A systematic review of immunosuppressant adherence interventions in transplant recipients: Decoding the streetlight effect.

Non-adherence to immunosuppressant medications is an important risk factor for graft dysfunction. To evaluate the effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions, we reviewed adherence intervention studies in solid organ transplant recipients (all ages). Using the following databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, we identified 41 eligible studies. Only three non-randomized trials showed a possible positive effect on objective indicators of transplant outcomes (such as rejection, liver enzyme levels, kidney function). None of the 21 RCTs showed an improvement in transplant outcomes. Three studies showed a higher rate of adverse events in the intervention group as compared with controls, although this may be related to ascertainment bias. Improvement in adherence as measured indirectly (eg, with electronic monitoring devices) was not aligned with effects on transplant outcomes. We conclude that adherence interventions, to date, have largely been ineffective in improving transplant outcomes. To improve this track record, intervention efforts may wish to concentrate on non-adherent patients (rather than use convenience sampling, which excludes many of the patients who need the intervention), use direct measures of adherence to guide the interventions, and employ strategies that are intensive and yet engaging enough to ensure that non-adherent patients are able to participate.

The Living Donor Collective: A Scientific Registry for Living Donors.

In the setting of an overall decline in living organ donation and new questions about long-term safety, a better understanding of outcomes after living donation has become imperative. Adequate information on outcomes important to donors may take many years to ascertain and may be evident only by comparing large numbers of donors with suitable controls. Previous studies have been unable to fully answer critical questions, primarily due to lack of appropriate controls, inadequate sample size, and/or follow-up duration that is too short to allow detection of important risks attributable to donation. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network does not follow donors long term and has no prospective control group with which to compare postdonation outcomes. There is a need to establish a national living donor registry and to prospectively follow donors over their lifetimes. In addition, there is a need to better understand the reasons many potential donors who volunteer to donate do not donate and whether the reasons are justified. Therefore, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to establish a national registry to address these important questions. Here, we discuss the efforts, challenges, and opportunities inherent in establishing the Living Donor Collective.

Financial Neutrality for Living Organ Donors: Reasoning, Rationale, Definitions, and Implementation Strategies.

In the United States, live organ donation can be a costly and burdensome undertaking for donors. While most donation-related medical expenses are covered, many donors still face lost wages, travel expenses, incidentals, and potential for future insurability problems. Despite widespread consensus that live donors (LD) should not be responsible for the costs associated with donation, little has changed to alleviate financial burdens for LDs in the last decade. To achieve this goal, the transplant community must actively pursue strategies and policies to eliminate unreimbursed out-of-pocket costs to LDs. Costs should be more appropriately distributed across all stakeholders; this will also make live donation possible for people who, in the current system, cannot afford to proceed. We propose the goal of LD "financial neutrality," offer an operational definition to include the coverage/reimbursement of all medical, travel, and lodging costs, along with lost wages, related to the act of donating an organ, and guidance for consideration of medical care coverage, and wage and other expense reimbursement. The intent of this report is to provide a foundation to inform discussion within the transplant community and to advance initiatives for policy and resource allocation.

The independent living donor advocate: a guidance document from the American Society of Transplantation's Living Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP).

The independent living donor advocate (ILDA) serves a mandated and supportive role in the care of the living organ donor, yet qualifications and role requirements are not clearly defined. Guidance comes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Conditions for Transplant Center Participation and interpretive guidelines, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Policy and CMS and OPTN site surveys, yet interpretation of regulations varies. Herein, the AST Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) offers seven recommendations to clarify and optimize the ILDA role: (a) the ILDA must have a certain skill set rather than a specific profession, (b) the ILDA must be educated and demonstrate competence in core knowledge components, (c) the ILDA's primary role is to assess components of informed consent, (d) centers must develop a transparent system to define ILDA independence, (e) the ILDA should have a reporting structure outside the transplant center, (f) the ILDA's role should be integrated throughout the donor care continuum, (g) the ILDA role should include a narrow "veto power." We address controversies in ILDA implementation, and offer pathways to maximize benefits and minimize limitations of approaches that may each meet regulatory requirements but confer different practice benefits. We propose a research agenda to explore the impact of the ILDA.

Consensus conference on best practices in live kidney donation: recommendations to optimize education, access, and care.

Live donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for most patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease; however, the rate of living kidney donation has declined in the United States. A consensus conference was held June 5-6, 2014 to identify best practices and knowledge gaps pertaining to live donor kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. Transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders discussed processes for educating transplant candidates and potential living donors about living kidney donation; efficiencies in the living donor evaluation process; disparities in living donation; and financial and systemic barriers to living donation. We summarize the consensus recommendations for best practices in these educational and clinical domains, future research priorities, and possible public policy initiatives to remove barriers to living kidney donation.

When good intentions are not enough: obtaining follow-up data in living kidney donors.

The Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) has increased the amount of data collected before and after donation and increased the duration of donor follow-up to 2 years, yet there is evidence that reporting is incomplete. We examined the frequency of missing data in the OPTN/UNOS donor follow-up registry and found that reporting rates were low, particularly for donors who may have limited access to health care. We argue that a national donor follow-up registry is essential to ensure transparency in ascertaining long-term health outcomes among all living donors and in providing assessments of quality assurance within transplant programs. We have suggested approaches to strengthen the donor follow-up registry system. These include setting clear and high standards for follow-up reporting, a system of incentives and penalties that would motivate transplant centers to comply with these standards and would encourage donors to follow-up and lifelong follow-up reporting by primary care providers. We argue that the US government must provide funding to support a donor follow-up registry that can allow for meaningful and valid conclusions, in recognition of donors' public service and to maintain trust in the system of living organ donation.

Pulmonary embolus originating from renal vein stump thrombus after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: case report.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is an uncommon, life-threatening complication after living donor nephrectomy (LDN), and is considered among the most common causes for donor mortality. Most cases of postoperative PEs are thought to originate in deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremities. CASE REPORT: A 56-year-old, healthy woman underwent laparoscopic left LDN. Her postoperative course was complicated by PE, presenting at postoperative day 7. Doppler ultrasonography of her lower extremities did not demonstrate DVT. Both transthoracic echocardiogram and contrast-enhanced computed tomography demonstrated a floating thrombus within the inferior vena cava (IVC) originating from a thrombus in the left renal vein stump. Symptoms resolved with systemic anticoagulation. Repeat transesophageal echocardiography demonstrated resolution of the IVC thrombus. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombus originating in left renal vein stump should be considered in patients who develop PE after LDN, especially when lower extremity DVT is not demonstrated.

Select utilization of obese donors in living donor liver transplantation: implications for the donor pool.

Living donor liver transplantation evolved in response to donor shortage. Current guidelines recommend potential living donors (LD) have a body mass index (BMI) <30. With the current obesity epidemic, locating nonobese LD is difficult. From September 1999 to August 2003, 68 LD with normal liver function test (LFTs) and without significant comorbidities underwent donor hepatectomy at our center. Post-operative complications were collected, including wound infection, pneumonia, hernia, fever, ileus, biliary leak, biliary stricture, thrombosis, bleeding, hepatic dysfunction, thrombocytopenia, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, difficult to control pain, depression and anxiety. Complication rates for LD with BMI >30 (n = 16) and BMI <30 (n = 52) were compared. The incidence of wound infection increased with BMI, 4% for nonobese and 25% for obese LD (p = 0.024). There were no statistically significant differences for all other complications. No LD died. Recipient survival was 100% with obese LD and 80% with nonobese LD (p = 0.1). Select donors with a BMI >30 may undergo donor hepatectomy with acceptable morbidity and excellent recipient results. Updating current guidelines to include select LD with BMI >30 has the potential to safely increase the donor pool.