Liver sharing and organ procurement organization performance under redistricted allocation.

Concerns have been raised that optimized redistricting of liver allocation areas might have the unintended result of shifting livers from better-performing to poorer-performing organ procurement organizations (OPOs). We used liver simulated allocation modeling to simulate a 5-year period of liver sharing within either 4 or 8 optimized districts. We investigated whether each OPO's net liver import under redistricting would be correlated with 2 OPO performance metrics (observed to expected liver yield and liver donor conversion ratio), along with 2 other potential correlates (eligible deaths and incident listings above a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 15). We found no evidence that livers would flow from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs in either redistricting scenario. Instead, under these optimized redistricting plans, our simulations suggest that livers would flow from OPOs with more-than-expected eligible deaths toward those with fewer-than-expected eligible deaths and that livers would flow from OPOs with fewer-than-expected incident listings to those with more-than-expected incident listings; the latter is a pattern that is already established in the current allocation system. Redistricting liver distribution to reduce geographic inequity is expected to align liver allocation across the country with the distribution of supply and demand rather than transferring livers from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs.

New national allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States and possible effect on patient outcomes.

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States approved a new national deceased donor kidney allocation policy that introduces the kidney donor profile index (KDPI), which gives scores of 0%-100% based on 10 donor factors. Kidneys with lower KDPI scores are associated with better post-transplant survival. Important features of the new policy include first allocating kidneys from donors with a KDPI≤20% to candidates in the top 20th percentile of estimated post-transplant survival, adding waiting time from dialysis initiation, conferring priority points for a calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA)>19%, broader sharing of kidneys for candidates with a CPRA≥99%, broader sharing of kidneys from donors with a KDPI>85%, eliminating the payback system, and allocating blood type A2 and A2B kidneys to blood type B candidates. We simulated the distribution of kidneys under the new policy compared with the current allocation policy. The simulation showed increases in projected median allograft years of life with the new policy (9.07 years) compared with the current policy (8.82 years). With the new policy, candidates with a CPRA>20%, with blood type B, and aged 18-49 years were more likely to undergo transplant, but transplants declined in candidates aged 50-64 years (4.1% decline) and ≥65 years (2.7% decline). These simulations demonstrate that the new deceased donor kidney allocation policy may improve overall post-transplant survival and access for highly sensitized candidates, with minimal effects on access to transplant by race/ethnicity and declines in kidney allocation for candidates aged ≥50 years.

Allocating Deceased Donor Kidneys to Candidates with High Panel-Reactive Antibodies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In December of 2014, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network implemented a new Kidney Allocation System (KAS) for deceased donor transplant, with increased priority for highly sensitized candidates (calculated panel-reactive antibody [cPRA] >99%). We used a modified version of the new KAS to address issues of access and equity for these candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a simulation, 10,988 deceased donor kidneys transplanted into waitlisted recipients in 2010 were instead allocated to candidates with cPRA≥80% (n=18,004). Each candidate's unacceptable donor HLA antigens had been entered into the allocation system by the transplant center. In simulated match runs, kidneys were allocated sequentially to adult ABO identical or permissible candidates with cPRA 100%, 99%, 98%, etc. to 80%. Allocations were restricted to donor/recipient pairs with negative virtual crossmatches. RESULTS: The simulation indicated that 2111 of 10,988 kidneys (19.2%) would have been allocated to patients with cPRA 100% versus 74 of 10,988 (0.7%) that were actually transplanted. Of cPRA 100% candidates, 74% were predicted to be compatible with an average of six deceased donors; the remaining 26% seemed to be incompatible with every deceased donor organ that entered the system. Of kidneys actually allocated to cPRA 100% candidates in 2010, 66% (49 of 74) were six-antigen HLA matched/zero-antigen mismatched (HLA-A, -B, and -DR) with their recipients versus only 11% (237 of 2111) in the simulation. The simulation predicted that 10,356 of 14,433 (72%) candidates with cPRA 90%-100% could be allocated an organ compared with 7.3% who actually underwent transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Data in this simulation are consistent with early results of the new KAS; specifically, nearly 20% of deceased donor kidneys were (virtually) compatible with cPRA 100% candidates. Although most of these candidates were predicted to be compatible with multiple donors, approximately one-quarter are unlikely to receive a single offer.