Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Solid Organ Transplantation During 2020 in Poland Compared with Countries in Western Europe, Asia, and North America: A Review.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, due to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which began in March 2020, affected organ donor acceptance and rates of heart, lung, kidney, and liver transplants worldwide. According to data reported to POLTRANSPLANT, the number of solid organ transplants decreased by over 35% and the number of patients enlisted de novo for organ transplantation was reduced to 70% of its pre-COVID-19 volume in Poland. Most transplant centers in Western Europe and the USA have also drastically reduced their activity when compared to the pre-pandemic era. Areas of high SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence, like Italy, Spain, and France, were most affected. Significant decreases in organ donation and number of transplant procedures and increase in waitlist deaths have been noted due to overload of the healthcare system as well as uncertainty of donor SARS-CoV-2 status. Intensive care unit bed shortages and less intensive care resources available for donor management are major factors limiting access to organ procurement. The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on transplant activities was not so adverse in Asia, as a result of a strategy based on experience gained during a previous SARS pandemic. This review aims to compare the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on solid organ transplantation during 2020 in Poland with countries in Western Europe, North America, and Asia.

Notifying donors when their deferral is ending: An effective donor retention strategy.

BACKGROUND: The application of a temporary deferral often leads to donor lapse. Contributing factors may be donors not knowing when their deferral ends or not being contacted and asked to return. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a reminder message notifying donors that their deferral is coming to an end in increasing donors' postdeferral return rates. We evaluated the optimal time, content, and mode of delivery of the reminder message. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two studies were conducted with deferred donors. Study 1: donors (n = 1676) were randomized to be sent a reminder message at one of three time points (4 weeks before, 1 week before, and 1 week after their deferral ended) or to a no contact control condition. Study 2: donors (n = 1973) were randomized to three message type conditions (emotive email, nonemotive email, nonemotive SMS). Attempted return behavior was extracted (appointments, attendances) at 1 month. RESULTS: In Study 1, being sent the reminder message increased odds of donors attempting to return within 3 months compared with the control group (OR:2.01). Sending the reminder 1 week before the deferral ended was the most effective time point. In Study 2, the nonemotive message increased the odds of attempting to return compared with the emotive message (OR:1.38). No differences were found between email and SMS messages. DISCUSSION: Sending a reminder message to donors when their deferral is coming to an end is a simple, effective, and cost-effective method to retain donors.

Donor program for fecal microbiota transplantation: A 3-year experience of a large-volume Italian stool bank.

BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing rise of C. difficile infection, stool banks and donor programs have been launched to grant access to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). Our aim is to describe characteristics and outcomes of the donor program at our stool bank. METHODS: Donor candidates underwent a four-step selection process, including a clinical interview, blood and stool testing, a further questionnaire and a direct stool testing the day of each donation. From March 2020, specific changes to this process were introduced to avoid the potential transmission of COVID-19. We evaluated the rate of excluded candidates at each step of the screening, as well as the number of total fecal aliquots provided by qualified donors. RESULTS: Overall, 114 donor candidates were evaluated. Seventy-five candidates declined to join the program for logistic or personal issues, three were excluded after the questionnaire and seven for positive stool exams. Finally, 29 (25%) subjects qualified as stool donors, and provided 70 stool samples. Fifteen samples were excluded after direct molecular stool testing. A total of 127 aliquots was finally obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Donor recruitment for FMT is a challenging process, and only a small rate of candidates are eligible as donors.

New blood donors in times of crisis: Increased donation willingness, particularly among people at high risk for attracting SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, during crises the number of new blood donors increases. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created additional barriers to donate due to governmental prevention measures and increased personal health risks. In this report, we examined how the pandemic affected new donor registrations in the Netherlands, especially among groups with higher risk profiles for severe COVID-19. Additionally, we explored the role of media for blood donation and new donor registrations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed new donor registrations and attention for blood donation in newspapers and on social media from January until May 2020, in comparison to the same period in 2017 to 2019. RESULTS: After the introduction of nationwide prevention measures, several peaks in new donor registrations occurred, which coincided with peaks in media attention. Interestingly, people with a higher risk profile for COVID-19 (e.g., due to age or region of residence) were overrepresented among new registrants. DISCUSSION: In sum, the first peak of the current pandemic has led to increased new blood donor registrations, despite the associated increased health risks. Time and future studies will have to tell whether these new donors are one-off 'pandemic' donors or if they will become regular, loyal donors.

Challenges of Screening Prospective Stool Donors for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation.

Despite high efficacy rates, significant costs and logistical challenges associated with procuring stool from healthy donors for fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have presented barriers to broader institutional adoption and limited the availability of this life-saving treatment. Published outcomes for donor screening programs report donor deferral rates between 90% and 96%. Due to the paucity of FMT donor screening data, a secondary analysis on a cohort of previously screened donors (n = 7,968) was conducted to provide a synopsis of the observed trends and rationales for prospective stool donor deferrals. Upon completion of the evaluation, 1.7% of prospective donors (n = 134) qualified for stool donation. Over 50% of donors who completed the online pre-screen were deferred, primarily for a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater (n = 1,516, 37.0%), logistics (n = 841, 20.5%), and travel history (n = 638, 15.5%). Despite pre-screening, 569 donors (72.8%) who completed the in-person clinical assessment were ultimately deferred due primarily to potentially microbiome-mediated diseases (n = 187, 32.9%). A notably small portion of donors (n = 46, 25.6%) were deferred during the laboratory assessment process suggesting the clinical assessment was effective at deferring donors at higher risk for transmissible diseases. Donors lost to follow-up throughout the screening process presented a significant challenge and contributed to a notable (n = 3,117; 39.1%) portion of donor attrition. Findings were used to support recommendations for improving prospective stool donor screening programs and to provide suggestions for future research.

Proceedings of the 25th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society.

The 25th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held in Toronto, Canada, from May 15 to 18, 2019. Surgeons, hepatologists, anesthesiologists, critical care intensivists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists from all over the world came together with the common aim of improving care and outcomes for liver transplant recipients and living donors. Some of the featured topics at this year's conference included multidisciplinary perioperative care in liver transplantation, worldwide approaches to organ allocation, donor steatosis, and updates in pediatrics, immunology, and radiology. This report presents excerpts and highlights from invited lectures and select abstracts, reviewed and compiled by the Vanguard Committee of International Liver Transplantation Society. This will hopefully contribute to further advances in clinical practice and research in liver transplantation.

Zika virus and its implications on cord blood banking and transplantation.

Umbilical cord blood is an important cellular therapy product used for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but the US Food and Drug Administration guidance regarding donor screening to reduce the risk of Zika transmission has decreased the number of licensed, eligible cord blood units available for transplantation. There is a crucial need for updated travel risk assessment for Zika virus transmission, validated screening tests for Zika virus in umbilical cord blood, and further research on Zika virus transmissibility due to umbilical cord blood products to ensure that umbilical cord blood and related tissues are safe and available for transplantation.

OPTN/SRTR 2018 Annual Data Report: Hepatitis C.

Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) have fundamentally changed the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and reduced the discard rate of HCV-infected organs by offering a treatment option with a high likelihood of cure posttransplant. This has spurred increased interest in transplanting organs from HCV-positive donors into recipients both with and without HCV. In this chapter, we examine data from 2007 to 2018 to determine trends in HCV (+) donor transplants across various organ types. Since 2015, willingness to accept HCV (+) organs increased for candidates waitlisted for kidney, lung, heart, and pancreas transplant, but decreased for those listed for intestine transplant. For candidates listed for liver transplant, willingness to accept HCV (+) organs decreased from 2007 to 2017, but began increasing in 2017. Willingness to accept was not concentrated in a single US geographic area, and there was substantial variation among transplant programs and donation service areas. Numbers of anti-HCV (+) donor kidney, heart, lung, and liver transplants have increased considerably in the past few years. Short-term allograft survival for kidney and liver transplant recipients of anti-HCV (+) organs appears to be comparable to that for recipients of anti-HCV (-) organs in an unadjusted analysis. However, an unadjusted analysis indicates that long-term allograft survival may be worse. Kidney transplant between HCV-infected donors and uninfected recipients with posttransplant DAA treatment is an emerging area. Short-term data are promising, with similar 1-year allograft survival compared with HCV-uninfected donor to HCV-uninfected recipient kidney transplants in unadjusted analyses. However, long-term data are lacking and close monitoring in the future is warranted.

Ten Years of Kidney Paired Donation at Mayo Clinic: The Benefits of Incorporating ABO/HLA Compatible Pairs.

BACKGROUND: We examined the 10-year experience of Mayo Clinic's kidney paired donation (KPD).We aimed to determine the benefits for the recipients of enrolled ABO/HLA compatible pairs and determine the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 332 kidney transplants facilitated by the Mayo 3-site KPD program from September 2007 to June 2018. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) time from KPD entry to transplantation was 89 days (42-187 days). The factors independently associated with receiving a transplant >3 months after KPD entry included recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies ≥98%. Fifty-four ABO/HLA compatible pairs participated in KPD for the following reasons: cytomegalovirus mismatch (18.5% [10/54]), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mismatch (EBV) (9.3% [5/54]), age/size mismatch (51.9% [28/54]), or altruistic reasons (20.3% [11/54]). Cytomegalovirus and EBV mismatch were avoided in 90% (9/10) and 100% (5/5) of cases. Recipients who entered KPD for age/size mismatch and altruistic reasons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual donor (median [interquartile range] 31.5 [12.3-47]; P < 0.001 and 26 (-1 to 46); P = 0.01 points lower, respectively). Median time to transplant from KPD entry for compatible pair recipients was 70 days (41-163 days), and 44.4% (24/54) of these transplants were preemptive. All chains/swaps incorporating compatible pairs included ABO/HLA incompatible pairs. CONCLUSIONS: KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of these pairs can derive personal benefit from KPD while increasing the donor pool for difficult to match pairs.

The unique moral permissibility of uncontrolled lung donation after circulatory death.

Implementing uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) in the United States could markedly improve supply of donor lungs for patients in need of transplants. Evidence from US pilot programs suggests families support uDCDD, but only if they are asked permission for using invasive organ preservation procedures prior to initiation. However, non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs may be applicable to the overwhelming majority of potential uDCDD donors that have airway devices in place as part of standard resuscitation. We propose an ethical framework for lung uDCDD by: (a) initiating post mortem preservation without requiring prior permission to protect the opportunity for donation until an authorized party can be found; (b) using non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs; and (c) maintaining strict separation between the healthcare team and the organ preservation team. Attempting uDCDD in this way has great potential to obtain more transplantable lungs while respecting donor autonomy and family wishes, securing public support, and enabling authorized persons to affirm or cease preservation decisions without requiring evidence of prior organ donation intent. It ensures prioritization of life-saving, the opportunity to allow willing donors to donate, and respect for bodily integrity while adhering to current ethical norms.

Enhanced Advocacy and Health Systems Training Through Patient Navigation Increases Access to Living-donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: To date, no living donation program has simultaneously addressed the needs of both transplant candidates and living donors by separating the advocacy role from the candidate and improving potential donor comfort with the evaluation process. We hypothesized that the development of a novel program designed to promote both advocacy and systems training among transplant candidates and their potential living kidney donors would result in sustained increases in living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). To this end, we developed and implemented a Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. METHODS: We included adult patients awaiting kidney-only transplant in a retrospective cohort analysis. Using time-varying Cox proportional hazards regression, we explored likelihood of living donor screening and approval by participation in the LDN program. RESULTS: There were 56 LDN participants and 1948 nonparticipants (standard of care). LDN was associated with a 9-fold increased likelihood of living donor screenings (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.27; 95% confidence interval, 5.97-14.41, P < 0.001) and a 7-fold increased likelihood of having an approved living donor (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.74; 95% confidence interval, 3.54-16.93; P < 0.001) compared with the standard of care. Analyses by participant race demonstrated higher likelihood of screened donors and a similar likelihood of having an approved donor among African Americans compared with Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both advocacy and systems training are needed to increase actual LDKT rates, and that LDN programs may mitigate existing racial disparities in access to LDKT.

A Virtual Crossmatch-based Strategy Facilitates Sharing of Deceased Donor Kidneys for Highly Sensitized Recipients.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 19.2% of kidneys exported for candidates with >98% calculated panel reactive antibodies are transplanted into unintended recipients, most commonly due to positive physical crossmatch (PXM). We describe the application of a virtual crossmatch (VXM) that has resulted in a very low rate of transplantation into unintended recipients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of kidneys imported to our center to assess the reasons driving late reallocation based on the type of pretransplant crossmatch used for the intended recipient. RESULTS: From December 2014 to October 2017, 254 kidneys were imported based on our assessment of a VXM. Of these, 215 (84.6%) were transplanted without a pretransplant PXM. The remaining 39 (15.4%) recipients required a PXM on admission using a new sample because they did not have an HLA antibody test within the preceding 3 months or because they had a recent blood transfusion. A total of 93% of the imported kidneys were transplanted into intended recipients. There were 18 late reallocations: 9 (3.5%) due to identification of a new recipient medical problem upon admission, 5 (2%) due to suboptimal organ quality on arrival, and only 4 (1.6%) due to a positive PXM or HLA antibody concern. A total of 42% of the recipients of imported kidneys had a 100% calculated panel reactive antibodies. There were no hyperacute rejections and very infrequent acute rejection in the first year suggesting no evidence for immunologic memory response. CONCLUSIONS: Seamless sharing is within reach, even when kidneys are shipped long distances for highly sensitized recipients. Late reallocations can be almost entirely avoided with a strategy that relies heavily on VXM.

Mitigating Racial and Sex Disparities in Access to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Impact of the Nation's Longest Single-center Kidney Chain.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to assess likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) within a single-center kidney transplant waitlist, by race and sex, after implementation of an incompatible program. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in access to LDKT exist among minority women and may be partially explained by antigen sensitization secondary to prior pregnancies, transplants, or blood transfusions, creating difficulty finding compatible matches. To address these and other obstacles, an incompatible LDKT program, incorporating desensitization and kidney paired donation, was created at our institution. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed among our kidney transplant waitlist candidates (n = 8895). Multivariable Cox regression was utilized, comparing likelihood of LDKT before (era 1: 01/2007-01/2013) and after (era 2: 01/2013-11/2018) implementation of the incompatible program. Candidates were stratified by race [white vs minority (nonwhite)], sex, and breadth of sensitization. RESULTS: Program implementation resulted in the nation's longest single-center kidney chain, and likelihood of LDKT increased by 70% for whites [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.99] and more than 100% for minorities (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.62). Improvement in access to LDKT was greatest among sensitized minority women [calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 11%-49%: aHR 4.79; 95% CI, 2.27-10.11; cPRA 50%-100%: aHR 4.09; 95% CI, 1.89-8.82]. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an incompatible program, and the resulting nation's longest single-center kidney chain, mitigated disparities in access to LDKT among minorities, specifically sensitized women. Extrapolation of this success on a national level may further serve these vulnerable populations.

Confidential unit exclusion (CUE): Double edged sword for blood transfusion center: A ten-year study on volunteer blood donors in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad province, Iran.

BACKGROUND: Confidential unit exclusion (CUE) is a mechanism developed in the1980s to increase blood safety by allowing donors to indicate confidentially if they think their blood is not safe for transfusion. While it has been used widely around the world, the efficacy of this strategy is still unclear. The present study evaluated the efficacy of the CUE system at the Blood Transfusion Center of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad Province (KBTC), Iran by comparing the prevalence of transfusion-transmitted infectious (TTIs) in CUE and non-CUE groups. METHODS: This descriptive study used data from all volunteer blood donors over a ten-year period. Donors were classified in two groups: CUE and non-CUE. Screening tests were performed for hepatitis B surface antigens (HBs-Ag), hepatitis C virus antibody (HCV-Ab), and Human immunodeficiency virus antibody (HIV-Ab) and any repeatedly reactive results were confirmed by standard methods. Significant differences were determined by Chi2 test. The sensitivity, specificity and PPV of the CUE system were also calculated. RESULTS: In the present study, the non-CUE and CUE groups consisted of 98.94% and 1.06% of volunteer blood donors, respectively. First-time donors selected the CUE option more often than repeated and regular donors. The prevalence of TTIs was significantly higher in the CUE group and CUE sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were 5.5%, 98.95%, and 0.96%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We recommend the CUE system be pursued for further enhancement of blood safety. However, further studies are needed to establish the overall usefulness of this procedure throughout the whole country.

How do I get an emergency civilian walking blood bank running?

The shift toward using a transfusion strategy in a ratio to mimic whole blood (WB) functionality has revitalized WB as a viable option to replace severe blood loss in civilian health care. A military-civilian collaboration has contributed to the reintroduction of WB at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway. WB has logistical and hemostatic advantages in both the pre- and in-hospital settings where the goal is a perfectly timed balanced transfusion strategy. In this paper, we describe an event leading to activation of our emergency WB collection strategy for the first time. We evaluate the feasibility of our civilian walking blood bank (WBB) to cover the need of a massive amount of blood in an emergency situation. The challenges are discussed in relation to the different stages of the event with the recommendations for improvement in practice. We conclude that the use of pre-screened donors as a WBB in a civilian setting is feasible. The WBB can provide platelet containing blood components for balanced blood resuscitation in a clinically relevant time frame.