Effect of the opioid crisis on the liver transplantation donor pool: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade there has been a surge in overdose deaths due to the opioid crisis. We sought to characterize the temporal change in overdose donor (OD) use in liver transplantation (LT), as well as associated post-LT outcomes, relative to the COVID-19 era. METHODS: LT candidates and donors listed between January 2016 and September 2022 were identified from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Trends in LT donors and changes related to OD were assessed pre- versus post-COVID-19 (February 2020). RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2022, most counties in the United States experienced an increase in overdose-related deaths (n = 1284, 92.3%) with many counties (n = 458, 32.9%) having more than a doubling in drug overdose deaths. Concurrently, there was an 11.2% increase in overall donors, including a 41.7% increase in the number of donors who died from drug overdose. In pre-COVID-19 overdose was the 4th top mechanism of donor death, while in the post-COVID-19 era, overdose was the 2nd most common cause of donor death. OD was younger (OD: 35 yrs, IQR 29-43 vs. non-OD: 43 yrs, IQR 31-56), had lower body mass index (≥35 kg/cm2, OD: 31.2% vs. non-OD: 33.5%), and was more likely to be HCV+ (OD: 28.9% vs. non-OD: 5.4%) with lower total bilirubin (≥1.1 mg/dL, OD: 12.9% vs. non-OD: 20.1%) (all p < .001). Receipt of an OD was not associated with worse graft survival (HR .94, 95% CI .88-1.01, p = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid deaths markedly increased following the COVID-19 pandemic, substantially altering the LT donor pool in the United States.

The impact of high volumes of COVID-related lung transplant on waitlist mortality for non-COVID candidates in the United States.

Some patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID) develop serious, irreversible lung disease, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or pulmonary fibrosis. For select candidates, lung transplant is the only option to improve quality and length of life. Because of the severity of end-stage COVID-related lung disease, these candidates receive high allocation priority in the United States, including higher priority than many patients without COVID-related lung disease. This study assessed whether transplant centers with a large volume of COVID-related lung transplants experienced an increase in waitlist mortality for non-COVID transplant candidates. Nineteen centers were included as high-volume programs, defined as being in the top third of centers who transplanted COVID patients. Of the 2867 non-COVID patients waitlisted at these centers, there was no significant difference in waitlist mortalities of non-COVID transplant candidates between the pre-COVID transplant era (January 2018-February 2020) and during the period of high COVID transplant volume (March 2020-October 2022) (subhazard ratio: .92 [95% CI = .81-1.05], p = .22). Among high volume centers, the decision to transplant and to prioritize patients with COVID-related lung disease did not significantly impact the waitlist mortality of other candidates.

Mortality among solid organ transplant recipients with a pretransplant cancer diagnosis.

Little is known about the outcomes among solid organ transplant recipients with a pretransplant cancer diagnosis. We used linked data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients with 33 US cancer registries. Cox proportional hazards models assessed associations of pretransplant cancer with overall mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and development of a new posttransplant cancer. Among 311 677 recipients, the presence of a single pretransplant cancer was associated with increased overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.15-1.23) and cancer-specific mortality (aHR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.76-2.12); results for 2+ pretransplant cancers were similar. Cancer-specific mortality was not significantly increased for uterine, prostate, or thyroid cancers (aHRs were 0.83, 1.22, and 1.54, respectively) but strongly elevated for lung cancer and myeloma (aHRs were 3.72 and 4.42, respectively). A pretransplant cancer diagnosis was also associated with increased risk of developing posttransplant cancer (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23-1.40). Among 306 recipients whose cancer death was confirmed by cancer registry data, 158 deaths (51.6%) were from a de novo posttransplant cancer and 105 (34.3%) from the pretransplant cancer. Pretransplant cancer diagnoses are associated with increased mortality after transplantation, but some deaths are related to posttransplant cancers and other causes. Improved candidate selection and cancer screening and prevention may reduce mortality in this population.

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.

Improving equity in kidney transplant allocation policies through a novel genetic metric: The Matched Donor Potential.

The demand for donors' kidneys continues to increase amid a shortage of available donors. Managing policies to thoughtfully allocate this scarce resource is a complex process. Although human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching has been shown to prolong graft survival, its relative contribution to allocation schemes is empirically compromised owing to competing priorities. We explored using a new metric, Matched Donor Potential (MDP), to facilitate improved HLA matching while promoting equity. We interrogated all active kidney waitlist patients (N = 164 427), their corresponding unacceptable antigen files, and all effective donors in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2017). Cause-specific hazard functions were evaluated to assess the potential impact of the MDP metric on deceased donor transplant access rates for all candidates. Access was affected by ethnicity, blood group type, and calculated Panel Reactive Antibody (cPRA). Importantly, we show that access to transplantation is influenced by the patient's own HLA makeup regardless of their ethnicity and by the HLA makeup of effective donors. The MDP metric demonstrates a high association with access to transplantation. Adjusting Cox models to include this new metric resulted in improved access to kidney transplantation for waitlist candidates of minority heritage while significantly promoting HLA matching. Thus, the MDP metric accounts for balanced, equitable organ allocation algorithms.

Place-based heterogeneity in lung transplant recipient outcomes.

Place is defined as a social or environmental area of residence with meaning to a patient. We hypothesize there is an association between place and the clinical outcomes of lung transplant recipients in the United States. In a retrospective cohort study of transplants between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, multivariable Cox regression models were used to test the association between place (through social and environmental factors) with readmission, lung rejection, and survival. Among 18,465 recipients, only 20% resided in the same county as the transplant center. Recipients from the most socially vulnerable counties when compared to the least vulnerable were more likely to have COPD as a native disease, Black or African American race, and travel long distances to reach a transplant center. Higher local life expectancy was associated with lower likelihood for readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84, 0.98, p = .01). Higher social vulnerability was associated with a higher likelihood of lung rejection (OR = 1.37, [CI]: 1.07, 1.76, p = .01). There was no association of residence with posttransplant survival. Recipient place-based factors were associated with complications and processes of care after transplant and warrant further investigation.

Center-level and region-level variations in liver transplantation practices following acuity circles policy change.

Although early studies suggest the Acuity Circles (AC) allocation policy has increased access to deceased donor liver transplants (DDLTs) for patients with the highest MELD scores, changes in center- and region-level practices among patients with the highest MELD scores in response to AC are not well-characterized. OPTN/UNOS data were analyzed to compare center-level changes in the number of DDLTs based on allocation-MELD (aMELD) categories used for AC sharing performed in the 18-month periods before and after AC enactment on February 4, 2020. There was large center-level variation in the number and proportion of aMELD ≥ 37 DDLTs performed from pre-AC to AC period; 13 centers accounted for 196 of the 198 total net increase in aMELD ≥ 37 DDLTs performed after AC, 5 of these being from UNOS region 5. Similar center-level variation was seen for MELD 33-36 and MELD 29-32 DDLTs, with 17 centers and 14 centers, respectively, accounting for the entire net increase in DDLTs in the aMELD categories. In conclusion, AC increased access to livers for transplantation for high MELD patients nationally, but imbalances remain in transplant practice patterns at the center and regional levels. Longer-term study is necessary to assess effectiveness of AC in improving equitability of liver transplantations.

Social determinants of health data in solid organ transplantation: National data sources and future directions.

Health equity research in transplantation has largely relied on national data sources, yet the availability of social determinants of health (SDOH) data varies widely among these sources. We sought to characterize the extent to which national data sources contain SDOH data applicable to end-stage organ disease (ESOD) and transplant patients. We reviewed 10 active national data sources based in the United States. For each data source, we examined patient inclusion criteria and explored strengths and limitations regarding SDOH data, using the National Institutes of Health PhenX toolkit of SDOH as a data collection instrument. Of the 28 SDOH variables reviewed, eight-core demographic variables were included in ≥80% of the data sources, and seven variables that described elements of social status ranged between 30 and 60% inclusion. Variables regarding identity, healthcare access, and social need were poorly represented (≤20%) across the data sources, and five of these variables were included in none of the data sources. The results of our review highlight the need for improved SDOH data collection systems in ESOD and transplant patients via: enhanced inter-registry collaboration, incorporation of standardized SDOH variables into existing data sources, and transplant center and consortium-based investigation and innovation.

COVID-19 and transplantation-Data censoring.

During the early wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) designated a "black out" period between March 12, 2020, and June 12, 2020, for transplant outcomes reporting. We discuss the implications and potential bias it has introduced as it may selectively favor the outcomes for certain regions and harm other regions due to varied effects of different waves of COVID-19 infections across the United States.

Kidney transplant candidacy evaluation and waitlisting practices in the United States and their association with access to transplantation.

There are limited data on the degree of variability in practices surrounding prioritization of referrals for transplant evaluation and criteria for transplant candidacy and their association with transplantation rates. We surveyed transplant programs across the United States between January 2020 and May 2020 to determine current pre-transplantation practices. We examined the relation between these reported practices and the outcomes of waitlisted patients at responding programs between January 2015 and March 2021 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We used adjusted Cox models with random effects to accommodate clustering by program. Primary outcomes included living or deceased donor transplantation. Of 172 surveyed programs, 90 participated. Substantial variations were noted in when the candidacy evaluation began (13% reported when eGFR was <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 17% reported no set policy) and the approach to pre-transplantation cardiac workup (multi-modality [58%], stress echocardiogram [20%]). Using adjusted models, a program policy of using other measures of body habitus to determine transplant candidacy rather than requiring patients to meet a body mass index (BMI) threshold of ≤35 kg/m2 (reference group) for candidacy was associated with a higher hazard of living donor transplantation (HR 1.83 [95% CI 1.10-3.03]). Pre-transplant practices vary substantially across the United States, and select practices were associated with transplantation rates.

Listing at non-local transplant centers is associated with increased access to deceased donor kidney transplantation.

The ability of kidney transplant candidates to travel outside of their usual place of care varies by sociodemographic factors, potentially exacerbating disparities in access. We used Transplant Referral Regions (TRRs) to overcome previous methodological barriers of using geographic distance to assess the characteristics and outcomes of patients listed for kidney transplant at centers in neighboring TRR or beyond neighboring TRRs. Among listed kidney transplant candidates, 20.9% traveled to a neighbor and 5.6% beyond a neighbor. A higher proportion of travelers were White, had some college education, and lived in ZIP codes with lower poverty. Travel to a neighbor was associated with a 7% increase in likelihood of deceased donor transplant (cHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.09) and traveling beyond a neighbor with a 19% increase (cHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.24). Travelers had similar rates of living donor transplant and waitlist mortality as patients who did not travel; those who traveled beyond a neighbor had slightly lower posttransplant mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). In conclusion, the ability to travel outside of the recipient's assigned TRR increases access to transplantation and improves long-term survival.

An updated estimate of posttransplant survival after implementation of the new donor heart allocation policy.

The Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) implemented a new heart allocation policy on October 18, 2018. Published estimates of lower posttransplant survival under the new policy in cohorts with limited follow-up may be biased by informative censoring. Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate 1-year posttransplant survival for pre-policy (November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2017) and post-policy cohorts (November 1, 2018, to October 31, 2019) with follow-up through March 2, 2021. We adjusted for changes in recipient population over time with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. To demonstrate the effect of inadequate follow-up on post-policy survival estimates, we repeated the analysis but only included follow-up through October 31, 2019. Transplant programs transplanted 2594 patients in the pre-policy cohort and 2761 patients in the post-policy cohort. With follow-up through March 2, 2021, unadjusted 1-year posttransplant survival was 90.6% (89.5%-91.8%) in the pre-policy cohort and 90.8% (89.7%-91.9%) in the post-policy cohort (adjusted HR = 0.93 [0.77-1.12]). Ignoring follow-up after October 31, 2019, the post-policy estimate was biased downward (1-year: 82.2%). When estimated with adequate follow-up, 1-year posttransplant survival under the new heart allocation policy was not significantly different.

Temporal trends and current use of de novo belatacept in kidney transplant recipients in the United States.

The adoption of de novo belatacept in kidney transplant (kTx) recipients was hampered by an increased risk of acute cellular rejection (ACR) with variation in adopted belatacept based immunosuppressive therapies across centers. We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to evaluate the temporal trends in belatacept use and describe the associated induction and maintenance regimens in US adult kTx recipients transplanted between June 2011 and December 2018. The number of patients receiving de novo-belatacept based immunosuppressive therapy increased from .74% in 2011 to 3.11% in 2016. In 2016, 66/207 centers used de novo belatacept-based regimen with 3.03% using it in over 50% of their patients. The use of T-cell depleting agents increased with time. Since 2012, the rate of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) use in combination with belatacept remained stable around 50% and ∼30% remained under belatacept/CNI combination at 1-year post-transplantation. The adoption of belatacept as de novo immunosuppressive regimen has been slow and its use remains low in the United States. Various regimens have been used to modulate the risk of ACR. Further studies evaluating the long-term outcomes of these regimens and assessing their safety especially with regard to the risk of infection are needed.

Return to work after deceased donor kidney transplant under the kidney allocation system.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) includes a scoring system to match transplant candidate life expectancy with expected longevity of the donor kidney, and a backdating policy that gives waitlist time credit to patients waitlisted after starting dialysis treatment (post-dialysis). We estimated the effect of the KAS on employment among patient subgroups targeted by the policy. METHODS: We used a sample selection model to compare employment after transplant before and after KAS implementation among patients on the kidney-only transplant waitlist between December 4, 2011 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: Post-dialysis transplant recipients aged 18-49 were significantly more likely to be employed 1-year post transplant in the post-KAS era compared to the pre-KAS era. Transplant recipients aged 35-64 with no dialysis treatment were significantly less likely to be employed 1 year after transplant in the post-KAS era compared to the pre-KAS era. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first assessment of employment after DDKT under the KAS and provides important information about both the methods used to measure employment after transplant and the outcome under the KAS. Changes in employment after DDKT among various patient subgroups have important implications for assessing long-term patient and societal effects of the KAS and organ allocation policy.

Liver simulated allocation model does not effectively predict organ offer decisions for pediatric liver transplant candidates.

The SRTR maintains the liver-simulated allocation model (LSAM), a tool for estimating the impact of changes to liver allocation policy. Integral to LSAM is a model that predicts the decision to accept or decline a liver for transplant. LSAM implicitly assumes these decisions are made identically for adult and pediatric liver transplant (LT) candidates, which has not been previously validated. We applied LSAM's decision-making models to SRTR offer data from 2013 to 2016 to determine its efficacy for adult (≥18) and pediatric (<18) LT candidates, and pediatric subpopulations-teenagers (≥12 to <18), children (≥2 to <12), and infants (<2)-using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). For nonstatus 1A candidates, all pediatric subgroups had higher rates of offer acceptance than adults. For non-1A candidates, LSAM's model performed substantially worse for pediatric candidates than adults (AUC 0.815 vs. 0.922); model performance decreased with age (AUC 0.898, 0.806, 0.783 for teenagers, children, and infants, respectively). For status 1A candidates, LSAM also performed worse for pediatric than adult candidates (AUC 0.711 vs. 0.779), especially for infants (AUC 0.618). To ensure pediatric candidates are not unpredictably or negatively impacted by allocation policy changes, we must explicitly account for pediatric-specific decision making in LSAM.

Different-team procurements: A potential solution for the unintended consequences of change in lung allocation policy.

The new lung allocation policy has led to an increase in distant donors and consequently enhanced logistical burden of procuring organs. Though early single-center studies noted similar outcomes between same-team transplantation (ST, procuring team from transplanting center) and different-team transplantation (DT, procuring team from different center), the efficacy of DT in the contemporary era remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the trend of DT, rate of transplanting both donor lungs, 1-year graft survival, and risk of Grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD) using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) database from 2006 to 2018. A total of 21619 patients (DT 2085, 9.7%) with 19837 donors were included. Utilization of DT decreased from 15.9% in 2006 to 8.5% in 2018. Proportions of two-lung donors were similar between the groups, and DT had similar 1-year graft survival as ST for both double (DT, HR 1.108, 95% CI 0.894-1.374) and single lung transplants (DT, HR 1.094, 95% CI 0.931-1.286). Risk of Grade 3 PGD was also similar between ST and DT. Given our results, expanding DT may be a feasible option for improving lung procurement efficiency in the current era, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pancreas transplantation from hepatitis C viremic donors to uninfected recipients.

Despite utilization of hepatitis C viremic organs for hepatitis C naïve recipients (HCV D+/R-) in other solid organ transplants, HCV viremic pancreata remain an unexplored source of donor organs. This study reports the first series of HCV D+/R- pancreas transplants. HCV D+/R- had shorter waitlist times compared to HCV D-/R-, waiting a mean of 16 days from listing for HCV-positive organs. HCV D+/R- had a lower match allocation sequence than HCV D-/R-, and this correlated with receipt of organs with a lower Pancreas Donor Risk Index (PDRI) score. All HCV D+/R- had excellent graft function with a mean follow-up of 438 days and had undetectable HCV RNA levels by a mean of 23 days after initiation of HCV-directed therapy. The rates of infectious complications, reoperation, readmission, rejection, and length of stay were not impacted by donor HCV status. A national review of potential ideal pancreas donors found that 37% of ideal HCV-negative pancreas allografts were transplanted, compared to only 5% of ideal HCV-positive pancreas allografts. The results of the current study demonstrate the safety of accepting HCV-positive pancreata for HCV-naïve recipients and advocates for increased utilization of ideal HCV-positive pancreas allografts.