A regulated system of incentives for living kidney donation: Clearing the way for an informed assessment.

The kidney shortage continues to be a crisis for our patients. Despite numerous attempts to increase living and deceased donation, annually in the United States, thousands of candidates are removed from the kidney transplant waiting list because of either death or becoming too sick to transplant. To increase living donation, trials of a regulated system of incentives for living donation have been proposed. Such trials may show: (1) a significant increase in donation, and (2) that informed, incentivized donors, making an autonomous decision to donate, have the same medical and psychosocial outcomes as our conventional donors. Given the stakes, the proposal warrants careful consideration. However, to date, much discussion of the proposal has been unproductive. Objections commonly leveled against it: fail to engage with it; conflate it with underground, unregulated markets; speculate without evidence; and reason fallaciously, favoring rhetorical impact over logic. The present paper is a corrective. It identifies these common errors so they are not repeated, thus allowing space for an assessment of the proposal on its merits.

How patients choose kidney transplant centers: A qualitative study of patient experiences.

Little is known about how patients make the critical decision of choosing a transplant center. In the United States, acceptance criteria, waiting times, and mortality vary significantly by geography and center. We sought to understand patients' experiences and perspectives when selecting transplant centers. We included 82 kidney transplant patients in 20 semi-structured interviews, nine focus groups with local candidates, and three focus groups with national recipients. Sites included two local transplant centers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and national recipients from across the United States. Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged related to priorities and barriers when choosing a center. Patients were often unfamiliar with options, even with multiple local centers. Patients described being referred to a specific center by a trusted provider. Patients prioritized perceived reputation, comfort, and convenience. Insurance coverage was both a source of information and a barrier to options. Patients underestimated differences across centers and the effects on being waitlisted and receiving a transplant. Barriers in decision making included an overwhelming scope of information and difficulty locating information relevant to patients with unique medical needs. Informed decisions could be improved by the dissemination of understandable information better tailored to individual patient needs.

The Relationships Between Cold Ischemia Time, Kidney Transplant Length of Stay, and Transplant-related Costs.

BACKGROUND: Recent changes in policies guiding allocation of transplant kidneys are predicted to increase sharing between distant geographic regions. The potential exists for an increase in cold ischemia time (CIT) with resulting increases in delayed graft function (DGF) and transplant-related costs (TRC). We sought to explore the impact of CIT on metrics that may influence TRC. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, 81 945 adult solitary deceased donor kidney transplants were performed in the United States; 477 (0.6%) at our institution. Regression models were constructed to describe the relationship between CIT on DGF and length of stay (LOS). Using hospital accounting data, we created regression models to evaluate the effect of DGF on LOS and TRC. RESULTS: In multivariable models, longer CIT was associated with an increased rate of DGF (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.44) and increased LOS (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05). Recipients at our institution who developed DGF had longer LOS (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.50-1.95), suggesting that the effect is partially mediated by DGF. After adjusting for LOS, neither CIT nor DGF were independently associated with increased TRC. However, an increased LOS resulted in an increase in TRC by US $3422 (95% CI, US $3180 to US $3664) per additional day, indicating that the effect of CIT on TRC is partially mediated through LOS. CONCLUSIONS: The prolongation of CIT is associated with an increase in DGF rates and LOS, resulting in increased TRC. This study raises the need to balance increased access of traditionally underserved populations to kidney transplant with the inadvertent increase in TRC.

Financial burden associated with time to return to work after living kidney donation.

Many living kidney donors undertake a significant financial burden in order to donate. We studied the association between time to return to work and reported financial burden. Kidney donors who donated from 2/2005 through 12/2015 (n = 1012) were surveyed 6 months after donation and asked about occupation, time to return to work, and financial burden (on a 10-point Likert scale). Of 856 donors working for pay, 629 (73%) responded. After adjusting for donor characteristics, increased length of time to return to work was a significant predictor of financial burden (P < .001). It is notable that those in manual/skilled trade occupations, compared with all other occupations, experienced greater financial burden for each week away from work (P = .003). Older age at donation and nondirected (vs directed) donation were associated with significantly decreased financial burden. These observations provide additional information to better inform donor candidates, and further emphasize the need to develop policies so that living kidney donation can be financially neutral.

Long-term psychosocial outcomes after nondirected donation: A single-center experience.

Short-term studies have demonstrated that nondirected donors (NDDs) have psychosocial outcomes that are similar to donors who donate directly, but long-term studies have not been done. NDDs at our center were surveyed regarding motivation; support during donation; stress related to donation; regret; financial resources used for donation; preferences about communication with the recipient; and cost reimbursement. Of 100 NDDs who donated at our center in the last 20 years, 95 remain in contact with us, and 77 responded to our survey (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 6.7 ± 4 years postdonation). The most common motivation for donation was the desire to help another (99%). Many NDDs received support from family, friends, and employers. NDDs voiced stress about the possibility of recipient kidney rejection, physical consequences to themselves, and financial burden. Only one donor expressed regret. Almost half wanted some recipient information at donation; 61% preferred routine recipient status updates; 56% believed meeting the recipient should occur at any mutually agreeable time; and 55% endorsed reimbursement for expenses. Stressors for NDDs are analogous to those of directed donors; NDDs prefer having some information about the recipient and prefer to be given a choice regarding the timing for communication with the recipient. NDDs supported donation being financially neutral.

Financial Burden Borne by Laparoscopic Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs (direct costs) and/or ongoing daily expenses while losing income (indirect costs). Yet there is little information about how much of a subjective burden these constitute for the donors. METHODS: From December 2003 through December 2014, we surveyed donors 6 months postdonation to determine their financial burden related to donation (on a scale of 1 to 10) and what resources were used to cover expenses. RESULTS: Of 1136 surveyed, 796 (70%) responded. Among respondents, mean age at donation was 43.6 ± 10.6 years, 64% were women, 96% were white, and 53% were related by blood to their recipient. Overall, 26% scored their financial burden as 5 or higher; 8% scored it as 8 or higher. Increased expenses were associated with a higher reported burden; however, significant burden was reported by some with no out-of-pocket expenses (presumably due to lost wages and continuing expenses). The burden was scored as 5 or higher by 27% of those employed outside the home (n = 660), 15% homemakers, 13% retirees, 40% students; 28% unemployed; and 26% whose occupation was unknown. Over half (51%) of those receiving a local or (means-tested) national grant still reported moderate to severe burden. Besides grants, donors used a variety of sources to help offset expenses: dipped into savings, borrowed from friends or family, took out a loan, and/or had a fundraiser. Those with the highest burden reported using the most additional sources. CONCLUSIONS: Donors should not have to incur costs or a financial burden to donate; the transplant community should strive to make donation financially neutral.

Long-term Outcomes for Living Pancreas Donors in the Modern Era.

BACKGROUND: Living donor segmental pancreas transplants (LDSPTx) have been performed selectively to offer a preemptive transplant option for simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients and to perform a single operation decreasing the cost of pancreas after kidney transplant. For solitary pancreas transplants, this option historically provided a better immunologic match. Although short-term donor outcomes have been documented, there are no long-term studies. METHODS: We studied postdonation outcomes in 46 segmental pancreas living donors. Surgical complications, risk factors (RF) for development of diabetes mellitus (DM) and quality of life were studied. A risk stratification model (RSM) for DM was created using predonation and postdonation RFs. Recipient outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Between January 1, 1994 and May 1, 2013, 46 LDSPTx were performed. Intraoperatively, 5 (11%) donors received transfusion. Overall, 9 (20%) donors underwent splenectomy. Postoperative complications included: 6 (13%) peripancreatic fluid collections and 2 (4%) pancreatitis episodes. Postdonation, DM requiring oral hypoglycemics was diagnosed in 7 (15%) donors and insulin-dependent DM in 5 (11%) donors. RSM with three predonation RFs (oral glucose tolerance test, basal insulin, fasting plasma glucose) and 1 postdonation RF, greater than 15% increase in body mass index from preoperative (Δ body mass index >15), predicted 12 (100%) donors that developed postdonation DM. Quality of life was not significantly affected by donation. Mean graft survival was 9.5 (±4.4) years from donors without and 9.6 (±5.4) years from donors with postdonation DM. CONCLUSIONS: LDSPTx can be performed with good recipient outcomes. The donation is associated with donor morbidity including impaired glucose control. Donor morbidity can be minimized by using RSM and predonation counseling on life style modifications postdonation.

Emotional and Financial Experiences of Kidney Donors over the Past 50 Years: The RELIVE Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Most kidney donors view their experience positively, but some may experience psychosocial and financial burdens. We hypothesized that certain donor characteristics, poor outcome of the recipient, negative perceptions of care, and lack of support may be associated with poor psychosocial outcomes for donors. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study (RELIVE) examined long-term medical and psychosocial outcomes for kidney donors (at three U.S. transplant centers) who donated between 1963 and 2005. Standardized questionnaires evaluated donor perspectives, recovery time, social support, motivation, financial impact, insurability after donation, and current psychological status. Questionnaires were mailed to 6909 donors. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 2455 donors, who had donated 17 ± 10 years earlier (range, 5-48 years), a response rate of 36%. Most (95%) rated their overall donation experience as good to excellent. Rating the overall donor experience more negatively was associated with donor complications, psychological difficulties, recipient graft failure, and longer time since donation. Nine percent (n=231) reported one or more of the following poor psychosocial outcomes: fair or poor overall donor experience, financial burden, regret or discomfort with decision to donate, or psychological difficulties since donation. Recipient graft failure was the only predictor for reporting one or more of these poor psychosocial outcomes (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 2.34). Donors with lower educational attainment experienced greater financial burden. One of five employed donors took unpaid leave; 2% reported health and life insurability concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of donors viewed their overall donation experience positively, almost 1 in 10 donors reported at least one negative consequence related to donation. Recipient graft failure was associated with poor psychosocial outcome, defined as one or more of these negative consequences. Some donors were financially disadvantaged, and some experienced insurance difficulties. Interventions to avoid negative psychosocial and financial consequences are warranted.

The role of procurement biopsies in acceptance decisions for kidneys retrieved for transplant.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a shortage of kidneys for transplant, and many patients on the deceased donor kidney transplant waiting list would likely benefit from kidneys that are currently being discarded. In the United States, the most common reason given for discarding kidneys retrieved for transplant is procurement biopsy results. This study aimed to compare biopsy results from discarded kidneys with discard attributed to biopsy findings, with biopsy results from comparable kidneys that were successfully transplanted. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective, observational, case-control study, biopsy reports were examined from 83 kidneys discarded in 2010 due to biopsy findings (cases), 83 contralateral transplanted kidneys from the same donor (contralateral controls), and 83 deceased donors randomly matched to cases by donor risk profile (randomly matched controls). A second procurement biopsy was obtained in 64 of 332 kidneys (19.3%). RESULTS: The quality of biopsy reports was low, with amounts of tubular atrophy, interstitial inflammation, arteriolar hyalinosis, and acute tubular necrosis often not indicated; 69% were wedge biopsies and 94% used frozen tissue. The correlation between first and second procurement biopsies was poor; only 25% of the variability (R(2)) in glomerulosclerosis was explained by biopsies being from the same kidney. The percentages of glomerulosclerosis overlapped substantially between cases, contralateral controls, and randomly matched controls: 17.1%±15.3%, 9.0%±6.6%, and 5.0%±5.9%, respectively. Of all biopsy findings, only glomerulosclerosis>20% was independently correlated with discard (cases versus contralateral controls; odds ratio, 15.09; 95% confidence interval, 2.47 to 92.41; P=0.003), suggesting that only this biopsy result was used in acceptance decisions. One-year graft survival was 79.5% and 90.7% in contralateral and randomly matched controls, respectively, versus 91.6% among all deceased donor transplants in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of biopsies could lead to unnecessary kidney discards.

Tolerance--is it worth it?

We are entering an exciting time in the study of immunologic tolerance. Several cellular and molecular strategies have been developed that show promise in nonhuman transplant models and these approaches are just now appearing in clinical trials. Tolerance strategies that prevent immune rejection and obviate the need for immunosuppressive medications (with inherent risk of cancer, infection, and organ toxicity) would improve both graft and patient survival. Each tolerance protocol brings its own set of associated risks. As the results of these trials become available, we must continue to evaluate their successes and failures. The balance of these outcomes will help us answer the question: "Tolerance-Is it worth it?"

A regulated system of incentives for living kidney donation: why can't we agree to do a trial?

In 1980, when there was approximately a one-year wait for a standard criteria donor kidney (young trauma victim), there was little rationale for considering incentives for donation. Today, however, in the United States, there are over 100,000 candidates on the waiting list for a deceased donor kidney transplant. Yet, in spite of numerous attempts to increase the donation rate, there has not been an increase in the last seven years. As a result, the waiting list and the resultant waiting time continue to grow, leading to an increased number of deaths (or removals from the list because of development of comorbidity) while waiting. A number of concerns have been raised about incentives. However, the real question is that - on balance - do these concerns justify continuing a ban on incentives (and the resultant thousands of deaths per year) or should we develop trials of incentives to determine whether or not incentives increase donation while simultaneously not increasing short- and long-term donor or recipient risks over those seen with today's conventional donation?

Donor polymorphisms of toll-like receptor 4 associated with graft failure in liver transplant recipients.

There have been many reports showing significant associations between recipient genetic variants and allograft outcomes, including acute rejection and graft failure, but less is known about the contribution of the donor genotype. We analyzed 37 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) gene from deceased donor liver allografts transplanted into 738 recipients to determine their effects on liver graft failure (LGF). Two SNPs exhibited a significant association with LGF after adjustments for donor race and recipient race and corrections for multiple test comparisons: rs11536865 [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.5, P = 0.0003] and rs5030717 (HR = 1.67, P = 0.0008). An additional SNP, rs913930, exhibited a significant association in Caucasian donors (HR = 1.62, P = 0.0006), and 2 SNPs exhibited a suggestive association in African American donors: rs11536865 (HR = 2.45, P = 0.002) and rs5030717 (HR = 2.32, P = 0.002). Additionally, the liver donor risk index (HR = 2.56, 95% confidence interval = 1.54-4.26, P = 0.0003) and the recipient hepatitis C virus (HCV) status (HR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval = 1.04-2.24, P = 0.032) increased the risk of all-cause LGF in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for recipient race. Donor polymorphisms in TLR4 could be important factors in modulating TLR4 activity and, therefore, affect the risk of graft loss. Additionally, there is a suggestion of an interaction between polymorphisms within TLR4 and the HCV status.

In defense of a regulated system of compensation for living donation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The organ shortage is the major problem in kidney transplantation today. Despite aggressive organ procurement efforts, the supply of donated kidneys, living and deceased, has not matched the growing demand; as a consequence, more and more qualified candidates are suffering on dialysis and then dying before being transplanted. Herein, we provide justification for a regulated system of compensation for donation. RECENT FINDINGS: The main argument in favor of compensation is simple-financial incentives will increase donation, so fewer transplant candidates will suffer and die while waiting. In addition, development of a regulated system of compensation is the most effective means of crippling the core economic support for transplant tourism. Because dialysis is so much more expensive than a transplant, compensated donation could be cost-neutral to the healthcare system. Importantly, opinion polls suggest that the public would support compensation. As uncompensated kidney donation is widely accepted, persuasive arguments against compensation must explain why such a system would be morally distinguishable from uncompensated donation. SUMMARY: We suggest that the potential advantages of a regulated system of compensation for donation far outweigh any potential disadvantages. It is time to advocate for a change in the law so that trials can be done.