Waitlist Outcomes of Liver Transplant Candidates Who Were Reprioritized Under Share 35.

Under Share 35, deceased donor (DD) livers are offered regionally to candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥35 before being offered locally to candidates with MELD scores <35. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from June 2013 to June 2015, we identified 1768 DD livers exported to regional candidates with MELD scores ≥35 who were transplanted at a median MELD score of 39 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-40) with 30-day posttransplant survival of 96%. In total, 1764 (99.8%) exports had an ABO-compatible candidate in the recovering organ procurement organization (OPO), representing 1219 unique reprioritized candidates who would have had priority over the regional candidate under pre-Share 35 allocation. Reprioritized candidates had a median waitlist MELD score of 31 (IQR 27-34) when the liver was exported. Overall, 291 (24%) reprioritized candidates had a comparable MELD score (within 3 points of the regional recipient), and 209 (72%) were eventually transplanted in 11 days (IQR 3-38 days) using a local (50%), regional (50%) or national (<1%) liver; 60 (21%) died, 13 (4.5%) remained on the waitlist and nine (3.1%) were removed for other reasons. Of those eventually transplanted, MELD score did not increase in 57%; it increased by 1-3 points in 37% and by ≥4 points in 5.7% after the export. In three cases, OPOs exchanged regional exports within a 24-h window. The majority of comparable reprioritized candidates were not disadvantaged; however, 21% died after an export.

The Impact of Redistricting Proposals on Health Care Expenditures for Liver Transplant Candidates and Recipients.

Redistricting, which means sharing organs in novel districts developed through mathematical optimization, has been proposed to reduce pervasive geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation. The economic impact of redistricting was evaluated with two distinct data sources, Medicare claims and the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC). We estimated total Medicare payments under (i) the current allocation system (Share 35), (ii) full regional sharing, (iii) an eight-district plan, and (iv) a four-district plan for a simulated population of patients listed for liver transplant over 5 years, using the liver simulated allocation model. The model predicted 5-year transplant volumes (Share 35, 29,267; regional sharing, 29,005; eight districts, 29,034; four districts, 28,265) and a reduction in overall mortality, including listed and posttransplant patients, of up to 676 lives. Compared with current allocation, the eight-district plan was estimated to reduce payments for pretransplant care ($1638 million to $1506 million, p < 0.001), transplant episode ($5607 million to $5569 million, p < 0.03) and posttransplant care ($479 million to $488 million, p < 0.001). The eight-district plan was estimated to increase per-patient transportation costs for organs ($8988 to $11,874 per patient, p < 0.001) and UHC estimated hospital costs ($4699 per case). In summary, redistricting appears to be potentially cost saving for the health care system but will increase the cost of performing liver transplants for some transplant centers.

Early changes in liver distribution following implementation of Share 35.

In June 2013, a change to the liver waitlist priority algorithm was implemented. Under Share 35, regional candidates with MELD ≥ 35 receive higher priority than local candidates with MELD < 35. We compared liver distribution and mortality in the first 12 months of Share 35 to an equivalent time period before. Under Share 35, new listings with MELD ≥ 35 increased slightly from 752 (9.2% of listings) to 820 (9.7%, p = 0.3), but the proportion of deceased-donor liver transplants (DDLTs) allocated to recipients with MELD ≥ 35 increased from 23.1% to 30.1% (p < 0.001). The proportion of regional shares increased from 18.9% to 30.4% (p < 0.001). Sharing of exports was less clustered among a handful of centers (Gini coefficient decreased from 0.49 to 0.34), but there was no evidence of change in CIT (p = 0.8). Total adult DDLT volume increased from 4133 to 4369, and adjusted odds of discard decreased by 14% (p = 0.03). Waitlist mortality decreased by 30% among patients with baseline MELD > 30 (SHR = 0.70, p < 0.001) with no change for patients with lower baseline MELD (p = 0.9). Posttransplant length-of-stay (p = 0.2) and posttransplant mortality (p = 0.9) remained unchanged. In the first 12 months, Share 35 was associated with more transplants, fewer discards, and lower waitlist mortality, but not at the expense of CIT or early posttransplant outcomes.

Addressing geographic disparities in liver transplantation through redistricting.

Severe geographic disparities exist in liver transplantation; for patients with comparable disease severity, 90-day transplant rates range from 18% to 86% and death rates range from 14% to 82% across donation service areas (DSAs). Broader sharing has been proposed to resolve geographic inequity; however, we hypothesized that the efficacy of broader sharing depends on the geographic partitions used. To determine the potential impact of redistricting on geographic disparity in disease severity at transplantation, we combined existing DSAs into novel regions using mathematical redistricting optimization. Optimized maps and current maps were evaluated using the Liver Simulated Allocation Model. Primary analysis was based on 6700 deceased donors, 28 063 liver transplant candidates, and 242 727 Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) changes in 2010. Fully regional sharing within the current regional map would paradoxically worsen geographic disparity (variance in MELD at transplantation increases from 11.2 to 13.5, p = 0.021), although it would decrease waitlist deaths (from 1368 to 1329, p = 0.002). In contrast, regional sharing within an optimized map would significantly reduce geographic disparity (to 7.0, p = 0.002) while achieving a larger decrease in waitlist deaths (to 1307, p = 0.002). Redistricting optimization, but not broader sharing alone, would reduce geographic disparity in allocation of livers for transplant across the United States.

Center-level utilization of kidney paired donation.

With many multicenter consortia and a United Network for Organ Sharing program, participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) has become mainstream in the United States and should be feasible for any center that performs live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Lack of participation in KPD may significantly disadvantage patients with incompatible donors. To explore utilization of this modality, we analyzed adjusted center-specific KPD rates based on casemix of adult LDKT-eligible patients at 207 centers between 2006 and 2011 using SRTR data. From 2006 to 2008, KPD transplants became more evenly distributed across centers, but from 2008 to 2011 the distribution remained unchanged (Gini coefficient = 0.91 for 2006, 0.76 for 2008 and 0.77 for 2011), showing an unfortunate stall in dissemination. At the 10% of centers with the highest KPD rates, 9.9-38.5% of LDKTs occurred through KPD during 2009-2011; if all centers adopted KPD at rates observed in the very high-KPD centers, the number of KPD transplants per year would increase by a factor of 3.2 (from 494 to 1593). Broader implementation of KPD across a wide number of centers is crucial to properly serve transplant candidates with healthy but incompatible live donors.

Dynamic challenges inhibiting optimal adoption of kidney paired donation: findings of a consensus conference.

While kidney paired donation (KPD) enables the utilization of living donor kidneys from healthy and willing donors incompatible with their intended recipients, the strategy poses complex challenges that have limited its adoption in United States and Canada. A consensus conference was convened March 29-30, 2012 to address the dynamic challenges and complexities of KPD that inhibit optimal implementation. Stakeholders considered donor evaluation and care, histocompatibility testing, allocation algorithms, financing, geographic challenges and implementation strategies with the goal to safely maximize KPD at every transplant center. Best practices, knowledge gaps and research goals were identified and summarized in this document.

Equal Opportunity Supplemented by Fair Innings: equity and efficiency in allocating deceased donor kidneys.

For 7 years, the Kidney Transplantation Committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network has attempted to revise the kidney allocation algorithm for adults (≥18 years) in end-stage renal disease awaiting deceased donor kidney transplants. Changes to the kidney allocation system must conform to the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) which clearly states that allocation must take into account both efficiency (graft and person survival) and equity (fair distribution). In this article, we evaluate three allocation models: the current system, age-matching and a two-step model that we call "Equal Opportunity Supplemented by Fair Innings (EOFI)". We discuss the different conceptions of efficiency and equity employed by each model and evaluate whether EOFI could actually achieve the NOTA criteria of balancing equity and efficiency given current conditions of growing scarcity and donor-candidate age mismatch.

MELD Exceptions and Rates of Waiting List Outcomes.

Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based allocation of deceased donor livers allows exceptions for patients whose score may not reflect their true mortality risk. We hypothesized that organ procurement organizations (OPOs) may differ in exception practices, use of exceptions may be increasing over time, and exception patients may be advantaged relative to other patients. We analyzed longitudinal MELD score, exception and outcome in 88 981 adult liver candidates as reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from 2002 to 2010. Proportion of patients receiving an HCC exception was 0-21.4% at the OPO-level and 11.9-18.8% at the region level; proportion receiving an exception for other conditions was 0.0%-13.1% (OPO-level) and 3.7-9.5 (region-level). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exceptions rose over time (10.5% in 2002 vs. 15.5% in 2008, HR = 1.09 per year, p<0.001) as did other exceptions (7.0% in 2002 vs. 13.5% in 2008, HR = 1.11, p<0.001). In the most recent era of HCC point assignment (since April 2005), both HCC and other exceptions were associated with decreased risk of waitlist mortality compared to nonexception patients with equivalent listing priority (multinomial logistic regression odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 for HCC, OR = 0.43 for other, p<0.001) and increased odds of transplant (OR = 1.65 for HCC, OR = 1.33 for other, p<0.001). Policy advantages patients with MELD exceptions; differing rates of exceptions by OPO may create, or reflect, geographic inequity.

The roles of dominos and nonsimultaneous chains in kidney paired donation.

Efforts to expand kidney paired donation have included matching nondirected donors (NDDs) to incompatible pairs. In domino paired donation (DPD), an NDD gives to the recipient of an incompatible pair, beginning a string of simultaneous transplants that ends with a living donor giving to a recipient on the deceased donor waitlist. Recently, nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor (NEAD) chains were introduced. In a NEAD chain, the last donor of the string of transplants initiated by an NDD is reserved to donate at a later time. Our aim was to project the impact of each of these strategies over 2 years of operation for paired donation programs that also allocate a given number of NDDs. Each NDD facilitated an average of 1.99 transplants using DPD versus 1.90 transplants using NEAD chains (p = 0.3), or 1.0 transplants donating directly to the waitlist (p < 0.001). NEAD chains did not yield more transplants compared with simultaneous DPD. Both DPD and NEAD chains relax reciprocality requirements and rebalance the blood-type distribution of donors. Because traditional paired donation will leave many incompatible pairs unmatched, novel approaches like DPD and NEAD chains must be explored if paired donation programs are to help a greater number of people.

Expanding kidney paired donation through participation by compatible pairs.

In kidney paired donation (KPD), incompatible pairs exchange kidneys so that each recipient receives a compatible organ. This modality is underutilized partly because of the difficulty of finding a suitable match among incompatible pairs. Alternatively, recipients with compatible donors might enter KPD arrangements in order to be matched with a donor predicted to give greater allograft durability or for other altruistic reasons. Using simulated donors and recipients, we investigated the impact of allowing recipients and their compatible donors to participate in KPD. For KPD programs of any size, the participation of compatible donor/recipient pairs nearly doubled the match rate for incompatible pairs (28.2% to 64.5% for single-center program, 37.4% to 75.4% for national program). Legal, logistical, and governmental controversies have hampered the expansion of KPD in the United States by delaying the creation of a national program. The inclusion of compatible pairs into small single-center pools could achieve match rates that would surpass that which could be realized by a national list made up of only incompatible pairs. This new paradigm of KPD can immediately be instituted at the single-center level, while the greatest gains will be achieved by incorporating compatible pairs into a national program.

Association between waiting times for kidney transplantation and rates of live donation.

A deceased donor (DD) allocation system incorporating net life survival benefit has been proposed. In this system, many kidneys will be shifted to younger recipients, thereby decreasing their waiting times. The goal of this study was to determine the potential effects of altering waiting times on the likelihood of live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). We analyzed 93,727 waiting list candidates to determine the association of various patient factors with likelihood of LDKT. The proportion of patients receiving LDKT was compared by the median DD waiting time at that patient's transplant center for someone of that patient's age category and race. LDKT was consistently higher as waiting times became longer. After adjusting for all other factors associated with likelihood of LDKT, waiting time remained a significant, independent predictor. Patients with the longest DD waiting times had 2.3-fold higher odds of LDKT (95% CI 2.11-2.58, p < 0.001). In planning the new DD allocation policy, we must account for resulting alterations in LDKT. It is possible that shifting DD kidneys to younger recipients may decrease LDKT or shift it to older recipients, net effects not consistent with the goal of net life survival benefit.

Cold ischemia time and allograft outcomes in live donor renal transplantation: is live donor organ transport feasible?

One of the greatest obstacles to the implementation of regional or national kidney paired donation programs (KPD) is the need for the donor to travel to their matched recipient's hospital. While transport of the kidney is an attractive alternative, there is concern that prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) would diminish the benefits of live donor transplantation (LDTx). To examine the impact of increased CIT in LDTx, 1-year serum creatinine (SCr), delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR) and allograft survival (AS) were analyzed in 38 467 patients by 2 h CIT groups (0-2, 2-4, 4-6 and 6-8 h) using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (UNOS/OPTN). Adjusted probabilities of DGF and AR were estimated in multivariate logistic regression models and AS was examined in multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Although some increase in DGF was observed between the 0-2 h (4.7%) and 4-6 h (8.3%) groups, prolonged CIT did not result in inferior SCr, increased AR or compromised AS in any group with >2 h CIT compared with the 0-2 h group. Comparable long-term outcomes for these grafts suggests that transport of live donor organs may be a feasible alternative to donor travel in KPD regions where CIT can be limited to 8 h.

Caring for lesbians in a homophobic society.

Lesbians and gays have suffered for centuries from stigmatization by homophobic, heterosexual people in Western society. It is critical for health care providers to have an understanding of alternative life-styles and the unique health concerns of homosexual people in order to provide sensitive and knowledgeable health care. Lesbian health issues such as assessing the sexual orientation of lesbians, parenting issues, lesbian battering, and the older lesbian woman are discussed. My intent in writing this article is to increase the sensitivity, knowledge, and awareness of health care providers caring for lesbians in a homophobic society.