Applying propensity methods to the United States transplant registry for external real-world evidence control arms for 5-year survival in the BENEFIT study.

To address the challenges of assessing the impact of a reasonably likely surrogate endpoint on long-term graft survival in prospective kidney transplant clinical trials, the Transplant Therapeutics Consortium established a real-world evidence workgroup evaluating the scientific value of using transplant registry data as an external control to supplement the internal control group. The United Network for Organ Sharing retrospectively simulated the use of several distinct contemporaneous external control groups, applied multiple cause inference methods, and compared treatment effects to those observed in the BENEFIT study. Applying BENEFIT study enrollment criteria produced a smaller historical cyclosporine control arm (n = 153) and a larger, alternative (tacrolimus) historical control arm (n = 1069). Following covariate-balanced propensity scoring, Kaplan-Meier 5-year all-cause graft survivals were 81.3% and 81.7% in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) tacrolimus and cyclosporine external control arms, similar to 80.3% observed in the BENEFIT cyclosporine treatment arm. Five-year graft survival in the belatacept-less intensive arm was significantly higher than the OPTN controls using propensity scoring for comparing cyclosporine and tacrolimus. Propensity weighting using OPTN controls closely mirrored the BENEFIT study's long-term control (cyclosporine) arm's survival rate and the less intensive arm's treatment effect (significantly higher survival vs control). This study supports the feasibility and validity of using supplemental external registry controls for long-term survival in kidney transplant clinical trials.

Contemporary prevalence and practice patterns of out-of-sequence kidney allocation.

Since 2021, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network has reported a nearly 10-fold rise in out-of-sequence (OOS) kidney allocation, generating concern and halting development of continuous distribution policies. We report contemporary (2022-2023) practice patterns in OOS allocation using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data. We examined in sequence vs OOS donors with multivariable logistic regression and skipped vs OOS-accepting recipients with conditional logistic regression. Nearly 20% of kidney placements were OOS, varying from 0% to 43% acsoss organ procurement organizations; the 5 highest OOS-organ procurement organizations accounted for 29% of all OOS. Of OOS kidneys, 33% were declined ≥100 times in the standard allocation sequence and 51% were declined by ≥10 centers before OOS allocation began; 4.5% were made without any in-sequence declines. Nearly, all OOS offers were open offers. OOS kidneys were more likely to be from female, Black, older, donation after cardiac death, hypertensive, diabetic, and elevated creatinine donors. Candidates receiving OOS kidneys were more likely female, Asian, and older than skipped candidates. Higher-volume centers and centers with more White, fewer Hispanic, and more educated waiting list patients underwent transplantation disproportionately with more OOS kidneys. These findings suggest that the current, highly variable, discretionary use of OOS might exacerbate disparities, yet the impact of OOS on organ utilization cannot be determined with data now collected.

Augmenting the Unites States transplant registry with external mortality data: A moving target ripe for further improvement.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network conducts a robust death verification process when augmenting the United States transplant registry with external sources of data. Process enhancements added over 35,000 externally verified deaths across waitlist candidates and transplant recipients for all organs beginning in April 2022. Ninety-four percent of added posttransplant deaths occurred beyond 5 years posttransplant, and over 74% occurred beyond 10 years. Deceased donor solid organ recipients transplanted from January 1, 2010, through October 31, 2020, were analyzed from January and July 2022 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Standard Analysis Files to quantify the impact of including vs excluding unverified deaths (not releasable to researchers) on posttransplant patient survival estimates. Across all organs, 1- and 5-year posttransplant survival rates were not substantially impacted; meaningful differences were observed in 10-year survival among kidney recipients. These findings bear important implications for anyone who utilized transplant registry data to examine long-term outcomes prior to the updated verification process. Users of transplant surveillance data should interpret results of long-term outcomes cautiously, particularly differences across subpopulations, and the transplant community should identify ways to improve data quality and minimize the reporting burden on transplant institutions.

A2/A2B to B deceased donor kidney transplantation in the Kidney Allocation System era.

Kidney transplantation from blood type A2/A2B donors to type B recipients (A2→B) has increased dramatically under the current Kidney Allocation System (KAS). Among living donor transplant recipients, A2-incompatible transplants are associated with an increased risk of all-cause and death-censored graft failure. In light of this, we used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from December 2014 until June 2022 to evaluate the association between A2→B listing and time to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and post-DDKT outcomes for A2→B recipients. Among 53 409 type B waitlist registrants, only 12.6% were listed as eligible to accept A2→B offers ("A2-eligible"). The rates of DDKT at 1-, 3-, and 5-years were 32.1%, 61.4%, and 72.1% among A2-eligible candidates and 14.1%, 29.9%, and 44.1% among A2-ineligible candidates, with the former experiencing a 133% higher rate of DDKT (Cox weighted hazard ratio (wHR) = 2.192.332.47; P < .001). The 7-year adjusted mortality was comparable between A2→B and B-ABOc (type B/O donors to B recipients) recipients (wHR 0.780.941.13, P = .5). Moreover, there was no difference between A2→B vs B-ABOc DDKT recipients with regards to death-censored graft failure (wHR 0.771.001.29, P > .9) or all-cause graft loss (wHR 0.820.961.12, P = .6). Following its broader adoption since the implementation of the kidney allocation system, A2→B DDKT appears to be a safe and effective transplant modality for eligible candidates. As such, A2→B listing for eligible type B candidates should be expanded.

ChatGPT Solving Complex Kidney Transplant Cases: A Comparative Study With Human Respondents.

INTRODUCTION: ChatGPT has shown the ability to answer clinical questions in general medicine but may be constrained by the specialized nature of kidney transplantation. Thus, it is important to explore how ChatGPT can be used in kidney transplantation and how its knowledge compares to human respondents. METHODS: We prompted ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4 Visual (4 V) with 12 multiple-choice questions related to six kidney transplant cases from 2013 to 2015 American Society of Nephrology (ASN) fellowship program quizzes. We compared the performance of ChatGPT with US nephrology fellowship program directors, nephrology fellows, and the audience of the ASN's annual Kidney Week meeting. RESULTS: Overall, ChatGPT 4 V correctly answered 10 out of 12 questions, showing a performance level comparable to nephrology fellows (group majority correctly answered 9 of 12 questions) and training program directors (11 of 12). This surpassed ChatGPT 4 (7 of 12 correct) and 3.5 (5 of 12). All three ChatGPT versions failed to correctly answer questions where the consensus among human respondents was low. CONCLUSION: Each iterative version of ChatGPT performed better than the prior version, with version 4 V achieving performance on par with nephrology fellows and training program directors. While it shows promise in understanding and answering kidney transplantation questions, ChatGPT should be seen as a complementary tool to human expertise rather than a replacement.

Does anybody really know what (the kidney median waiting) time is?

The median waiting time (MWT) to deceased donor kidney transplant is of interest to patients, clinicians, and the media but remains elusive due to both methodological and philosophical challenges. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data from January 2003 to March 2022 to estimate MWTs using various methods and timescales, applied overall, by era, and by candidate demographics. After rising for a decade, the overall MWT fell to 5.19 years between 2015 and 2018 and declined again to 4.05 years (April 2021 to March 2022), based on the Kaplan-Meier method applied to period-prevalent cohorts. MWTs differed markedly by blood type, donor service area, and pediatric vs adult status, but to a lesser degree by race/ethnicity. Choice of methodology affected the magnitude of these differences. Instead of waiting years for an answer, reliable kidney MWT estimates can be obtained shortly after a policy is implemented using the period-prevalent Kaplan-Meier approach, a theoretical but useful construct for which we found no evidence of bias compared with using incident cohorts. We recommend this method be used complementary to the competing risks approach, under which MWT is often inestimable, to fill the present information void concerning the seemingly simple question of how long it takes to get a kidney transplant in the United States.

An experiment on the impact of predictive analytics on kidney offers acceptance decisions.

Because of the breadth of factors that might affect kidney transplant decisions to accept an organ or wait for another, presumably "better" offer, a high degree of heterogeneity in decision making exists among transplant surgeons and hospitals. These decisions do not typically include objective predictions regarding the future availability of equivalent or better-quality organs or the likelihood of patient death while waiting for another organ. To investigate the impact of displaying such predictions on organ donation decision making, we conducted a statistically designed experiment involving 53 kidney transplant professionals, in which kidney offers were presented via an online application and systematically altered to observe the effects on decision making. We found that providing predictive analytics for time-to-better offers and patient mortality improved decision consensus and decision-maker confidence in their decisions. Providing a visual display of the patient's mortality slope under accept/reject conditions shortened the time-to-decide but did not have an impact on the decision itself. Presenting the risk of death in a loss frame as opposed to a gain frame improved decision consensus and decision confidence. Patient-specific predictions surrounding future organ offers and mortality may improve decision quality, confidence, and expediency while improving organ utilization and patient outcomes.

The association of donor hepatitis C virus infection with 3-year kidney transplant outcomes in the era of direct-acting antiviral medications.

To determine the effect of donor hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection on kidney transplant (KT) outcomes in the era of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications, we examined 68,087 HCV-negative KT recipients from a deceased donor between March 2015 and May 2021. A Cox regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of KT failure, incorporating inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for patient selection to receive an HCV-positive kidney (either nucleic acid amplification test positive [NAT+, n = 2331] or antibody positive (Ab+)/NAT- [n = 1826]) based on recipient characteristics. Compared with kidney from HCV-negative donors, those from Ab+/NAT- (aHR = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.10) and HCV NAT+ (aHR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.08) donors were not associated with an increased risk of KT failure over 3 years after transplant. Moreover, HCV NAT+ kidneys were associated with a higher 1-year estimated glomerular filtration (63.0 vs 61.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = .007) and lower risk of delayed graft function (aOR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84) compared with HCV-negative kidneys. Our findings suggest that donor HCV positivity is not associated with an elevated risk of graft failure. The inclusion of donor HCV status in the Kidney Donor Risk Index may no longer be appropriate in contemporary practice.

Stakeholders' perspectives on transplant metrics: the 2022 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients' consensus conference.

In July 2022, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) hosted an innovative, multistakeholder consensus conference to identify information and metrics desired by stakeholders in the transplantation system, including patients, living donors, caregivers, deceased donor family members, transplant professionals, organ procurement organization professionals, payers, and regulators. Crucially, patients, caregivers, living donors, and deceased donor family members were included in all aspects of this conference, including serving on the planning committee, participating in preconference focus groups and learning sessions, speaking at the conference, moderating conference sessions and breakout groups, and shaping the conclusions. Patients constituted 24% of the meeting participants. In this report, we document the proceedings and enumerate 160 recommendations, 10 of which have been highly prioritized. SRTR will use the recommendations to develop new presentations of information and metrics requested by stakeholders to support informed decision-making.

Addressing sex-based disparities in solid organ transplantation in the United States - a conference report.

Solid organ transplantation provides the best treatment for end-stage organ failure, but significant sex-based disparities in transplant access exist. On June 25, 2021, a virtual multidisciplinary conference was convened to address sex-based disparities in transplantation. Common themes contributing to sex-based disparities were noted across kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation, specifically the existence of barriers to referral and wait listing for women, the pitfalls of using serum creatinine, the issue of donor/recipient size mismatch, approaches to frailty and a higher prevalence of allosensitization among women. In addition, actionable solutions to improve access to transplantation were identified, including alterations to the current allocation system, surgical interventions on donor organs, and the incorporation of objective frailty metrics into the evaluation process. Key knowledge gaps and high-priority areas for future investigation were also discussed.

The real unmet need: A multifactorial approach for identifying sensitized kidney candidates with low access to transplant.

BACKGROUND: At the start of 2020, the kidney waiting list consisted of 2526 candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) of 99.9% or greater, a cohort demonstrated in published research to have meaningfully lower than average access to transplantation even under the revised kidney allocation system (KAS). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of US kidney registrations using data from the OPTN [Reference (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/about-data/)]. The period-prevalent study cohort consisted of US kidney-alone registrations who waited at least 1 day between April 1, 2016, when HLA DQ-Alpha and DP-Beta unacceptable antigen data became available in OPTN data collection, to December 31, 2019. Poisson rate regression was used to model deceased donor kidney transplant rates per active year waiting and using an offset term to account for differential at-risk periods. Median time to transplant was estimated for each IRR group using the Kaplan-Meier method. Sensitivity analyses were included to address geographic variation in supply-to-demand ratios and differences in dialysis time or waiting time. RESULTS: In this study, we found 1597 additional sensitized (CPRA 50-<99.9%) candidates with meaningfully lower than average access to transplant when simultaneously taking into account CPRA and other factors. In combination with CPRA, candidate blood type, Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score (EPTS), and presence of other antibody specificities beyond those in the current, 5-locus CPRA were found to influence the likelihood of transplant. CONCLUSION: In total, this suggests approximately 4100 sensitized candidates are on the waiting list who represent a community of disadvantaged patients who may benefit from progressive therapies and interventions to facilitate incompatible transplantation. Though associated with higher risks, such interventions may nevertheless be more attractive than remaining on dialysis with the associated accumulation of mortality risk over time.

Current opinions on DGF management practices: A survey of the United States and Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Significant center-to-center variation in attitudes and management of delayed graft function (DGF) remains common. METHODS: A survey to describe current DGF practices was developed by workgroup members sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and was distributed to both the NKF DGF workgroup members, kidney transplant program directors and the transplant community within the United States and Canada. Seventy-one percent of NKF workgroup members completed the survey along with 70 unique the United States and three Canadian kidney transplant programs. All Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions were represented. RESULTS: DGF was reported to occur at rate of 20%-40% for most centers with 3.9% indicating their incidence to be >60%. Most centers reported longer hospital lengths of stay and more frequent outpatient visits. Despite the commonality of DGF, only half of centers reported having an established protocol to manage DGF. Kidney allograft biopsies were the only consistent DGF management strategy observed, although use of machine perfusion was also heavily favored. Other DGF management strategies voiced by a minority included having established outpatient practices to care for DGF patients and administering outpatient community-based hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: Although approximately a third of survey responders indicated that risk of DGF played a role in their willingness to accept organs, most did not feel that increased cost or clinical impact on outcomes was a deterrent. Future strategies, including broader sharing of best practices, redefining terminology specific to DGF, the establishment of DGF dialysis guidelines and improving access to machine perfusion across OPOs may help reduce discard and improve utilization of kidneys at risk for DGF.

The Independent Effects of Kidney Length and Vascular Plaque on Ten-Year Outcomes of Extended Criteria Donor Kidney Transplants.

The independent effects of deceased donor kidney length and vascular plaque on long-term graft survival are not established. Utilizing DonorNet attachments from 4,480 expanded criteria donors (ECD) recovered between 2008 and 2012 in the United States with at least one kidney biopsied and transplanted, we analyzed the relationship between kidney length and vascular plaques and 10-year hazard of all-cause graft failure (ACGF) using causal inference methods in a Cox regression framework. The composite plaque score (range 0-4) and the presence of any plaque (yes, no) was also analyzed. Kidney length was modeled both categorically (<10, 10-12, >12 cm) as well as numerically, using a restricted cubic spline to capture nonlinearity. Effects of a novel composite plaque score 4 vs. 0 (HR 1.08; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.23) and the presence of any vascular plaque (HR 1.08; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.20) were attenuated after adjustment. Likewise, we identified a potential nonlinear relationship between kidney length and the 10-year hazard of ACGF, however the strength of the relationship was attenuated after adjusting for other donor factors. The independent effects of vascular plaque and kidney length on long-term ECD graft survival were found to be minimal and should not play a significant role in utilization.

A Composite End Point of Graft Status and eGFR at 1 Year to Improve the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients' Five-Tier Rating System.

BACKGROUND: Performance of kidney transplant programs in the United States is monitored and publicly reported by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). With relatively few allograft failure events per program and increasing homogeneity in program performance, quantifying meaningful differences in program competency based only on 1-year survival rates is challenging. METHODS: We explored whether the traditional end point of allograft failure at 1 year can be improved by incorporating a measure of allograft function (i.e., eGFR) into a composite end point. We divided SRTR data from 2008 through 2018 into a training and validation set and recreated SRTR tiers, using the traditional and composite end points. The conditional 5-year deceased donor allograft survival and 5-year eGFR were then assessed using each approach. RESULTS: Compared with the traditional end point, the composite end point of graft failure or eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at 1-year post-transplant performed better in stratifying transplant programs based on long-term deceased donor graft survival. For tiers 1 through 5 respectively, the 5-year conditional graft survival was 72.9%, 74.8%, 75.4%, 77.0%, and 79.7% using the traditional end point and 71.1%, 74.4%, 76.9%, 77.0%, and 78.4% with the composite end point. Additionally, with the five-tier system derived from the composite end point, programs in tier 3, tier 4, and tier 5 had significantly higher mean eGFRs at 5 years compared with programs in tier 1. There were no significant eGFR differences among tiers derived from the traditional end point alone. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study suggests that a composite end point incorporating allograft function may improve the post-transplant component of the five-tier system by better differentiating between transplant programs with respect to long-term graft outcomes.

Beyond donation to organ utilization in the USA.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The deceased donor organ pool has broadened beyond young, otherwise healthy head trauma victims. But an abundance of donated organs only benefits patients if they are accepted, expeditiously transported and actually transplanted. This review focuses on postdonation challenges and opportunities to increase the number of transplants through improved organ utilization. RECENT FINDINGS: We build upon recently proposed changes in terminology for measuring organ utilization. Among organs recovered for transplant, the nonuse rate (NUR REC ) has risen above 25% for kidneys and pancreata. Among donors, the nonuse rate (NUR DON ) has risen to 40% for livers and exceeds 70% for thoracic organs. Programme-level variation in offer acceptance rates vastly exceeds variation in the traditional, 1-year survival benchmark. Key opportunities to boost utilization include donation after circulatory death and hepatitis C virus (HCV)+ organs; acute kidney injury and suboptimal biopsy kidneys; older and steatotic livers. SUMMARY: Underutilization of less-than-ideal, yet transplant-worthy organs remains an obstacle to maximizing the impact of the U.S. transplant system. The increased risk of inferior posttransplant outcomes must always be weighed against the risks of remaining on the waitlist. Advanced perfusion technologies; tuning allocation systems for placement efficiency; and data-driven clinical decision support have the potential to increase utilization of medically complex organs.

ABO-adjusted calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA): A unified metric for immunologic compatibility in kidney transplantation.

Implementation of the kidney allocation system in 2014 greatly reduced access disparity due to human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization. To address persistent disparity related to candidate ABO blood groups, herein we propose a novel metric termed "ABO-adjusted cPRA," which simultaneously considers the impact of candidate HLA and ABO sensitization on the same scale. An ethnic-weighted ABO-adjusted cPRA value was computed for 190 467 candidates on the kidney waitlist by combining candidate's conventional HLA cPRA with the remaining fraction of HLA-compatible donors that are ABO-incompatible. Consideration of ABO sensitization resulted in higher ABO-adjusted cPRA relative to conventional cPRA by HLA alone, except for AB candidates since they are not ABO-sensitized. Within cPRA Point Group = 99%, 43% of the candidates moved up to ABO-adjusted cPRA Point Group = 100%, though this proportion varied substantially by candidate blood group. Nearly all O and most B candidates would have elevated ABO-adjusted cPRA values above this policy threshold for allocation priority, but relatively few A candidates displayed this shift. Overall, ABO-adjusted cPRA more accurately measures the proportion of immune-compatible donors compared with conventional HLA cPRA, especially for highly sensitized candidates. Implementation of this novel metric could enable the development of allocation policies permitting more ABO-compatible transplants without compromising equity.

Trends in the procurement and discard of kidneys from deceased donors with acute kidney injury.

Kidney allocation trends from deceased donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) have not been characterized since initial Kidney Donor Profile Index reporting in 2012 and its use under the revised Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in 2014. We conducted a retrospective analysis of US registry data to characterize kidney procurement and discard trends in deceased donors with AKI, defined by ≥50% or ≥0.3 mg/dl (≥4.0 mg/dl or ≥200% for stage 3) increase in terminal serum creatinine from admission. From 2010 to 2020, 172 410 kidneys were procured from 93 341 deceased donors 16 years or older; 34 984 kidneys were discarded (17 559 from AKI donors). The proportion of stage 3 AKI donors doubled from 6% (412/6841) in 2010 to 12% (1365/11493) in 2020. Procurement of stage 3 AKI kidneys increased from 51% (423/824) to 80% (2183/2730). While discard of stage 3 AKI kidneys increased from 41% (175/423) in 2010 to 44% (960/2183) in 2020, this increase was not statistically significant in interrupted time-series analysis following KAS implementation (slope difference -0.41 [-3.22, 2.4], and level change 3.09 [-6.4, 12.6]). In conclusion, the absolute number of stage 3 AKI kidneys transplanted has increased. Ongoing high discard rates of these kidneys suggest opportunities for improved utilization.

Developing simultaneous liver-kidney transplant medical eligibility criteria while providing a safety net: A 2-year review of the OPTN's allocation policy.

The OPTN's simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) allocation policy, implemented August 10, 2017, established medical eligibility criteria for adult SLK candidates and created Safety Net kidney allocation priority for liver-alone recipients with new/continued renal impairment. OPTN SLK and kidney after liver (KAL) data were analyzed (registrations as of December 31, 2019, transplants pre-policy [March 20, 2015-August 9, 2017] vs. post-policy [August 10, 2017-December 31, 2019]). Ninety-four percent of SLK registrations met eligibility criteria (99% CKD: 50% dialysis, 50% eGFR). SLK transplant volume decreased from a record 740 (2017) to 676 (2018, -9%), with a subsequent increase to 728 (2019, 1.6% below 2017 volume). For KAL listings within 1 year of liver transplant, waitlist mortality rates declined post-policy versus pre-policy (27 [95% CI = 20.6-34.7] vs. 16 [11.7-20.5]) while transplant rates increased fourfold (46 [32.2-60.0] vs. 197 [171.6-224.7]). There were 234 KAL transplants post-policy (94% Safety Net priority eligible), and no significant difference in 1-year patient/graft survival vs. kidney-alone (patient: 95.9% KAL, 97.0% kidney-alone [p = .39]; graft: 94.2% KAL, 94.6% kidney-alone [p = .81]). From pre- to post-policy, the proportion of all deceased donor kidney and liver transplants that were SLK decreased (kidney: 5.1% to 4.3%; liver: 9.7% to 8.7%). SLK policy implementation interrupted the longstanding rise in SLK transplants, while Safety Net priority directed kidneys to liver recipients in need with thus far minimal impact to posttransplant outcomes.

Stem cell donor HLA typing improves CPRA in kidney allocation.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Kidney Allocation System provides a priority to sensitized candidates based on the calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) value. The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotype reference panel used for calculation of the CPRA by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the OPTN contractor, has limitations. We derived a novel panel from the National Marrow Donor Program HLA haplotype data set and compared the accuracy of CPRA values generated with this panel (NMDP-CPRA) to those generated from the UNOS panel (UNOS-CPRA), using predicted and actual deceased donor kidney offers for a cohort of 24 282 candidates. The overall accuracy for kidney offers was similar using NMDP-CPRA and UNOS-CPRA. Accuracy was slightly higher for NMDP-CPRA than UNOS-CPRA for candidates in several highly sensitized CPRA categories, with deviations in linkage disequilibrium for Caucasians and the smaller size of the UNOS panel as contributing factors. HLA data derived from stem cell donors yields CPRA values that are comparable to those derived from deceased kidney donors while improving upon several problems with the current reference panel. Consideration should be given to using stem cell donors as the reference panel for calculation of CPRA to improve equity in kidney transplant allocation.

A revealed preference analysis to develop composite scores approximating lung allocation policy in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: The patient ranking process for donor lung allocation in the United States is carried out by a classification-based, computerized algorithm, known as the match system. Experts have suggested that a continuous, points-based allocation framework would better serve waiting list candidates by removing hard boundaries and increasing transparency into the relative importance of factors used to prioritize candidates. We applied discrete choice modeling to match run data to determine the feasibility of approximating current lung allocation policy by one or more composite scores. Our study aimed to demystify the points-based approach to organ allocation policy; quantify the relative importance of factors used in current policy; and provide a viable policy option that adapts the current, classification-based system to the continuous allocation framework. METHODS: Rank ordered logistic regression models were estimated using 6466 match runs for 5913 adult donors and 534 match runs for 488 pediatric donors from 2018. Four primary attributes are used to rank candidates and were included in the models: (1) medical priority, (2) candidate age, (3) candidate's transplant center proximity to the donor hospital, and (4) blood type compatibility with the donor. RESULTS: Two composite scores were developed, one for adult and one for pediatric donor allocation. Candidate rankings based on the composite scores were highly correlated with current policy rankings (Kendall's Tau ~ 0.80, Spearman correlation > 90%), indicating both scores strongly reflect current policy. In both models, candidates are ranked higher if they have higher medical priority, are registered at a transplant center closer to the donor hospital, or have an identical blood type to the donor. Proximity was the most important attribute. Under a points-based scoring system, candidates in further away zones are sometimes ranked higher than more proximal candidates compared to current policy. CONCLUSIONS: Revealed preference analysis of lung allocation match runs produced composite scores that capture the essence of current policy while removing rigid boundaries of the current classification-based system. A carefully crafted, continuous version of lung allocation policy has the potential to make better use of the limited supply of donor lungs in a manner consistent with the priorities of the transplant community.