ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation , Tissue and Organ Procurement , Humans , Kidney Transplantation/methods , HLA Antigens , Tissue Donors , Histocompatibility Testing/methods , AntibodiesABSTRACT
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.
