Public attitudes toward contemporary issues in liver allocation.

Allocation of scarce livers for transplantation seeks to balance competing ethical principles of autonomy, utility, and justice. Given the history and ongoing dependence of transplantation on public support for funding and organs, understanding and incorporating public attitudes into allocation decisions seems appropriate. In the context of the current controversy around liver allocation, we sought to determine public preferences about issues relevant to the debate. We performed multiple surveys of attitudes around donation and evaluated these using conjoint analysis and clarifying follow-up questions. We found little public support that allocation decisions should be based solely on risk of waiting-list mortality. Strong public sentiment supported maximizing outcomes after transplantation, prioritizing US citizens or residents, keeping organs local, and considering cost in allocation decisions. We then present a methodology for incorporating these preferences into the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (or MELD) priority score. Taken together, these findings suggest that current allocation schemes do not accurately reflect public preferences and suggest a framework to better align allocation with the values of the public.

Patient-reported outcomes in liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The effect of awarding MELD exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. We evaluated the physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms of anxiety and depression in liver transplant recipients with HCC compared to patients without HCC. METHODS: The single-center sample measured PROs before and after transplant, which included 1521 multisurvey measurement points among 502 adults (67% male, 28% HCC, follow-up time: <1-131 months). Data were analyzed using multivariable mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Longitudinal PRO values did not differ between persons who received HCC exception points and those who did not have HCC. Patients with HCC who did not receive exception points had reduced physical HRQOL (P=.016), a late decline in mental HRQOL, and delayed reduction in anxiety (time-by-outcome interaction P<.050) compared to patients with HCC who received exception points. CONCLUSION: Transplant recipients who received HCC exception points had PROs that were comparable to those of patients without HCC, and reported better physical HRQOL and reduced symptoms of anxiety compared to patients with HCC who did not receive exception points. These analyses demonstrate the impact of HCC exception points on PROs, and may help inform policy regarding HCC exception point allocation.