Exploring Staff Attitudes Towards Unspecified Kidney Donors in the United Kingdom: Results From the BOUnD Study.

Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) has made substantial contributions to the UK living donor programme. Nevertheless, some transplant professionals are uncomfortable with these individuals undergoing surgery. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the attitudes of UK healthcare professionals towards UKD. An opportunistic sample was recruited through the Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation (BOUnD) study covering six UK transplant centres: three high volume and three low volume centres. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study provided comprehensive coverage of the UK transplant community, involving 59 transplant professionals. We identified five themes: staff's conception of the ethics of UKD; presence of the known recipient in the donor-recipient dyad; need for better management of patient expectations; managing visceral reactions about the "typical" unspecified kidney donor; complex attitudes toward a promising new practice. This is the first in-depth qualitative study of attitudes of transplant professionals towards UKD. The data uncovered findings with strong clinical implications for the UKD programme, including the need for a uniform approach towards younger candidates that is adhered to by all transplant centres, the need to equally extend the rigorous assessment to both specified and unspecified donors, and a new approach to managing donor expectations.

Donating a Kidney to a Stranger: Are Healthcare Professionals Facilitating the Journey? Results From the BOUnD Study.

Unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) are approached cautiously by some transplant professionals. The aim of this study was to interrogate the views of UK transplant professionals towards UKDs and identify potential barriers. A purposely designed questionnaire was validated, piloted and distributed amongst transplant professionals at each of the 23 UK transplant centres. Data captured included personal experiences, attitudes towards organ donation, and specific concerns about UKD. 153 responses were obtained, with representation from all UK centres and professional groups. The majority reported a positive experience with UKDs (81.7%; p < 0.001) and were comfortable with UKDs undergoing major surgery (85.7%; p < 0.001). 43.8% reported UKDs to be more time consuming and 52% felt that a mental health assessment should take place before any medical tests. 77% indicated the need for a lower age limit. The suggested age range was broad (16-50 years). Adjusted mean acceptance scores did not differ by profession (p = 0.68) but higher volume centres were more accepting (46.2 vs. 52.9; p < 0.001). This is the first quantitative study of acceptance by transplant professionals to a large national UKD programme. Support is broad, however potential barriers to donation have been identified, including lack of training. Unified national guidance is needed to address these.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Older Individuals: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View.

Living donor transplantation is the optimal treatment for suitable patients with end-stage kidney disease. There are particular advantages for older individuals in terms of elective surgery, timely transplantation, and early graft function. Yet, despite the superiority of living donor transplantation especially for this cohort, older patients are significantly less likely to access this treatment modality than younger age groups. However, given the changing population demographic in recent decades, there are increasing numbers of older but otherwise healthy individuals with kidney disease who could benefit from living donor transplantation. The complex reasons for this inequity of access are explored, including conscious and unconscious age-related bias by healthcare professionals, concerns relating to older living donors, ethical anxieties related to younger adults donating to aging patients, unwillingness of potential older recipients to consider living donation, and the relevant legislation. There is a legal and moral duty to consider the inequity of access to living donor transplantation, recognising both the potential disparity between chronological and physiological age in older patients, and benefits of this treatment for individuals as well as society.

Challenges and Opportunities in the Supply of Living Kidney Donation in the UK National Health Service: An Economic Perspective.

End-stage kidney disease is a significant burden on the healthcare systems of many countries, and this is likely to continue because of an increasingly aging and comorbid population. Multiple studies have demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in transplantation when compared with dialysis, however, there continues to be a shortage of donor kidneys available. This article provides an economic perspective on issues pertinent to living kidney donation and transplantation. Although ethics, equity, and cultural considerations often seem at odds with economic concepts around resource allocation, this article explains the situation around supply and demand for living kidneys and illustrates how this has been addressed in the economic literature. The article discusses different policy recommendations for resolving the imbalance between supply and demand in kidney donation, through policies under 3 main approaches: increasing supply, decreasing demand, and improving the allocation of kidney supply.

Donor Autonomy and Self-Sacrifice in Living Organ Donation: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View.

Clinical teams understandably wish to minimise risks to living kidney donors undergoing surgery, but are often faced with uncertainty about the extent of risk, or donors who wish to proceed despite those risks. Here we explore how these difficult decisions may be approached and consider the conflicts between autonomy and paternalism, the place of self-sacrifice and consideration of risks and benefits. Donor autonomy should be considered as in the context of the depth and strength of feeling, understanding risk and competing influences. Discussion of risks could be improved by using absolute risk, supra-regional MDMs and including the risks to the clinical team as well as the donor. The psychological effects on the donor of poor outcomes for the untransplanted recipient should also be taken into account. There is a lack of detailed data on the risks to the donor who has significant co-morbidities.

Relinquishing Anonymity in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Lessons Learned From the UK Policy for Anonymous Donors.

Anonymous living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is performed in many countries and policies on anonymity differ. The UK is the only European country with a conditional policy, allowing pairs to break anonymity post-transplant. There is little evidence on how contact after anonymous LDKT is experienced. In this cross-sectional study participants who donated or received a kidney through non-directed altruistic kidney donation or within the UK living kidney sharing scheme completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes towards anonymity. Non-parametric statistics were used to analyse the data. 207 recipients and 354 donors participated. Anonymity was relinquished among 11% of recipients and 8% of donors. Non-anonymous participants were generally content with non-anonymity. They reported positive experiences with contact/meeting the other party. Participants who remained anonymous were content with anonymity, however, 38% would have liked to meet post-transplant. If the other party would like to meet, this number increased to 64%. Although participants agreed with anonymity before surgery, they believe that, if desired, a meeting should be allowed after surgery. UK donors and recipients were satisfied with conditional anonymity and experiences with breaking anonymity were positive. These results support the expansion of conditional anonymity to other countries that allow anonymous LDKT.

The Impact of Cold Ischaemia Time on Outcomes of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in the UK Living Kidney Sharing Scheme.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of CIT on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) outcomes in the UKLKSS versus outside the scheme. BACKGROUND: LDKT provides the best treatment option for end-stage kidney disease patients. end-stage kidney disease patients with an incompatible living donor still have an opportunity to be transplanted through Kidney Exchange Programmes (KEP). In KEPs where kidneys travel rather than donors, cold ischaemia time (CIT) can be prolonged. METHODS: Data from all UK adult LDKT between 2007 and 2018 were analysed. RESULTS: 9969 LDKT were performed during this period, of which 1396 (14%) were transplanted through the UKLKSS, which we refer to as KEP. Median CIT was significantly different for KEP versus non-KEP (339 versus 182 minutes, P < 0.001). KEP LDKT had a higher incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) (2.91% versus 5.73%, P < 0.0001), lower 1-year (estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) 57.90 versus 55.25 ml/min, P = 0.04) and 5-year graft function (eGFR 55.62 versus 53.09 ml/min, P = 0.01) compared to the non-KEP group, but 1- and 5-year graft survival were similar. Within KEP, a prolonged CIT was associated with more DGF (3.47% versus 1.95%, P = 0.03), and lower graft function at 1 and 5-years (eGFR = 55 vs 50 ml/min, P = 0.02), but had no impact on graft survival. CONCLUSION: Whilst CIT was longer in KEP, associated with more DGF and lower graft function, excellent 5-year graft survival similar to non-KEP was found.

Pre-emptive live donor kidney transplantation-moving barriers to opportunities: An ethical, legal and psychological aspects of organ transplantation view.

Live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment modality for end stage renal disease (ESRD), enhancing patient and graft survival. Pre-emptive LDKT, prior to requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), provides further advantages, due to uraemia and dialysis avoidance. There are a number of potential barriers and opportunities to promoting pre-emptive LDKT. Significant infrastructure is needed to deliver robust programmes, which varies based on socio-economic standards. National frameworks can impact on national prioritisation of pre-emptive LDKT and supporting education programmes. Focus on other programme's components, including deceased kidney transplantation and RRT, can also hamper uptake. LDKT programmes are designed to provide maximal benefit to the recipient, which is specifically true for pre-emptive transplantation. Health care providers need to be educated to maximize early LDKT referral. Equitable access for varying population groups, without socio-economic bias, also requires prioritisation. Cultural barriers, including religious influence, also need consideration in developing successful outcomes. In addition, the benefit of pre-emptive LDKT needs to be emphasised, and opportunities provided to potential donors, to ensure timely and safe work-up processes. Recipient education and preparation for pre-emptive LDKT needs to ensure increased uptake. Awareness of the benefits of pre-emptive transplantation require prioritisation for this population group. We recommend an approach where patients approaching ESRD are referred early to pre-transplant clinics facilitating early discussion regarding pre-emptive LDKT and potential donors for LDKT are prioritized for work-up to ensure success. Education regarding pre-emptive LDKT should be the norm for patients approaching ESRD, appropriate for the patient's cultural needs and physical status. Pre-emptive transplantation maximize benefit to potential recipients, with the potential to occur within successful service delivery. To fully embrace preemptive transplantation as the norm, investment in infrastructure, increased awareness, and donor and recipient support is required.

Changing patterns of clinical decision making: are falling numbers of antibody incompatible transplants related to the increasing success of the UK Living Kidney Sharing Scheme? A national cohort study.

Antibody incompatibility is a barrier to living kidney transplantation; antibody incompatible transplantation (AIT) is an accepted treatment modality, albeit higher risk. This study aims to determine changes to clinical decision making and access to AIT in the UK. An electronic survey was sent to all UK renal transplant centres (n = 24), in 2014, and again in 2018. Questions focused on entry & duration in the UKLKSS for HLA and ABO-incompatible pairs, Can and provision of direct AIT transplantation within those centres. Between 2014 & 2018, the duration recommended for patients in the UKLKSS increased. In 2014, 34.8% of centres reported leaving HLA-i pairs in the UKLKSS indefinitely, or reviewing on a case by case basis, by 2018 this increased to 61%. Centres offering direct HLA-i transplantation reduced from 58% to 37%. For low titre (1:8) ABO-i recipients, 66% of centres recommended at least 9 months (3 matching runs) in the UKLKSS scheme in 2018, compared to 47% in 2014, 50% fewer units consider direct ABO-i transplantation for unsuccessful pairs with high ABO titres (>1:512). Over time, clinicians appear to be facilitating more conservative management of AIT patients, potentially limiting access to living donor transplantation.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and early mortality of waitlisted and solid organ transplant recipients in England: A national cohort study.

Patients waitlisted for and recipients of solid organ transplants (SOT) are perceived to have a higher risk of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and death; however, definitive epidemiological evidence is lacking. In a comprehensive national cohort study enabled by linkage of the UK transplant registry and Public Health England and NHS Digital Tracing services, we examined the incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent mortality in patients on the active waiting list for a deceased donor SOT and recipients with a functioning SOT as of February 1, 2020 with follow-up to May 20, 2020. Univariate and multivariable techniques were used to compare differences between groups and to control for case-mix. One hundred ninety-seven (3.8%) of the 5184 waitlisted patients and 597 (1.3%) of the 46 789 SOT recipients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Mortality after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 10.2% (20/197) for waitlisted patients and 25.8% (154/597) for SOT recipients. Increasing recipient age was the only variable independently associated with death after positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Of the 1004 transplants performed in 2020, 41 (4.1%) recipients have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with 8 (0.8%) deaths reported by May 20. These data provide evidence to support decisions on the risks and benefits of SOT during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Has the UK living kidney donor population changed over time? A cross-sectional descriptive analysis of the UK living donor registry between 2006 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: A living-donor kidney transplant is the best treatment for most people with kidney failure. Population cohort studies have shown that lifetime living kidney donor risk is modified by sex, age, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity and relationship to the recipient. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether the UK population of living kidney donors has changed over time, investigating changes in donor demographics. DESIGN: We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of the UK living kidney donor registry between January 2006 to December 2017. Data were available on living donor sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, hypertension and relationship to recipient. SETTING: UK living donor registry. PARTICIPANTS: 11 651 consecutive living kidney donors from January 2006 to December 2017. OUTCOME MEASURES: Living kidney donor demographic characteristics (sex, age, ethnicity, BMI and relationship to the transplant recipient) were compared across years of donation activity. Donor characteristics were also compared across different ethnic groups. RESULTS: Over the study period, the mean age of donors increased (from 45.8 to 48.7 years, p<0.001), but this change appears to have been limited to the White population of donors. Black donors were younger than White donors, and a greater proportion were siblings of their intended recipient and male. The proportion of non-genetically related non-partner donations increased over the 12-year period of analysis (p value for linear trend=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The increasing age of white living kidney donors in the UK has implications for recipient and donor outcomes. Despite an increase in the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals waitlisted for a kidney transplant, there has been no increase in the ethnic diversity of UK living kidney donors. Black donors in the UK may be at a much greater risk of developing kidney failure due to accumulated risks: whether these risks are being communicated needs to be investigated.

Raising awareness of unspecified living kidney donation: an ELPAT view.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease and unspecified living kidney donation is morally justified. Despite the excellent outcomes of LDKT, unspecified kidney donation (UKD) is limited to a minority of European countries due to legal constraints and moral objections. Consequently, there are significant variations in practice and approach between countries and the contribution of UKD is undervalued. Where UKD is accepted as routine, an increasing number of patients in the kidney exchange programme are successfully transplanted when a 'chain' of transplants is triggered by a single unspecified donor. By expanding the shared living donor pool, the benefit of LDKT is extended to patients who do not have their own living donor because a recipient on the national transplant list always completes the chain. Is there a moral imperative to increase the scope of UKD and how could this be achieved? METHODS: An examination of the literature and individual country practices was performed to identify the limitations on UKD in Europe and recommend strategies to increase transplant opportunities. RESULTS: Primary limitations to UKD, key players and their roles and responsibilities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Raising awareness to encourage the public to volunteer to donate is appropriate and desirable to increase UKD. Recommendations are made to provide a framework for increasing awareness and engagement in UKD. The public, healthcare professionals, policy makers and society and religious leaders have a role to play in creating an environment for change.

Donating a Kidney to a Stranger: A Review of the Benefits and Controversies of Unspecified Kidney Donation.

OF BACKGROUND DATA: Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) describes living donation of a kidney to a stranger. The practice is playing an increasingly important role within the transplant programme in the United Kingdom, where these donors are commonly used to trigger a chain of transplants; thereby amplifying the benefit derived from their donation. The initial reluctance to accept UKD was in part due to uncertainty about donor motivations and whether the practice was morally and ethically acceptable. OBJECTIVES: This article provides an overview of UKD and answers common questions regarding the ethical considerations, clinical assessment, and how UKD kidneys are used to maximize utility. Existing literature on outcomes after UKD is also discussed, along with current controversies. CONCLUSIONS: We believe UKD is an ethically acceptable practice which should continue to grow, despite its controversies. In our experience, these donors are primarily motivated by a desire to help others and utilization of their kidney as part of a sharing scheme means that many more people seek to benefit from their very generous donation.

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.

Understanding barriers and outcomes of unspecified (non-directed altruistic) kidney donation from both professional's and patient's perspectives: research protocol for a national multicentre mixed-methods prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Living donation accounts for over one-third of all kidney transplants taking place in the UK. 1 The concept of anonymously donating a kidney to a stranger (non-directed altruistic or unspecified kidney donation (UKD)) remains uncomfortable for some clinicians, principally due to concerns about the motivations and long-term physical and psychological outcomes in this donor group. AIMS: The research programme aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the unspecified donor programme in the UK. It aims to identify reasons for variations in practice across centres, explore outcomes for donors and ascertain barriers and facilitators to UKD, as well as assess the economic implications of unspecified donation. METHODS: The research programme will adopt a mixed-methods approach to assessing UKD nationally using focus groups, interviews and questionnaires. Two study populations will be investigated. The first will include transplant professionals involved in unspecified kidney donation. The second will include a 5-year prospective cohort of individuals who present to any of the 23 UK transplant centres as a potential unspecified living kidney donor. Physical and psychological outcomes will be followed up to 1 year following donation or withdrawal from the donation process. A matched sample of specified donors (those donating to someone they know) will be recruited as a control group. Further qualitative work consisting of interviews will be performed on a purposive sample of unspecified donors from both groups (those who do and do not donate). DISSEMINATION: The findings will be reported to NHS Blood and Transplant and the British Transplant Society with a view to developing national guidelines and a protocol for the management of those presenting for unspecified donation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23895878, Pre-results.

Summary of the British Transplantation Society UK Guidelines for Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

The British Transplantation Society Guidelines for Living Donor Liver Transplantation was published in July 2015 and is the first national guideline in the field of living donor liver transplantation. The guideline aims to review the evidence relating to the evaluation process of both recipient and donor candidates; address the moral and ethical issues surrounding the procedure; outline the technical aspects of the procedure, including the middle hepatic vein controversy and the "small for size syndrome"; review donor and recipient outcomes and complications including donor mortality; and examine evidence relating to the advantages and disadvantages of living donor liver transplantation. In line with previous guidelines published by the BTS, the guideline has used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to rate the strength of evidence and recommendations. This article summarizes the Statements of Recommendation contained in the guideline, which provide a framework for the delivery of living liver donation in the United Kingdom and may be of wide international interest. It is recommended that the full guideline document is consulted for details of the relevant references and evidence base. This may be accessed at http://www.bts.org.uk/BTS/Guidelines_Standards/Current/BTS/Guidelines_Standards/Current_Guidelines.aspx?hkey=e285ca32-5920-4613-ac08-fa9fd90915b5.

The Relevance of Directive 2010/53/EU for Living Organ Donation Practice: An ELPAT View.

With the recent transposition of Directive 2010/53/EU into the transplant regulation of EU Member States, the time is right to have a closer look at its implications for living organ donation practice. We first discuss the relevance of the Action Plan which forms the basis for the policy of the European Commission in the field of organ donation and transplantation. We then analyze the impact of Directive 2010/53/EU which was adopted to support the implementation of the Priority Actions set out in the Action Plan. We more specifically focus on the obligations of transplant centers engaged in living organ donation and highlight their significance for clinical practice. Finally, we point out some strengths and weaknesses of the Directive in addressing living organ donation.

Dealing With Public Solicitation of Organs From Living Donors--An ELPAT View.

Although transplant professionals have initially been reluctant to perform transplants after public solicitation of organs from living donors, nowadays these transplants are increasingly being performed and reported. After clarifying the existing terminology, we elaborate an operational definition of public solicitation that is consistent with the Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Aspects of Transplantation classification for living organ donation. Our aim is to critically assess this phenomenon, from a legal, moral, and practical perspective, and to offer some recommendations. From a legal point of view, we analyze the current situation in the Europe and the United States. From a moral perspective, we evaluate the various arguments used in the literature, both in favor and against. Finally, we offer a set of recommendations aimed at maximizing the organ donor pool while safeguarding the interests of potential living donors.

Comparison of estimated GFR and measured GFR in prospective living kidney donors.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the usefulness of three GFR-estimating equations (eGFR) compared with measured GFR (mGFR) in potential living kidney donors. METHODS: We compared the performance of the MDRD, CKD-Epi and Cockcroft-Gault equations with mGFR measured using (51)Cr-EDTA in 508 consecutive potential living kidney donors. Each equation was assessed for bias, precision and accuracy compared with mGFR, and the sensitivity and specificity for the identification of donors with mGFR<80 mL/min/1.73 m2 was evaluated. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four subjects were male, 398 Caucasian, 60 Afro-Caribbean and 50 from other ethnic groups. Median age and mGFR were 44.1 year and 91.7 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients between eGFR and mGFR were in the range R s=0.520-0.593. Median bias (eGFR-mGFR) for the MDRD, CKD-Epi and Cockcroft-Gault equations were -1.0 (p=0.98), +8.8 (p<0.0001) and +11.1 (p<0.0001) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Significant differences in bias between Afro-Caribbean and Caucasian subjects were found. The sensitivity (specificity) for the MDRD, CKD-Epi and Cockcroft-Gault equations for identifying subjects with mGFR<80 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 60 (83), 39 (95) and 44% (95%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The level of agreement between mGFR and all three eGFR values was poor, with the MDRD equation performing best. We conclude that reliance on creatinine-based eGFR values is unsatisfactory for the evaluation of potential living kidney donors.