Access of non-residents to transplantation of deceased donor organs: practices and strategies in the European setting.

The access of non-resident patients to the deceased donor waiting list (DDWL) poses different challenges. The European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe (CD-P-TO) has studied this phenomenon in the European setting. A questionnaire was circulated among the Council of Europe member states to inquire about the criteria applied for non-residents to access their DDWL. Information was compiled from 28 countries. Less than 1% of recipients of deceased donor organs were non-residents. Two countries never allow non-residents to access the DDWL, four allow access without restrictions and 22 only under specific conditions. Of those, most give access to non-resident patients already in their jurisdictions who are in a situation of vulnerability (urgent life-threatening conditions). In addition, patients may be given access: (i) after assessment by a specific committee (four countries); (ii) within the framework of official cooperation agreements (15 countries); and (iii) after patients have officially lived in the country for a minimum length of time (eight countries). The ethical and legal implications of these policies are discussed. Countries should collect accurate information about residency status of waitlisted patients. Transparent criteria for the access of non-residents to DDWL should be clearly defined at national level.

COVID-19 pandemic and worldwide organ transplantation: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary data suggest that COVID-19 has reduced access to solid organ transplantation. However, the global consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on transplantation rates and the effect on waitlisted patients have not been reported. We aimed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on transplantation and investigate if the pandemic was associated with heterogeneous adaptation in terms of organ transplantation, with ensuing consequences for waitlisted patients. METHODS: In this population-based, observational, before-and-after study, we collected and validated nationwide cohorts of consecutive kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplants from 22 countries. Data were collected from Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2020, along with data from the same period in 2019. The analysis was done from the onset of the 100th cumulative COVID-19 case through to Dec 31, 2020. We assessed the effect of the pandemic on the worldwide organ transplantation rate and the disparity in transplant numbers within each country. We estimated the number of waitlisted patient life-years lost due to the negative effects of the pandemic. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416256. FINDINGS: Transplant activity in all countries studied showed an overall decrease during the pandemic. Kidney transplantation was the most affected, followed by lung, liver, and heart. We identified three organ transplant rate patterns, as follows: countries with a sharp decrease in transplantation rate with a low COVID-19-related death rate; countries with a moderate decrease in transplantation rate with a moderate COVID-19-related death rate; and countries with a slight decrease in transplantation rate despite a high COVID-19-related death rate. Temporal trends revealed a marked worldwide reduction in transplant activity during the first 3 months of the pandemic, with losses stabilising after June, 2020, but decreasing again from October to December, 2020. The overall reduction in transplants during the observation time period translated to 48 239 waitlisted patient life-years lost. INTERPRETATION: We quantified the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on worldwide organ transplantation activity and revealed heterogeneous adaptation in terms of organ transplantation, both at national levels and within countries, with detrimental consequences for waitlisted patients. Understanding how different countries and health-care systems responded to COVID-19-related challenges could facilitate improved pandemic preparedness, notably, how to safely maintain transplant programmes, both with immediate and non-immediate life-saving potential, to prevent loss of patient life-years. FUNDING: French national research agency (INSERM) ATIP Avenir and Fondation Bettencourt Schueller.

Building Kidney Exchange Programmes in Europe-An Overview of Exchange Practice and Activities.

BACKGROUND: Considerable differences exist among the living donor Kidney Exchange Programmes (KEPs) that are in use and being built in Europe, contributing to a variation in the number of living donor transplants (Newsletter Transplant; International figures on donation and transplantation 2016). Efforts of European KEPs to exchange (best) practices and share approaches to address challenges have, however, been limited. METHODS: Experts from 23 European countries, collaborating on the European Network for Collaboration on Kidney Exchange Programmes Cooperation on Science and Technology Action, developed a questionnaire to collect detailed information on the functioning of all existing KEPs in Europe, as well as their opportunities and challenges. Following a comparative analysis, results were synthesized and interpreted by the same experts. RESULTS: The practices, opportunities and challenges reported by 17 European countries reveal that some of the 10 operating programs are mature, whereas others are in earlier stages of development. Over 1300 transplants were performed through existing KEPs up to the end of 2016, providing approximately 8% of their countries' living kidney donations in 2015. All countries report challenges to either initiating KEPs or increasing volumes. Some challenges are shared, whereas others differ because of differences in context (eg, country size, effectiveness of deceased donor program) and ethical and legal considerations (eg, regarding living donation as such, nonrelated donors, and altruistic donation). Transnational initiatives have started in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and Southern Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Exchange of best practices and shared advancement of national programs to address existing challenges, aided by transnational exchanges, may substantially improve access to the most (cost) effective treatment for the increasing number of patients suffering from kidney disease.