Organ Donation in Syria.

The first living donor kidney transplant in Syria was performed 44 years ago; by the end of 2022, 6265 renal transplants had been performed in Syria. Kidney, bone marrow, cornea, and stem cells are the only organs or tissues that can be transplanted in Syria. Although 3 heart transplants from deceased donors were performed in the late 1980s, cardiac transplant activities have since discontinued. In 2003, national Syrian legislation was enacted authorizing the use of organs from living unrelated and deceased donors. This important law was preceded by another big stride: the acceptance by the higher Islamic religious authorities in Syria in 2001 of the principle of procurement of organs from deceased donors, provided that consent is given by a first- or second-degree relative. After the law was enacted, kidney transplant rates increased from 7 per million population in 2002 to 17 per million population in 2007. Kidney transplants performed abroad for Syrian patients declined from 25% in 2002 to <2% in 2007. Rates plateaued through 2010, before the political crisis started in 2011. Forty-four years after the first successful kidney transplant in Syria, patients needing an organ transplant rely on living donors only. Moreover, 20 years after the law authorizing use of organs from deceased donors, a program is still not in place in Syria. The war, limited resources, and lack of public awareness about the importance of organ donation and transplant appear to be factors inhibiting initiation of a deceased donor program in Syria. A concerted and ongoing education campaign is needed to increase awareness of organ donation, change negative public attitudes, and gain societal acceptance. Every effort must be made to initiate a deceased donor program to lessen the burden on living donors and to enable national self-sufficiency in organs for transplant.

Evolving Impact of COVID-19 on Transplant Center Practices and Policies in the United States.

In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.

Deceased Organ Donation in Syria: Challenges and Solutions.

The first living-donor kidney transplant in Syria was performed 41 years ago; by 2019, 5407 renal transplants had been performed there. Three heart transplants from deceased donors were performed in the late 1980s; cardiac transplant activities have since discontinued. In 2003, a new, national Syrian legislation was enacted authorizing the use of organs from living unrelated donors and from deceased donors. This important law was preceded by another big stride in this regard: the acceptance by the higher Islamic religious authorities in Syria in 2001 of the principle of procurement of organs from deceased donors, provided that consent is given by a first- or second-degree relative. After the enactment of this law, kidney transplant rates increased from 7 per million population in 2002 to 17 per million population in 2007. Kidney transplants performed abroad for Syrian patients declined from 25% in 2002 to < 2% in 2007. Kidney transplants continued at comparable rates until 2010, before the beginning of the political crisis in 2011. Four decades after the first successful kidney transplant in Syria, however, patients needing an organ transplant must rely on living donors only. Moreover, 17 years after the law authorizing use of organs from deceased donors, a program is still not in place in Syria, and additional improvement of the legal framework is needed. The war, limited resources, and lack of public awareness about the importance of organ donation and transplant appear to be major factors inhibiting initiation of a deceased-donor program in Syria. A concerted and ongoing education campaign is needed to increase awareness of organ donation, change negative public attitudes, and gain societal acceptance. Every effort must be made to initiate a deceased-donor program to lessen the burden on living donors and to enable national self-sufficiency in organs for transplant.

Pediatric transplantation in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic: Early impact on activity and healthcare.

The current pandemic SARS-CoV-2 has required an unusual allocation of resources that can negatively impact chronically ill patients and high-complexity procedures. Across the European Reference Network on Pediatric Transplantation (ERN TransplantChild), we conducted a survey to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on pediatric transplant activity and healthcare practices in both solid organ transplantation (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The replies of 30 professionals from 18 centers in Europe were collected. Twelve of 18 centers (67%) showed a reduction in their usual transplant activity. Additionally, outpatient visits have been modified and restricted to selected ones, and the use of telemedicine tools has increased. Additionally, a total of 14 COVID-19 pediatric transplanted patients were identified at the time of the survey, including eight transplant recipients and six candidates for transplantation. Only two moderate-severe cases were reported, both in HSCT setting. These survey results demonstrate the limitations in healthcare resources for pediatric transplantation patients during early stages of this pandemic. COVID-19 disease is a major worldwide challenge for the field of pediatric transplantation, where there will be a need for systematic data collection, encouraging regular discussions to address the long-term consequences for pediatric transplantation candidates, recipients, and their families.

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.

Attitudes, knowledge, and preferences of the Israeli public regarding the allocation of donor organs for transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is a stark disparity between the number of patients awaiting deceased-donor organ transplants and the rate at which organs become available. Though organs for transplantation are assumed to be a community resource, and the organ supply depends on public willingness to donate, current allocation schemes do not explicitly incorporate public priorities and preferences. This paper seeks to provide insights regarding the Israeli public's preferences regarding criteria for organ (specifically, kidney) allocation, and to determine whether these preferences are in line with current allocation policies. METHODS: A market research company administered a telephone survey to 604 adult participants representing the Jewish-Israeli public (age range: 18-95; 50% male). The questionnaire comprised 39 questions addressing participants' knowledge, attitudes, and preferences regarding organ donation and criteria for organ allocation, including willingness to donate. RESULTS: The criteria that respondents marked as most important in prioritizing waitlist candidates were maximum medical benefit (51.3% of respondents) and waiting time (21%). Donor status (i.e., whether the candidate is registered as an organ donor) was ranked by 43% as the least significant criterion. Most participants expressed willingness to donate the organs of a deceased relative; notably, they indicated that they would be significantly more willing to donate if organ allocation policies took their preferences regarding allocation criteria into account. Unlike individuals in other countries (e.g., the UK, the US, and Australia) who responded to similar surveys, Israeli survey respondents did not assign high importance to the candidate's age (24% ranked it as the least important factor). Interestingly, in some cases, participants' declared preferences regarding the importance of various allocation criteria diverged from their actual choices in hypothetical organ allocation scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this survey indicate that Israel's citizens are willing to take part in decisions about organ allocation. Respondents did not seem to have a strict definition or concept of what they deem to be just; yet, in general, their preferences are compatible with current policy. Importantly, participants noted that they would be more willing to donate organs if their preferences were integrated into the allocation policy. Accordingly, we propose that allocation systems must strive to respect community values and perceptions while maintaining continued clinical effectiveness.

Solid organ transplantation programs facing lack of empiric evidence in the COVID-19 pandemic: A By-proxy Society Recommendation Consensus approach.

The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has a drastic impact on national health care systems. Given the overwhelming demand on facility capacity, the impact on all health care sectors has to be addressed. Solid organ transplantation represents a field with a high demand on staff, intensive care units, and follow-up facilities. The great therapeutic value of organ transplantation has to be weighed against mandatory constraints of health care capacities. In addition, the management of immunosuppressed recipients has to be reassessed during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In addressing these crucial questions, transplant physicians are facing a total lack of scientific evidence. Therefore, the aim of this study was to offer an approach of consensus-based guidance, derived from individual information of 22 transplant societies. Key recommendations were extracted and the degree of consensus among different organizations was calculated. A high degree of consensus was found for temporarily suspending nonurgent transplant procedures and living donation programs. Systematic polymerase chain reaction-based testing of donors and recipients was broadly recommended. Additionally, more specific aspects (eg, screening of surgical explant teams and restricted use of marginal donor organs) were included in our analysis. This study offers a novel approach to informed guidance for health care management when a priori no scientific evidence is available.

Early impact of COVID-19 on transplant center practices and policies in the United States.

COVID-19 is a novel, rapidly changing pandemic: consequently, evidence-based recommendations in solid organ transplantation (SOT) remain challenging and unclear. To understand the impact on transplant activity across the United States, and center-level variation in testing, clinical practice, and policies, we conducted a national survey between March 24, 2020 and March 31, 2020 and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map. Response rate was a very high 79.3%, reflecting a strong national priority to better understand COVID-19. Complete suspension of live donor kidney transplantation was reported by 71.8% and live donor liver by 67.7%. While complete suspension of deceased donor transplantation was less frequent, some restrictions to deceased donor kidney transplantation were reported by 84.0% and deceased donor liver by 73.3%; more stringent restrictions were associated with higher regional incidence of COVID-19. Shortage of COVID-19 tests was reported by 42.5%. Respondents reported a total of 148 COVID-19 recipients from <1 to >10 years posttransplant: 69.6% were kidney recipients, and 25.0% were critically ill. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was used by 78.1% of respondents; azithromycin by 46.9%; tocilizumab by 31.3%, and remdesivir by 25.0%. There is wide heterogeneity in center-level response across the United States; ongoing national data collection, expert discussion, and clinical studies are critical to informing evidence-based practices.

How Did the War Affect Organ Transplantation in Syria?

Since 2011, the Syrian conflict has destroyed much of the country's infrastructure. The deteriorating humanitarian situation has involved health workers and facilities. In 2010, before the war, 385 kidney transplants were performed in Syria. This number declined to 154 in 2013 (60% less) before increasing to 251 transplants in 2018, which is still 35% less than the number of transplants performed before the war. In addition, the number of operational kidney transplant centers has decreased from 8 in 2010, distributed over 3 cities, to only 4 in 2013, all located in Damascus, which increased to 6 centers in 2019. Interestingly, with regard to type of living donor, the percentage of unrelated kidney donors has decreased by 20% for unclear reasons. Another alarming statistic is that more than 50% of kidney transplant physicians and surgeons are no longer practicing transplant medicine in their centers, either because they have left the country or because their centers had become nonoperational. Since the war, free and timely provision of immunosuppressive drugs for all patients in all provinces has been a leading challenge for health authorities and transplant patients. This difficulty has led to adverse medical consequences for patients. A project to initiate liver transplant came to a halt because of complex reasons but mainly because foreign trainers could not visit Syria. Although the autologous bone marrow transplant program had slowed until recently, it has become more active, involving both autologous and allogeneic transplants. The deceased-donor program is still not available in Syria; the war has just reinforced the many reasons that prevented the start of this program before the conflict. The commitment of transplant teams despite these large challenges continues to be extraordinary. The Syrian conflict has affected all aspects of organ transplant, paralyzing new projects and negatively affecting existing programs.

Transplantes de órgãos sólidos no Brasil: estudo descritivo sobre desigualdades na distribuição e acesso no território brasileiro, 2001-2017 / Trasplantes de órganos sólidos en Brasil: estudio descriptivo sobre desigualdades en la distribución y acceso en el territorio brasileño, 2001-2017 / Solid organ transplantation in Brazil: a descriptive study of distribution and access inequalities across the Brazilian territory, 2001-2017

Objetivo: descrever a distribuição dos transplantes de órgãos sólidos no Brasil, bem como informações da lista de espera (demanda) e origem dos pacientes transplantados, por tipo de órgão e Unidade da Federação, de 2001 a 2017. Métodos: estudo descritivo, com dados das Centrais Estaduais de Transplantes, da Associação Brasileira de Transplantes de Órgãos e do Sistema de Informações Hospitalares do Sistema Único de Saúde (SIH/SUS). Resultados: 153 centros de transplante foram identificados em 2017, apenas 11,8% deles localizados nas regiões Norte e Centro-Oeste; no período em estudo, foram realizados 99.805 transplantes, variando de 3.520 (2001) a 8.669 (2017); as regiões Sul e Sudeste concentraram o maior número de transplantes. Conclusão: existem desigualdades regionais na realização dos transplantes, possivelmente por não haver uniformidade na distribuição dos serviços.

Objetivo: describir la distribución de los trasplantes de órganos sólidos en Brasil, así como informaciones de la lista de espera (demanda) y origen de los pacientes trasplantados por tipo de órgano y unidad federativa, entre 2001 y 2017. Métodos: estudio descriptivo usando datos extraídos de Centrales Estatales de Trasplantes, Asociación Brasileña de Trasplantes de Órganos y Sistema de Informaciones Hospitalarias del Sistema Único Nacional de Salud (SIH/SUS). Resultados: 153 centros de trasplante identificados en 2017, solamente 11,8% están ubicados en las regiones Norte y Centro-Oeste; se realizaron 99.805 trasplantes, desde 3.520 (2001) hasta 8.669 (2017); Sur y Sudeste concentran el mayor número de trasplantes. Conclusión: hay desigualdad en el acceso a los trasplantes, posiblemente debido a la falta de uniformidad en la distribución de los servicios.

Objective: to describe the distribution of solid organ transplants in Brazil, as well as information about the waiting list (demand) and origin of transplant patients by organ type and Federative Unit, from 2001 to 2017. Methods: this was a descriptive study using data from State Transplantation Centers, the Brazilian Organ Transplant Association, and the Brazilian National Health System Hospital Information System (SIH/SUS). Results: 153 transplant units were identified in 2017, with only 11.8% located in the Northern and Midwest regions; within the study period, 99,805 transplants were performed, ranging from 3,520 (2001) to 8,669 (2017); the highest number of transplants was concentrated in the Southern and Southeastern regions. Conclusion: there are inequalities in transplantation access, possibly due to lack of uniformity in service distribution.

Secular Trends in the Cost of Immunosuppressants after Solid Organ Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Immunosuppressive medications are critical for maintenance of graft function in transplant recipients but can represent a substantial financial burden to patients and their insurance carriers. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: To determine whether availability of generic immunosuppressive medications starting in 2009 may have alleviated some of that burden, we used Medicare Part D prescription drug events between 2008 and 2013 to estimate the average annualized per-patient payments made by patients and Medicare in a large national sample of kidney, liver, and heart transplant recipients. Repeated measures linear regression was used to determine changes in payments over the study period. RESULTS: Medicare Part D payments for two commonly used immunosuppressive medications, tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid (including mycophenolate mofetil and mycophenolate sodium), decreased overall by 48%-67% across organs and drugs from 2008 to 2013, reflecting decreasing payments for brand and generic tacrolimus (21%-54%), and generic mycophenolate (72%-74%). Low-income subsidy payments, which are additional payments made under Medicare Part D, also decreased during the study period. Out-of-pocket payments by patients who did not receive the low-income subsidy decreased by more than those who did receive the low-income subsidy (63%-79% versus 24%-44%). CONCLUSIONS: The decline in payments by Medicare Part D and by transplant recipients for tacrolimus and mycophenolate between 2008 and 2013 suggests that the introduction of generic immunosuppressants during this period has resulted in substantial cost savings to Medicare and to patients, largely reflecting the transition from brand to generic products.

The VA Transplant Program: A rebuttal to criticism and a look to the future.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Transplant Program was established decades ago, is well resourced, and provides timely and high quality solid organ transplant care and services to a Nation of Veterans. In the past few years, the VA Transplant Program has received criticism that can be characterized as follows: the location of VA Transplant Centers (VATCs) requires Veterans to travel considerable distances for transplant care and services; the National Surgery Office (NSO) that provides oversight limits the number of active VATCs; Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policy limits referral of Veterans to non-VA transplant centers (community care); and the VA Transplant Program does not provide living donor transplant procedures. The MISSION Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-182) was enacted in part to address these themes by promoting community care and living donation. This article provides perspective regarding the VA Transplant Program and rebuttal to stated criticism: Travel to a transplant center is not isolated to the VA; the NSO does not limit VATC activation; current VHA policy authorizes community care; and the VA Transplant Program currently performs living donor procedures. The MISSION Act, as intended, has the potential to decrease referrals to the VA Transplant Program by 30%.

The Dead Donor Rule as Policy Indoctrination.

Since the 1960s, organ procurement policies have relied on the boundary of death-advertised as though it were a factual, value-free, and unobjectionable event-to foster organ donation while minimizing controversy. Death determination, however, involves both discoveries of facts and events and decisions about their meaning (whether the facts and events are relevant to establish a vital status), the latter being subjected to legitimate disagreements requiring deliberation. By revisiting the historical origin of the dead donor rule, including some events that took place in France prior to the report by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death, I want to recall that those who first promoted the DDR did not take into account any scientific rationale to support the new proposed criteria to determine death. Rather, through a process of factual re-semantization, they authorized themselves to decide about the meaning of death in order to implicitly prioritize the interests of organ recipients over those of dying people.

Una mirada al origen, funcionamiento y desafíos del nuevo sistema de donación y trasplantes chileno / A peek to the origin, functioning and challenges of the new Chilean transplantation system

Chile made several legal, practical and educational changes to the organ donation and transplant system in recent years, to improve its results. However, studies evaluating these reforms and suggesting further corrections are still pending. Our aim is to assess the new regulations and their reception by both the population and health care providers. Proposals are made to promote the development of a model of Chilean transplantation able to respond to the needs of the population.