences. This new, fully online model combining quality asynchronous and synchronous learning provided many unanticipated advantages, such as increasing access while decreasing our carbon footprint dramatically. By sharing our experience, lessons learned, and resources, we hope to inspire other programs likewise to innovate to improve quality, access, community, and sustainability in global health, especially if these innovations can help decrease negative aspects of global health education such as its environmental impact.