Assessing LSAM's ability to account for changes in organ donation and transplant center behavior.

The Liver Simulated Allocation Model (LSAM) is used to evaluate proposed organ allocation policies. Although LSAM has been shown to predict the directionality of changes in transplants and nonused organs, the magnitude is often overestimated. One reason is that policymakers and researchers using LSAM assume static levels of organ donation and center behavior because of challenges with predicting future behavior. We sought to assess the ability of LSAM to account for changes in organ donation and organ acceptance behavior using LSAM 2019. We ran 1-year simulations with the default model and then ran simulations changing donor arrival rates (ie, organ donation) and center acceptance behavior. Changing the donor arrival rate was associated with a progressive simulated increase in transplants, with corresponding simulated decreases in waitlist deaths. Changing parameters related to organ acceptance was associated with important changes in transplants, nonused organs, and waitlist deaths in the expected direction in data simulations, although to a much lesser degree than changing the donor arrival rate. Increasing the donor arrival rate was associated with a marked decrease in the travel distance of donor livers in simulations. In conclusion, we demonstrate that LSAM can account for changes in organ donation and organ acceptance in a manner aligned with historical precedent that can inform future policy analyses. As Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients develops new simulation programs, the importance of considering changes in donation and center practice is critical to accurately estimate the impact of new allocation policies.

What is visible is fixable: Visual dashboards for multi-domain assessment of organ procurement organization performance.

With stakeholder focus on the United States organ procurement system, there is a need for tools that permit comparative assessment of organ procurement providers. We developed a public-facing dashboard for organ procurement organizations (OPOs), using data from multiple sources, to create an online, readily accessible visualization of OPO practice conditions and performance for the period 2010-2020. With this tool, OPOs can be compared on the CMS metric of donors procured per 100 donation-consistent deaths, as well as donation after circulatory death procurement, procurement of older and minority patient populations, procurement in smaller hospitals, and procurement of patients without a significant drug history. Patterns of higher performance were identified, and 74% of differences in overall donor procurement rates could be explained using model variables. Procurement differences were affected to a greater and more reproducible degree by OPO performance among Black and non-White patient populations, as well as in smaller hospitals, than by donation service area characteristics. Dashboards such as ours support OPOs and stakeholders in quality improvement actions, through leveraging benchmarked performance data among organ procurement clinical providers.

Identifying and understanding variation in population-based access to liver transplantation in the United States.

We aimed to identify variations in liver transplant access across transplant referral regions (TRRs), accounting for differences in population characteristics and practice environments. Adult end-stage liver disease (ESLD) deaths and liver waitlist additions from 2015 to 2019 were included. The primary outcome was listing-to-death ratio (LDR). We modeled the LDR as a continuous variable and obtained adjusted LDR estimates for each TRR, accounting for clinical and demographic characteristics of ESLD decedents, socioeconomic and health care environment within the TRR, and characteristics of the transplant environment. The overall mean LDR was 0.24 (range: 0.10-0.53). In the final model, proportion of patients living in poverty and concentrated poverty was negatively associated with LDR; organ donation rate was positively associated with LDR. The R2 was 0.60, indicating that 60% of the variability in LDR was explained by the model. Approximately 40% of this variation remained unexplained and may be due to transplant center behaviors amenable to intervention to improve access to care for patients with ESLD.

Examining utilization of kidneys as a function of procurement performance.

Questions have arisen around new metrics for organ procurement organizations (OPO) due to the perception that low-performing OPOs may be limited by local centers' acceptance of marginal organs. We reviewed 2013-2019 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OTPN) and National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS) data to explore the relationship between objectively measured OPO performance and utilization of deceased donor kidneys. We found that although donor recovery declined with rising age and kidney donor profile index (KDPI), OPO performance differences were evident within each age/KDPI group. By contrast, the number of discards per donor did not vary with OPO performance. Centers in donor service areas (DSAs) with lower-performing OPOs had higher local utilization and greater import of high-KDPI kidneys than did those with higher-performing OPOs. Lower rates of donor availability relative to waitlist additions may contribute to observed center acceptance behavior. Differences in center-level performance were highly visible in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) organ acceptance metrics, while SRTR OPO metrics did not detect large or persistent variation in procurement performance. Cumulatively, our findings suggest that objective measures of procurement performance can inform discussions of organ utilization, allowing for alignment of metrics in all elements of the procurement-transplantation system.

Procurement characteristics of high- and low-performing OPOs as seen in OPTN/SRTR data.

To meet new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) metrics, organ procurement organizations (OPOs) will benefit from understanding performance across decedent and hospital types. We sought to determine the utility of existing data-reporting structures for this purpose by reviewing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) OPO-Specific Reports (OSRs) from 2013 to 2019. OSRs contain both the Standardized donation rate ratio (SDRR) metric and OPO-reported numbers of "eligible deaths" and donors by hospital. Donor hospitals were characterized using information from Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, Dartmouth Atlas Hospital Service Area data, and the US Census Bureau. Hospital data reported by OPOs showed 51% higher eligible death donors and 140% higher noneligible death donors per 100 inpatient beds in CMS ranked top versus bottom-quartile OPOs. Top-quartile OPOs by the CMS metric recovered 78% more donors than those in the bottom quartile, but were indistinguishable by SDRR rankings. These differences persisted across hospital sizes, trauma case mix, and area demographics. OPOs with divergent performance were indistinguishable over time by SDRR, but showed changes to hospital-level recovery patterns in SRTR data. Contemporaneous recognition of underperformance across hospitals may provide important and actionable data for regulators and OPOs for focused quality improvement projects.

Listing at non-local transplant centers is associated with increased access to deceased donor kidney transplantation.

The ability of kidney transplant candidates to travel outside of their usual place of care varies by sociodemographic factors, potentially exacerbating disparities in access. We used Transplant Referral Regions (TRRs) to overcome previous methodological barriers of using geographic distance to assess the characteristics and outcomes of patients listed for kidney transplant at centers in neighboring TRR or beyond neighboring TRRs. Among listed kidney transplant candidates, 20.9% traveled to a neighbor and 5.6% beyond a neighbor. A higher proportion of travelers were White, had some college education, and lived in ZIP codes with lower poverty. Travel to a neighbor was associated with a 7% increase in likelihood of deceased donor transplant (cHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.09) and traveling beyond a neighbor with a 19% increase (cHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.24). Travelers had similar rates of living donor transplant and waitlist mortality as patients who did not travel; those who traveled beyond a neighbor had slightly lower posttransplant mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). In conclusion, the ability to travel outside of the recipient's assigned TRR increases access to transplantation and improves long-term survival.

County Differences in Liver Mortality in the United States: Impact of Sociodemographics, Disease Risk Factors, and Access to Care.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data have demonstrated state-wide variability in mortality rates from liver disease (cirrhosis + hepatocellular carcinoma), but data are lacking at the local level (eg, county) to identify factors associated with variability in liver disease-related mortality and hotspots of liver disease mortality. METHODS: We used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research data from 2009 to 2018 to calculate county-level, age-adjusted liver disease-related death rates. We fit multivariable linear regression models to adjust for county-level covariates related to demographics (ie, race and ethnicity), medical comorbidities (eg, obesity), access to care (eg, uninsured rate), and geographic (eg, distance to closest liver transplant center) variables. We used optimized hotspot analysis to identify clusters of liver disease mortality hotspots based on the final multivariable models. RESULTS: In multivariable models, 61% of the variability in among-county mortality was explained by county-level race/ethnicity, poverty, uninsured rates, distance to the closest transplant center, and local rates of obesity, diabetes, and alcohol use. Despite adjustment, significant within-state variability in county-level mortality rates was found. Of counties in the top fifth percentile (ie, highest mortality) of fully adjusted mortality, 60% were located in 3 states: Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. Adjusted mortality rates were highly spatially correlated, representing 5 clusters: South Florida; Appalachia and the eastern part of the Midwest; Texas and Oklahoma; New Mexico, Arizona, California, and southern Oregon; and parts of Washington and Montana. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate significant intrastate differences in liver disease-related mortality, with more than 60% of the variability explained by patient demographics, clinical risk factors for liver disease, and access to specialty liver care.

Results of a data-driven performance improvement initiative in organ donation.

New metrics for organ procurement organization (OPO) performance utilize National Center for Health Statistics data to measure cause, age, and location consistent (CALC) deaths. We used this denominator to identify opportunities for improved donor conversion at one OPO, Indiana Donor Network (INOP). We sought to determine whether such analyses are immediately actionable for quality improvement (QI) initiatives directed at increased donor conversion. CALC-based assessment of INOP's performance revealed an opportunity to improve conversion of older donors. Following the QI initiative, INOP donor yield rose by 44%, while organs transplanted rose by 29%. These changes tolerated temporary disruption around the COVID-19 pandemic. Improved donor yield was primarily seen in older groups identified by CALC-based methods. Process changes in resource allocation and monitoring were associated with a 57% increase in the number of potential donors approached in the QI period and a subsequent rise in the number of potential donor referrals, suggesting positive feedback at area hospitals. Post-intervention, INOP's projected donation performance rose from 51st to 18th among all OPOs. OPOs can use CALC death data to accurately assess donor conversion by categories including age and race/ethnicity. These data can be used in real time to inform OPO-level processes to maximize donor recovery.

Public discourse and policy change: Absence of harm from increased oversight and transparency in OPO performance.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced changes to the Final Rule for organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in November 2020, after a 23-month period of public debate. One concern among transplant stakeholders was that public focus on OPO underperformance would harm deceased donation. Using CDC-WONDER data, we studied whether donation performance dropped during the era of public debate about OPO reform (December 2018-February 2020). Overall OPO performance as measured relative to cause, age, and location-consistent deaths rose by 12.3% in 2019, compared to a median annual change of 2.5% 2009-2019. Organ recoveries exceeded seasonally adjusted forecasts by 4.2% in the first half of 2019, by 8.1% following the Executive Order issuing a mandate for OPO metric reform, and by 14.1% between the Notice of Public Rule Making and the onset of COVID-19-related systemic disruptions. We describe changes in donor phenotype in the period of increased performance; improvement was greatest for older and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, and among decedents who did not have a drug-related mechanism of death. In summary, performance during an era of intense public debate and proposed regulatory changes yielded 692 additional donors over expectations, and no detriment to organ donation was observed.

Kidney transplant program waitlisting rate as a metric to assess transplant access.

Kidney transplant program performance in the United States is commonly measured by posttransplant outcomes. Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and necessary information for patient decision-making. In this study, we propose a new metric, the waitlisting rate, defined as the ratio of patients who are waitlisted in a center relative to the person-years referred for evaluation to a program. Furthermore, we standardize the waitlisting rate relative to the state average in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The new metric was used as a proof-of-concept to assess transplant-program access compared to the existing transplant rate metric. The study cohorts were defined by linking 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data with transplant-program referral data from the Southeastern United States between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Waitlisting rate varied across the 9 Southeastern transplant programs, ranging from 10 to 22 events per 100 patient-years, whereas the program-specific waitlisting rate ratio ranged between 0.76 and 1.33. Program-specific waitlisting rate ratio was uncorrelated with the transplant rate ratio (r = -.15, 95% CI, -0.83 to 0.57). Findings warrant collection of national data on early transplant steps, such as referral, for a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.

Opportunity to increase deceased donation for United States veterans.

Recent changes to organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics have highlighted the need to identify opportunities to increase organ donation in the United States. Using data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), and Veteran Health Administration Informatics and Computing Infrastructure Clinical Data Warehouse (VINCI CDW), we sought to describe historical donation performance at Veteran Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs). We found that over the period 2010-2019, there were only 33 donors recovered from the 115 VAMCs with donor potential nationwide. VA donors had similar age-matched organ transplant yields to non-VA donors. Review of VAMC records showed a total of 8474 decedents with causes of death compatible with donation, of whom 5281 had no infectious or neoplastic comorbidities preclusive to donation. Relative to a single state comparison of adult non-VA inpatient deaths, VAMC deaths were 20 times less likely to be characterized as an eligible death by SRTR. The rate of conversion of inpatient donation-consistent deaths without preclusive comorbidities to actual donors at VAMCs was 5.9% that of adult inpatients at non-VA hospitals. Overall, these findings suggest significant opportunities for growth in donation at VAMCs.

Liver Transplantation in the Time of a Pandemic: A Widening of the Racial and Socioeconomic Health Care Gap During COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: During the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, organ transplantation was classified a CMS Tier 3b procedure which should not be postponed. The differential impact of the pandemic on access to liver transplantation was assessed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in organ access and transplant outcomes among vulnerable populations have served as obstacles in liver transplantation. METHODS: Using UNOS STARfile data, adult waitlisted candidates were identified from March 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020 (n = 21,702 pandemic) and March 1, 2019 to November 30, 2019 (n = 22,797 pre-pandemic), and further categorized and analyzed by time periods: March to May (Period 1), June to August (Period 2), and September to November (Period 3). Comparisons between pandemic and pre-pandemic groups included: Minority status, demographics, diagnosis, MELD, insurance type, and transplant center characteristics. Liver transplant centers (n = 113) were divided into tertiles by volume (small, medium, large) for further analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was fitted to assess odds of transplant. Competing risk regression was used to predict probability of removal from the waitlist due to transplantation or death and sickness. Additional temporal analyses were performed to assess changes in outcomes over the course of the pandemic. RESULTS: During Period 1 of the pandemic, Minorities showed greater reduction in both listing (-14% vs -12% Whites), and transplant (-15% vs -7% Whites), despite a higher median MELD at transplant (23 vs 20 Whites, P < 0.001). Of candidates with public insurance, Minorities demonstrated an 18.5% decrease in transplants during Period 1 (vs -8% Whites). Although large programs increased transplants during Period 1, accounting for 61.5% of liver transplants versus 53.4% pre-pandemic (P < 0.001), Minorities constituted significantly fewer transplants at these programs during this time period (27.7% pandemic vs 31.7% pre-pandemic, P = 0.04). Although improvements in disparities in candidate listings, removals, and transplants were observed during Periods 2 and 3, the adjusted odds ratio of transplant for Minorities was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.96, P = 0.001) over the entire pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19's effect on access to liver transplantation has been ubiquitous. However, Minorities, especially those with public insurance, have been disproportionately affected. Importantly, despite the uncertainty and challenges, our systems have remarkable resiliency, as demonstrated by the temporal improvements observed during Periods 2 and 3. As the pandemic persists, and the aftermath ensues, health care systems must consciously strive to identify and equitably serve vulnerable populations.

Variation in Racial Disparities in Liver Transplant Outcomes Across Transplant Centers in the United States.

Little is known about the role that transplant centers may play in perpetuating racial disparities after liver transplantation, which are unexplained by patient-level factors. We examined variation in between-center and within-center disparities among 34,114 Black and White liver transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) data. We used Cox proportional hazards models to calculate transplant center-specific Black-White hazard ratios and hierarchical survival analysis to examine potential effect modification of the race-survival association by transplant center characteristics, including transplant volume, proportion of Black patients, SRTR quality rating, and region. Models were sequentially adjusted for clinical, socioeconomic, and center characteristics. After adjustment, Black patients experienced 1.11 excess deaths after liver transplant per 100 person-years compared with White patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.56), corresponding to a 21% increased mortality risk (95% CI, 1.12-1.31). Although there was substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers, there was no evidence of effect modification by transplant center volume, proportion of minority patients seen, quality rating, or region. We found significant racial disparities in survival after transplant, with substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers that was not explained by selected center characteristics. This is the first study to directly evaluate the role transplant centers play in racial disparities in transplant outcomes. Further assessment of the qualitative factors that may drive disparities, such as selection processes and follow-up care, is needed to create effective center-level interventions to address health inequity.

Rejecting bias: The case against race adjustment for OPO performance in communities of color.

In December of 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) put out a notice of proposed rule-making for 42 CFR Part 486, specifically the section that covers the organ procurement organization (OPO) Conditions for Coverage. Most crucially, the proposed rule included two new OPO performance metrics using objective, standardized data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These new metrics would employ a denominator that included inpatient deaths from certain causes that could lead to organ donation, rather than the current unverifiable eligible death metric. Although there has been near-uniform support for replacing the eligible death denominator with CDC data, a source of contention is CMS's proposal not to adjust risk for race in their OPO outcome. Nonetheless, there have been calls for race and ethnicity to be included as risk-adjusted variables in the CMS donation metric. Herein, we lay out an argument as to why inclusion of race and ethnicity as risk adjustment variables in an OPO performance metric is not only statistically suspect but also will hide the inequities that are detrimental to optimal system performance and assurance that all patients have timely access to donation.

Utilization of deceased donors during a pandemic: argument against using SARS-CoV-2-positive donors.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly become an unprecedented pandemic that has impacted society, disrupted hospital functions, strained health care resources, and impacted the lives of transplant professionals. Despite this, organ failure and the need for transplant continues throughout the United States. Considering the perpetual scarcity of deceased donor organs, Kates et al present a viewpoint that advocates for the utilization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive donors in selected cases. We present a review of the current literature that details the potential negative consequences of COVID-19-positive donors. The factors we consider include (1) the risk of blood transmission of SARS-CoV-2, (2) involvement of donor organs, (3) lack of effective therapies, (4) exposure of health care and recovery teams, (5) disease transmission and propagation, and (6) hospital resource utilization. While we acknowledge that transplant fulfills the mission of saving lives, it is imperative to consider the consequences not only to our recipients but also to the community and to health care workers, particularly in the absence of effective preventative or curative therapies. For these reasons, we believe the evidence and risks show that COVID-19 infection should continue to remain a contraindication for donation, as has been the initial response of donation and transplant societies.

An overview of frailty in kidney transplantation: measurement, management and future considerations.

The construct of frailty was first developed in gerontology to help identify older adults with increased vulnerability when confronted with a health stressor. This article is a review of studies in which frailty has been applied to pre- and post-kidney transplantation (KT) populations. Although KT is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), KT candidates often must overcome numerous health challenges associated with ESKD before receiving KT. After KT, the impacts of surgery and immunosuppression represent additional health stressors that disproportionately impact individuals with frailty. Frailty metrics could improve the ability to identify KT candidates and recipients at risk for adverse health outcomes and those who could potentially benefit from interventions to improve their frail status. The Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) is the most commonly used frailty metric in ESKD research, and KT recipients who are frail at KT (~20% of recipients) are twice as likely to die as nonfrail recipients. In addition to the PFP, many other metrics are currently used to assess pre- and post-KT vulnerability in research and clinical practice, underscoring the need for a disease-specific frailty metric that can be used to monitor KT candidates and recipients. Although frailty is an independent risk factor for post-transplant adverse outcomes, it is not factored into the current transplant program risk-adjustment equations. Future studies are needed to explore pre- and post-KT interventions to improve or prevent frailty.

Improvements in organ donation: Riding the coattails of a national tragedy.

The US organ donation system has received attention from the highest levels of government. It has been debated whether increased donation is attributable solely to the opioid epidemic, or to broader performance improvements of the 58 OPOs. We evaluated Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data of all deceased donors from 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2018. We hierarchically created four categories: (a) donor's mechanism of death coded as "drug intoxication" by the OPO; or donor coded as another mechanism of death but his/her history noted (b) intravenous drug use, (c) non-intravenous drug use (eg, snorting), or (d) no drug use. The first three categories were grouped as "drug-related." In 2018, there were 2700 more deceased donors than 2009. While the number of donors dying from a non-drug-related death decreased by 52, the number of drug-related deaths increased by 2752 (102% of increase from 2018 vs 2009). While there have been improvements in performance at some OPOs, based on these data it is indisputable that nationally the increased number of donors is almost wholly attributable to the drug epidemic, and reflects the byproduct of a national tragedy, rather than an improved system to be celebrated.

Moving past "think local, act global": A perspective on geographic disparity.

The transplant community has debated the necessity and merits of broader organ distribution for several years, but the debate has been fundamentally shaped by inaccurate assessments of donor supply and demand. The possible legal requirements of distribution must be balanced with (a) the moral and statutory imperatives to reduce inequities resulting from socioeconomic disparity, and (b) the shortcomings of MELD in predicting mortality risk in rural areas. In this viewpoint, we use the example of liver transplantation to discuss the drivers of geographic disparity as a direct consequence of donation rates, local organ use, wealth, and poverty. Seen in this light, strategies seeking to equalize MELD at transplant across the United States risk severely exacerbating existing inequalities in access to health care.

Importance of incorporating standardized, verifiable, objective metrics of organ procurement organization performance into discussions about organ allocation.

Identifying and supporting specific organ procurement organizations (OPOs) with the greatest opportunity to increase donation rates could significantly increase the number of organs available for transplant. Accomplishing this is complicated by current Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metrics of donation rates and OPO performance that rely on eligible deaths. These data are self-reported and unverifiable and have been shown to underestimate potential organ donors. We examine the limitations of current OPO performance/donation metrics to inform discussions related to strategies to increase donation. We propose changing to a simple, verifiable, and uniformly applied donation metric. This would allow the transplant community to (1) better understand inherent differences in donor availability based on geography and (2) identify underperforming areas that would benefit from systems improvement agreements to increase donation rates.

Report from the American Society of Transplantation on frailty in solid organ transplantation.

A consensus conference on frailty in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation (AST) and endorsed by the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), and the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST) took place on February 11, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona. Input from the transplant community through scheduled conference calls enabled wide discussion of current concepts in frailty, exploration of best practices for frailty risk assessment of transplant candidates and for management after transplant, and development of ideas for future research. A current understanding of frailty was compiled by each of the solid organ groups and is presented in this paper. Frailty is a common entity in patients with end-stage organ disease who are awaiting organ transplantation, and affects mortality on the waitlist and in the posttransplant period. The optimal methods by which frailty should be measured in each organ group are yet to be determined, but studies are underway. Interventions to reverse frailty vary among organ groups and appear promising. This conference achieved its intent to highlight the importance of frailty in organ transplantation and to plant the seeds for further discussion and research in this field.