Sexual and gender minority relevant policies in Canadian and United States organ and tissue donation and transplantation systems: An opportunity to improve equity and safety.

Current policies in organ and tissue donation and transplantation (OTDT) systems in Canada and the United States unnecessarily restrict access to donation for sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) and pose safety risks to transplant recipients. We compare SGM-relevant policies between the Canadian and United States systems. Policy domains include the risk assessment of living and deceased organ and tissue donors, physical examination considerations, viral testing recommendations, and informed consent and communication. Identified gaps between current evidence and existing OTDT policies along with differences in SGM-relevant policies between systems, represent an opportunity for improvement. Specific recommendations for OTDT system policy revisions to achieve these goals include the development of behavior-based, gender-neutral risk assessment criteria, a reduction in current SGM no-sexual contact period requirements pending development of inclusive criteria, and destigmatization of sexual contact with people living with human immunodeficiency virus. OTDT systems should avoid rectal examinations to screen for evidence of receptive anal sex without consent and mandate routine nucleic acid amplification test screening for all donors. Transplant recipients must receive enhanced risk-to-benefit discussions regarding decisions to accept or decline an offer of an organ classified as increased risk. These recommendations will expand the donor pool, enhance equity for SGM people, and improve safety and outcomes for transplant recipients.

Revising the Suspected-Cancer Guidelines: Impacts on Patients' Primary Care Contacts and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the impact of revising suspected-cancer referral guidelines on primary care contacts and costs. METHODS: Participants had incident cancer (colorectal, n = 2000; ovary, n = 763; and pancreas, n = 597) codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink or England cancer registry. Difference-in-differences analyses explored guideline impacts on contact days and nonzero costs between the first cancer feature and diagnosis. Participants were controls ("old National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]") or "new NICE" if their index feature was introduced during guideline revision. Model assumptions were inspected visually and by falsification tests. Sensitivity analyses reclassified participants who subsequently presented with features in the original guidelines as "old NICE." For colorectal cancer, sensitivity analysis (n = 3481) adjusted for multimorbidity burden. RESULTS: Median contact days and costs were, respectively, 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7) and £117.69 (IQR £53.23-£206.65) for colorectal, 5 (IQR 3-9) and £156.92 (IQR £78.46-£272.29) for ovary, and 7 (IQR 4-13) and £230.64 (IQR £120.78-£408.34) for pancreas. Revising ovary guidelines may have decreased contact days (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00; P = .05) with unchanged costs, but parallel trends assumptions were violated. Costs decreased by 13% (equivalent to -£28.05, -£50.43 to -£5.67) after colorectal guidance revision but only in sensitivity analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Contact days and costs remained unchanged after pancreas guidance revision. CONCLUSIONS: The main analyses of symptomatic patients suggested that prediagnosis primary care costs remained unchanged after guidance revision for pancreatic cancer. For colorectal cancer, contact days and costs decreased in analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Revising ovarian cancer guidelines may have decreased primary care contact days but not costs, suggesting increased resource-use intensity; nevertheless, there is evidence of confounding.

UNOS listing status-related changes in mechanical circulatory support utilization and outcomes in adult congenital heart disease patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the new United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) listing criteria on mechanical circulatory support (MCS) utilization and outcomes in adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients. METHODS: We identified all ACHD and non-ACHD heart transplant candidates in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database listed during the 590 days prior to (historical cohort) or following (recent cohort) the UNOS allocation revision on October 18, 2018. Patients were grouped based on whether they received central temporary MCS (tMCS), peripheral tMCS, durable MCS, or no MCS. RESULTS: A total of 535 ACHD (242 historical, 293 recent) and 12,188 non-ACHD (6,258 historical, 5,930 recent) patients were included in our study. For ACHD patients, we found no differences in the historical versus recent cohort in utilization of central tMCS (3.31% vs 3.07%, p = .88) or durable MCS (3.31% vs 3.41%, p = .95), whereas the rate of peripheral tMCS increased (2.07% historical vs 6.83% recent, p = .009). Across both cohorts, ACHD patients supported with peripheral tMCS had shorter time-to-transplant than non-supported patients (25.7 vs 121.7 days, p = .002). ACHD patients supported with central tMCS had greater rates of post-transplant mortality relative to other ACHD patients (40.0% vs 12.6%, p = .006), while those supported with durable or peripheral temporary MCS had no differences in waitlist or post-transplant mortality compared to non-supported ACHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: The 2018 UNOS allocation changes increased utilization of peripheral temporary MCS in ACHD patients, decreasing waitlist time without impact on post-transplant outcomes.