The limits of refusal: An ethical review of solid organ transplantation and vaccine hesitancy

Patients pursuing solid organ transplantation are encouraged to receive many vaccines on an accelerated timeline. Vaccination prior to transplantation offers the best chance of developing immunity and may expand the pool of donor organs that candidates can accept without needing posttransplant therapy. Furthermore, transplant recipients are at greater risk for acquiring vaccine-preventable illnesses or succumbing to severe sequelae of such illnesses. However, a rising rate of vaccine refusal has challenged transplant centers to address the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy. Transplant centers may need to consider adopting a policy of denial of solid organ transplantation on the basis of vaccine refusal for non-medical reasons (i.e., philosophical or religious objections or personal beliefs that vaccines are unnecessary or unsafe). Arguments supporting such a policy are motivated by utility, stewardship, and beneficence. Arguments opposing such a policy emphasize justice and respect for persons, and seek to avoid worsening inequities or medical coercion. This paper examines these arguments and situates them within the special cases of pediatric transplantation, emergent transplantation, and living donation. Ultimately, a uniform national policy addressing vaccine refusal among transplant candidates is needed to resolve this ethical dilemma and establish a consistent, fair, and standard approach to vaccine refusal in transplantation.

Consensus conference on heart-kidney transplantation

Simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (sHK) has enabled the successful transplantation of patients with end-stage heart disease and concomitant kidney disease, with non-inferior outcomes to heart transplant (HT) alone. The decision for sHK is challenged by difficulties in differentiating those patients with a significant component of reversible kidney injury due to cardiorenal syndrome who may recover kidney function after HT, from those with intrinsic advanced kidney disease who would benefit most from sHK. A consensus conference on sHK took place on June 1, 2019 in Boston, Massachusetts. The conference represented a collaborative effort by experts in cardiothoracic and kidney transplantation from centers across the United States to explore the development of guidelines for the interdisciplinary criteria for kidney transplantation in the sHK candidate, to evaluate the current allocation of kidneys to follow the heart for sHK, and to recommend standardized care for the management of sHK recipients. The conference served as a forum to unify criteria between the different specialties and to forge a pathway for patients who may need dual organ transplantation. Due to the continuing shortage of available donor organs, ethical problems related to multi-organ transplantation were also debated. The findings and consensus statements are presented.

Expanding donor availability in lung transplantation: A case report of 5000 miles traveled

We present the case of a 41-year-old female who underwent bilateral lung transplantation after the donor lungs were placed on a normothermic ex vivo lung perfusion and ventilation device and flown nearly 5000 miles from Honolulu, Hawaii to Durham, North Carolina. The patient experienced no primary graft dysfunction. One year after transplantation she has remained rejection-free and exhibits excellent pulmonary function. This case highlights the challenge that active organ preservation systems pose to questions of organ allocation and geographic sharing.

Greater complexity and monitoring of the new Kidney Allocation System: Implications and unintended consequences of concentric circle kidney allocation on network complexity

The deceased donor kidney allocation system in the United States has undergone several rounds of iterative changes, but these changes were not explicitly designed to address the geographic variation in access to transplantation. The new allocation system, expected to start in December 2020, changes the definition of "local allocation" from the Donation Service Area to 250 nautical mile circles originating from the donor hospital. While other solid organs have adopted a similar approach, the larger number of both kidney transplant centers and transplant candidates is likely to have different consequences. Here, we discuss the incredible increase in complexity in allocation, discuss some of the likely intended and unintended consequences, and propose metrics to monitor the new system.

Navigating the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial impacts and responses of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States

COVID-19 has been sweeping the globe, hitting the United States particularly hard with a state of emergency declared on March 13, 2020. Transplant hospitals have taken various precautions to protect patients from potential exposure. OPTN donor, candidate, and transplant data were analyzed from January 5, 2020 to September 5, 2020. The number of new waiting list registrations decreased, with the Northeast seeing over a 50% decrease from the week of 3/8 versus the week of 4/5. The national transplant system saw near cessation of living donor transplantation (-90%) from the week of 3/8 to the week of 4/5. Similarly, deceased donor kidney transplant volume dropped from 367 to 202 (-45%), and other organs saw similar decreases: lung (-70%), heart (-43%), and liver (-37%). Deceased donors recovered dropped from 260 to 163 (-45%) from 3/8 compared to 4/5, including a 67% decrease for lungs recovered. The magnitude of this decrease varied by geographic area, with the largest percent change (-67%) in the Northeast. Despite the pandemic, discard rates across organ has remained stable. Although the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, OPTN data show recent evidence of stabilization, an indication that an early recovery of the number of living and deceased donors and transplants has ensued.

Determinants of kidney transplant candidates' decision to accept organ donor intervention transplants and participate in post-transplant research: A conjoint analysis

Deceased organ donor intervention research aims to increase organ quality and quantity for transplantation. We assessed the proportion of kidney transplant candidates who would accept "intervention organs," participate in organ intervention research, and factors influencing acceptance. Kidney transplant candidates were presented 12 hypothetical scenarios, which varied three attributes, donor age, predicted waiting time to receive another organ offer, and research risk to the organ. Candidates were also randomly assigned to one of two conditions varying recipient risk. For each scenario, candidates agreed to accept the intervention organ or remain waitlisted. We fit a multivariable logit model to determine the association between scenario attributes and the acceptance decision. Of 249 participants, most (96%) accepted intervention organs under some or all conditions. Factors independently associated with candidates' greater likelihood of accepting an intervention organ included: low risk to the kidney from the intervention (OR 20.53 [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 13.91-30.29]); younger donor age (OR 3.72 [95% CI, 2.83-4.89]), longer time until the next organ offer (OR 3.48 [95% CI, 2.65-4.57]), and greater trust in their transplant physician (OR 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00-1.06]). Candidates with a lower likelihood of acceptance had been waitlisted longer (OR 0.97 per month [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]) and were Black (OR 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08-0.55]). Most candidates would accept an intervention organ, which should encourage transplant leaders to conduct deceased donor organ intervention trials.

A prospective multicenter pilot study of HIV-positive deceased donor to HIV-positive recipient kidney transplantation: HOPE in action

HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation is permitted in the United States under the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act. To explore safety and the risk attributable to an HIV+ donor, we performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ vs HIV-negative donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D-/R+) kidney transplantation (KT). From 3/2016 to 7/2019 at 14 centers, there were 75 HIV+ KTs: 25 D+ and 50 D- (22 recipients from D- with false positive HIV tests). Median follow-up was 1.7 years. There were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (63 mL/min D+ vs 57 mL/min D-, P = .31), HIV breakthrough (4% D+ vs 6% D-, P > .99), infectious hospitalizations (28% vs 26%, P = .85), or opportunistic infections (16% vs 12%, P = .72). One-year rejection was higher for D+ recipients (50% vs 29%, HR: 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.95, P = .13) but did not reach statistical significance; rejection was lower with lymphocyte-depleting induction (21% vs 44%, HR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.87, P = .03). In this multicenter pilot study directly comparing HIV D+/R+ with HIV D-/R+ KT, overall transplant and HIV outcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further investigation.

The demise of islet allotransplantation in the United States: A call for an urgent regulatory update

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and "more than minimally manipulated" human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as "minimally manipulated tissue" and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States.

Informing American Muslims about living donation through tailored health education: A randomized controlled crossover trial evaluating increase in biomedical and religious knowledge

Biomedical and religious knowledge affects organ donation attitudes among Muslims. We tested the effectiveness of mosque-based, religiously tailored, ethically balanced education on organ donation among Muslim Americans. Our randomized, controlled, crossover trial took place at 4 mosques randomized to an early arm where organ donation education preceded a control educational workshop or a late arm with the order reversed. Primary outcomes were changes in biomedical (Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test living donation subscale, R3KT) and religious (Islamic Knowledge of Living Organ Donation, IK-LOD) living kidney donation knowledge. Statistical analysis employed a 2 (Treatment Arm) X 3 (Time of Assessment) mixed-method analysis of variance. Of 158 participants, 59 were in the early arm and 99 in the late arm. A between group t test comparison at Period 1 (Time 1 - Time 2), demonstrated that the early arm had a significantly higher mean IK-LOD (7.11 v 5.19, P < .05) and R3KT scores (7.65 v 4.90, P < .05) when compared to the late arm. Late arm participants also had significant increases in mean IK-LOD (5.19 v 7.16, P < .05) and R3KT scores (4.90 v. 6.81, P < .05) postintervention (Time 2-Time 3). Our novel program thus yielded significant kidney donation-related knowledge gains among Muslim Americans (NCT04443114 Clinicaltrials.gov).

Leveling-up versus leveling-down to address health disparities in transplantation

Health disparities are best addressed by improving the underserved up to the level afforded to those with the greatest opportunities. See the Viewpoint from Reese et al. on page 958.

Opinions of African American adults about the use of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) genetic testing in living kidney donation and transplantation

Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) predictive genetic testing for kidney disease, and its emerging role in transplantation, remains controversial as it may exacerbate underlying disparities among African Americans (AAs) at increased risk. We conducted an online simulation among AAs (N = 585) about interest in ApoL1 testing and its cofactors, under 2 scenarios: as a potential living donor (PLD), and as a patient awaiting transplantation. Most respondents (61%) expressed high interest in genetic testing as a PLD: age ≥35 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18, 2.60, P = .01), AA identity (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.72, P = .04), perceived kidney disease risk following donation (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.03, 2.73, P = .03), interest in genetics (aOR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.95, 4.29, P = .001), and genetics self-efficacy (aOR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.54, 3.67, P = .001) were positively associated with ApoL1 test interest. If awaiting transplantation, most (89%) believed that ApoL1 testing should be done on AA deceased donors, and older age (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.03, 3.32, P = .04) and greater interest in genetics (aOR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.41, 4.81, P = .002) were associated with interest in testing deceased donors. Findings highlight strong support for ApoL1 testing in AAs and the need to examine such opinions among PLDs and transplant patients to enhance patient education efforts.

Allocating kidneys in optimized heterogeneous circles

Recently, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network approved a plan to allocate kidneys within 250-nm circles around donor hospitals. These homogeneous circles might not substantially reduce geographic differences in transplant rates because deceased donor kidney supply and demand differ across the country. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2016-2019, we used an integer program to design unique, heterogeneous circles with sizes between 100 and 500 nm that reduced supply/demand ratio variation across transplant centers. We weighted demand according to wait time because candidates who have waited longer have higher priority. We compared supply/demand ratios and average travel distance of kidneys, using heterogeneous circles and 250 and 500-nm fixed-distance homogeneous circles. We found that 40% of circles could be 250 nm or smaller, while reducing supply/demand ratio variation more than homogeneous circles. Supply/demand ratios across centers for heterogeneous circles ranged from 0.06 to 0.13 kidneys per wait-year, compared to 0.04 to 0.47 and 0.05 to 0.15 kidneys per wait-year for 250-nm and 500-nm homogeneous circles, respectively. The average travel distance for kidneys using heterogeneous, and 250-nm and 500-nm fixed-distance circles was 173 nm, 134 nm, and 269 nm, respectively. Heterogeneous circles reduce geographic disparity compared to homogeneous circles, while maintaining reasonable travel distances.

Understanding family dynamics in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation decision-making in Taiwan: Motivation, communication, and ambivalence

This study investigated how multiple family members co-construct the ethical significance of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and how the family structure and dynamics of donor-recipient-caregiver relationships shape the communication and decision-making process within the sociocultural context of Taiwan. We conducted in-depth interviews with 36 participants from 13 families at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from February to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and translated from Mandarin to English and analyzed utilizing grounded theory and thematic analysis. Our findings revealed that LDLT in Taiwan is not merely a personal choice of either donor or recipient but essentially a collaborative process of family-centered medical decision-making, intertwined with socioeconomic conditions, cultural and social norms, gender roles, and the division of labor in the household. The notion of reciprocity and indebtedness for family members is a central theme underlying the entire process of motivation, deliberation, and decision-making, thereby reinforcing the naturalness of LDLT. However, our study highlighted that donors from families with traditional gender hierarchy and power imbalance may experience psychological and social vulnerabilities. Conclusively, we suggest that healthcare professionals should be sensitive to the contextual and relational factors involved in family dynamics and provide appropriate support to the ambivalent donors.

Ensuring the need is met: A 50-year simulation study of the National Kidney Registry's family voucher program

The National Kidney Registry (NKR) Advanced Donation Program enables living donors the opportunity to donate altruistically, or in advance of a potential recipient's transplant, and to receive a voucher that can be redeemed for a future transplant facilitated by the NKR. Family vouchers allow a donor to identify multiple individuals within their immediate family, with the first person in that group in need of a transplant being prioritized to receive a kidney. An increase in vouchers introduces concerns that demand for future voucher redemptions could exceed the supply of available donors and kidneys. A Monte Carlo simulation model was constructed to estimate the annual number of voucher redemptions relative to the number of kidneys available over a 50-year time horizon under several projected scenarios for growth of the program. In all simulated scenarios, the number of available kidneys exceeded voucher redemptions every year. While not able to account for all real-life scenarios, this simulation study found that the NKR should be able to satisfy the likely redemption of increasing numbers of vouchers under a range of possible scenarios over a 50-year time horizon. This modeling exercise suggests that a donor family's future needs can be satisfied through the voucher program.

Racial disparities in preemptive waitlisting and deceased donor kidney transplantation: Ethics and solutions

Kidney transplantation prior to dialysis, known as "preemptive transplant," enables patients to live longer and avoid the substantial quality of life burdens due to chronic dialysis. Deceased donor kidneys are a public resource that ought to provide health benefits equitably. Unfortunately, White, better educated, and privately insured patients enjoy disproportionate access to preemptive transplantation using deceased donor kidneys. This problem has persisted for decades and is exacerbated by the first-come, first-served approach to kidney allocation for predialysis patients. In this Personal Viewpoint, we describe the diverse barriers to preemptive waitlisting and kidney transplant. The analysis focuses on healthcare system features that particularly disadvantage Black patients, such as the waitlisting eligibility criterion of a single glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance ≤20 ml/min, and neglect of wide variation in the rate of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in allocating preemptive transplants. We propose initiatives to improve equity including: (1) standardization of waitlisting eligibility criteria related to kidney function; (2) aggressive education for clinicians about early transplant referral; (3) innovations in electronic medical record capabilities; and (4) rapid status 7 listing by centers. If those initiatives fail, the transplant field should consider eliminating preemptive waitlisting and transplantation with deceased donor kidneys.

Findings and recommendations from the organ transplant caregiver initiative: Moving clinical care and research forward

Lay-caregivers are essential to the continuum of care in adult organ transplantation. However, we have a limited understanding of the experiences, exigencies, and outcomes associated with lay-caregiving for organ transplant patients. While much discussion and debate has focused on caregiver requirements in relation to transplant candidate selection, little focus has been given to understanding the needs of caregivers themselves. In response to this, the Organ Transplant Caregiver Initiative was created, and a meeting was held during October 6-7, 2019. Transplant healthcare professionals, researchers, and lay-caregivers discussed the experiences, educational needs, existing research, and research recommendations to improve the experience of lay-caregivers for adult organ transplant patients. In this report, we summarize the Organ Transplant Caregiver Initiative and meeting findings, providing a preliminary action plan to improve education, research, and advocacy for organ transplant caregivers.

A multicenter case series documenting Medicare Part D plan denials of immunosuppressant drug coverage for organ transplant recipients

Medicare Part D plans make coverage decisions according to FDA-labeled indications and off-label uses endorsed by two CMS-recognized compendia. Patients who rely on Medicare Part D for immunosuppressive drug coverage are at risk for denied coverage when these medications are prescribed off-label. The purpose of this multicenter collaboration was to assemble a case series documenting situations where immunosuppressive therapies prescribed for transplant patients were denied by Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. This case series documents 66 instances in 39 patients where immunosuppressive drug claims were denied coverage due to off-label use not endorsed by the compendia. Patients were recipients of lung (n = 28, 72%), heart (n = 7, 18%), or liver (n = 4, 10%) transplants. Denied claims were for mycophenolate mofetil (n = 22, 33%), azathioprine (n = 18, 27%), sirolimus (n = 15, 23%), mycophenolate sodium (n = 5, 8%), everolimus (n = 5, 8%), and belatacept (n = 1, 1%). Most denials were upheld across all the levels of attempted appeal, including those escalated to a Medicare Administrative Law Judge. This case series demonstrates a critical flaw in the construct of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. The currently referenced compendia are not up to date and do not reflect best practices in organ transplantation.

Survey of public attitudes towards imminent death donation in the United States

Imminent death donation (IDD) is described as living organ donation prior to a planned withdrawal of life-sustaining care in an imminently dying patient. Although IDD was ethically justified by United Network for Organ Sharing, the concept remains controversial due to presumed lack of public support. The aim of this study was to evaluate the public's attitudes towards IDD. A cross-sectional survey was conducted of US adults age >18 years (n = 2644). The survey included a case scenario of a patient with a devastating brain injury. Responses were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. Results showed that 68% - 74% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with IDD when posed as a general question and in relation to the case scenario. Participants were concerned about "recovery after a devastating brain injury" (34%), and that "doctors would not try as hard to save a patient's life" (33%). Only 9% of participants would be less likely to trust the organ donation process. In conclusion, our study demonstrates strong public support for IDD in the case of a patient with a devastating brain injury. Notably, participants were not largely concerned with losing trust in the organ donation process. These results justify policy change towards imminent death donation.

Kidney transplant program waitlisting rate as a metric to assess transplant access

Kidney transplant program performance in the United States is commonly measured by posttransplant outcomes. Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and necessary information for patient decision-making. In this study, we propose a new metric, the waitlisting rate, defined as the ratio of patients who are waitlisted in a center relative to the person-years referred for evaluation to a program. Furthermore, we standardize the waitlisting rate relative to the state average in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The new metric was used as a proof-of-concept to assess transplant-program access compared to the existing transplant rate metric. The study cohorts were defined by linking 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data with transplant-program referral data from the Southeastern United States between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Waitlisting rate varied across the 9 Southeastern transplant programs, ranging from 10 to 22 events per 100 patient-years, whereas the program-specific waitlisting rate ratio ranged between 0.76 and 1.33. Program-specific waitlisting rate ratio was uncorrelated with the transplant rate ratio (r = -.15, 95% CI, -0.83 to 0.57). Findings warrant collection of national data on early transplant steps, such as referral, for a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.

Extinguishing burnout: National analysis of predictors and effects of burnout in abdominal transplant surgery fellows

Burnout among surgeons has been attributed to increased workload and decreased autonomy. Although prior studies have examined burnout among transplant surgeons, no studies have evaluated burnout in abdominal transplant surgery fellows. The objective of our study was to identify predictors of burnout and understand its impact on personal and patient care during fellowship. A survey was sent to all abdominal transplant surgery fellows in an American Society of Transplant Surgeons-accredited fellowship. The response rate was 59.2% (n = 77) and 22.7% (n = 17) of fellows met criteria for burnout. Fellows with lower grit scores were more likely to exhibit burnout compared with fellows with higher scores (3.6 vs 4.0, P = .026). Those with burnout were more likely to work >100 hours per week (58.8% vs 27.6%, P = .023), have severe work-related stress (58.8% vs 22.4%, P = .010), consider quitting fellowship (94.1% vs 20.7%, P < .001), or make a medical error (35.3% vs 5.2%, P = .003). This national analysis of abdominal transplant fellows found that burnout rates are relatively low, but few fellows engage in self-care. Personal and program-related factors attribute to burnout and it has unacceptable effects on patient care. Transplant societies and fellowship programs should develop interventions to give fellows tools to prevent and combat burnout.

Impact of the elimination of the donation service area on United States lung transplant practices and outcomes at high and low competition centers

In November 2017, the donation service area (DSA) was removed as the primary unit of US donor lung allocation. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of this change on recipient characteristics, the use of pretransplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and on index hospitalization length of stay (LOS) and early posttransplant complications. We also assessed whether these outcomes differed in high and low competition centers, as defined by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Following DSA removal, there was a 9-day decrease in median waitlist time (P = .001) and an increase in median lung allocation score (40 vs 42, P < .0001) but no difference in the need for pretransplant ECMO (incidence rate ratio = 1.16, P = .12). Median LOS increased from 17 to 19 days in the post-DSA era (P = .01). There was no difference in posttransplant outcomes, including prolonged ventilation, new dialysis, or early survival, in the general cohort or between competition groups. High competition centers saw an 18.5-minute increase in ischemic time compared to low competition centers (P = .04) but did not differentially increase single lung transplants or pretransplant ECMO utilization. Overall, DSA elimination was associated with increased posttransplant LOS but no significant differences in pretransplant ECMO or other posttransplant outcomes. Effects were largely similar at low and high competition centers.

Kidney transplantation and donation in the transgender population: A single-institution case series

The medical needs of the transgender population are increasingly recognized within the US health care system. Hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery present distinct anatomic, hormonal, infectious, and psychosocial issues among transgender kidney transplant donors and recipients. We present the first reported experience with kidney transplantation and donation in transgender patients. A single-center case series (January 2014-December 2018) comprising 4 transgender kidney transplant recipients and 2 transgender living donors was constructed and analyzed. Experts in transplant surgery, transplant psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, pharmacy, and endocrinology were consulted to discuss aspects of care for these patients. Four transgender patients identified as male-to-female and 2 as female-to-male. Three of 6 had gender-affirming surgeries prior to transplant surgery, 1 of whom had further procedures posttransplant. Additionally, 4 patients were on hormone therapy. All 6 had psychiatric comorbidities. The 4 grafts have done well, with an average serum creatinine of 1.45 mg/dL at 2 years (range 1.01-1.85 mg/dL). However, patients encountered various postoperative complications, 1 of which was attributable to modified anatomy. Thus, transgender kidney transplant patients can present novel challenges in regard to surgical considerations as well as pre- and posttransplant care. Dedicated expertise is needed to optimize outcomes for this population.

Pig-to-human heart transplantation: Who goes first?

Cardiac xenotransplantation has recently taken an important step towards clinical reality. In anticipation of the "first-in-human" heart xenotransplantation trial, we propose a set of patient characteristics that define potential candidates. Our premise is that, to be ethically justified, the risks posed by current state-of-the-art options must outweigh the anticipated risks of a pioneering xenotransplant procedure. Suitable candidates include patients who are at high immunologic risk because of sensitization to alloantigens, including those who have exhibited early onset or accelerated cardiac allograft vasculopathy. In addition, patients should be considered (1) for whom mechanical circulatory support would be prohibitively risky due to a hypercoagulable state, a contraindication to anticoagulation, or restrictive physiology; (2) with severe biventricular dysfunction predicting unsuccessful univentricular left heart support; and (3) adults with complex congenital heart disease. In conclusion, because the published preclinical benchmark for clinical translation of heart xenotransplantation appears within reach, carefully and deliberately defining appropriate trial participants is timely as the basis for ethical clinical trial design.

Estimating the potential pool of uncontrolled DCD donors in the United States

Organs from uncontrolled DCD donors (uDCDs) have expanded donation in Europe since the 1980s, but are seldom used in the United States. Cited barriers include lack of knowledge about the potential donor pool, lack of robust outcomes data, lack of standard donor eligibility criteria and preservation methods, and logistical and ethical challenges. To determine whether it would be appropriate to invest in addressing these barriers and building this practice, we sought to enumerate the potential pool of uDCD donors. Using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, the largest all-payer emergency department (ED) database, between 2013 and 2016, we identified patients who had refractory cardiac arrest in the ED. We excluded patients with contraindications to both deceased donation (including infection, malignancy, cardiopulmonary disease) and uDCD (including hemorrhage, major polytrauma, burns, and poisoning). We identified 9828 (range: 9454-10 202) potential uDCDs/y; average age was 32 years, and all were free of major comorbidity. Of these, 91.1% had traumatic deaths, with major causes including nonhead blunt injuries (43.2%) and head injuries (40.1%). In the current era, uDCD donors represent a significant potential source of unused organs. Efforts to address barriers to uDCD in the United States should be encouraged.

Liver transplantation for critically ill cirrhotic patients: Stratifying utility based on pretransplant factors

The aim of this study was to produce a prognostic model to help predict posttransplant survival in patients transplanted with grade-3 acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF-3). Patients with ACLF-3 who underwent liver transplantation (LT) between 2007 and 2017 in 5 transplant centers were included (n = 152). Predictors of 1-year mortality were retrospectively screened and tested on a single center training cohort and subsequently tested on an independent multicenter cohort composed of the 4 other centers. Four independent pretransplant risk factors were associated with 1-year mortality after transplantation in the training cohort: age ≥53 years (P = .044), pre-LT arterial lactate level ≥4 mml/L (P = .013), mechanical ventilation with PaO₂ /FiO₂  ≤ 200 mm Hg (P = .026), and pre-LT leukocyte count ≤10 G/L (P = .004). A simplified version of the model was derived by assigning 1 point to each risk factor: the transplantation for Aclf-3 model (TAM) score. A cut-off at 2 points distinguished a high-risk group (score >2) from a low-risk group (score ≤2) with 1-year survival of 8.3% vs 83.9% respectively (P < .001). This model was subsequently validated in the independent multicenter cohort. The TAM score can help stratify posttransplant survival and identify an optimal transplantation window for patients with ACLF-3.

Coronavirus disease 2019: Utilizing an ethical framework for rationing absolutely scarce health-care resources in transplant allocation decisions

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is impacting transplant programs around the world, and, as the center of the pandemic shifts to the United States, we have to prepare to make decisions about which patients to transplant during times of constrained resources. In this paper, we discuss how to transition from the traditional justice versus utility consideration in organ allocation to a more nuanced allocation scheme based on ethical values that drive decisions in times of absolute scarcity. We recognize that many decisions are made based on the practical limitations that transplant programs face, especially at the extremes. As programs make the transition from a standard approach to a resource-constrained approach to transplantation, we utilize a framework for ethical decisions in settings of absolutely scarce resources to help guide programs in deciding which patients to transplant, which donors to accept, how to minimize risk, and how to ensure the best utilization of transplant team members.

Now is the time for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to change regulatory policy to effectively increase transplantation in the United States; Carpe Diem

With the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposing to remove outcome measures from the transplant centers' renewal for Conditions of Participation an exciting opportunity surfaces for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to make an equally bold change and allow for increased transplantation options for patients in the United States.

Access to transplantation for persons with intellectual disability: Strategies for nondiscrimination

Disqualifying patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) from transplantation has received growing attention from the media, state legislatures, the Office of Civil Rights, and recently the National Council on Disability, as well as internationally. Compared with evidence-based criteria used to determine transplant eligibility, the ID criterion remains controversial because of its potential to be discriminatory, subjective, and because its relationship to outcomes is uncertain. Use of ID in determining transplant candidacy may stem partly from perceived worse adherence and outcomes for patients with ID, fear of penalties to transplant centers for poor outcomes, and stigma surrounding the quality of life for people with ID. However, using ID as a contraindication to solid organ transplantation is not evidence-based and reduces equitable access to transplantation, disadvantaging an already vulnerable population. Variability and lack of transparency in referral and evaluation allows for gatekeeping, threatens patient autonomy, limits access to lifesaving treatment, and may be seen as unfair. We examine the benefits and harms of using ID as a transplant eligibility criterion, review current clinical evidence and ethical considerations, and make recommendations for transplant teams and regulatory agencies to ensure fair access to transplant for individuals with ID.

Improving safety in organ recovery transportation: Report from the ASTS/UNOS/AST/AOPO transportation safety summit

Despite the passage of a decade since the tragic loss of an organ recovery team from the University of Michigan, there are currently no national standards governing air and ground transportation of organ recovery personnel. Consequently, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the United Network for Organ Sharing jointly convened a transportation summit to review and update recommendations for national transportation standards. Expanded air transport quality assurance protocols, including a requirement for two engine turbine-powered aircraft piloted by two qualified pilots certified through onsite inspections was recommended. Ground transportation providers must ensure adequate safety restraints are available, ambulance avoided if possible, and the use of lights and sirens minimized. Finally, adequate insurance coverage for all team members, including trainees should be provided and should not rely on carrier liability insurance policies. The summit participants have committed the support of their organizations to promote and enact these regulations nationally.

Use of SARS-CoV-2-infected deceased organ donors: Should we always "just say no?"

In the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, multiple organizations have released guidelines stating that all organs from potential deceased donors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection should be deferred, including from otherwise medically eligible donors found to have mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 discovered on routine donor screening. In this article, we critically examine the available data on the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through organ transplantation. The isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from nonlung clinical specimens, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in autopsy specimens, previous experience with the related coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and the vast experience with other common RNA respiratory viruses are all addressed. Taken together, these data provide little evidence to suggest the presence of intact transmissible SARS-CoV in organs that can potentially be transplanted, specifically liver and heart. Other considerations including ethical, financial, societal, and logistical concerns are also addressed. We conclude that, for selected patients with high waitlist mortality, transplant programs should consider accepting heart or liver transplants from deceased donors with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Utilization of deceased donors during a pandemic: argument against using SARS-CoV-2-positive donors

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly become an unprecedented pandemic that has impacted society, disrupted hospital functions, strained health care resources, and impacted the lives of transplant professionals. Despite this, organ failure and the need for transplant continues throughout the United States. Considering the perpetual scarcity of deceased donor organs, Kates et al present a viewpoint that advocates for the utilization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive donors in selected cases. We present a review of the current literature that details the potential negative consequences of COVID-19-positive donors. The factors we consider include (1) the risk of blood transmission of SARS-CoV-2, (2) involvement of donor organs, (3) lack of effective therapies, (4) exposure of health care and recovery teams, (5) disease transmission and propagation, and (6) hospital resource utilization. While we acknowledge that transplant fulfills the mission of saving lives, it is imperative to consider the consequences not only to our recipients but also to the community and to health care workers, particularly in the absence of effective preventative or curative therapies. For these reasons, we believe the evidence and risks show that COVID-19 infection should continue to remain a contraindication for donation, as has been the initial response of donation and transplant societies.

Ethical and logistical concerns for establishing NRP-cDCD heart transplantation in the United States

Controlled heart donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCD) is well established internationally with good outcomes and could be adopted in the United States to increase heart supply if ethical and logistical challenges are comprehensively addressed. The most effective and resource-efficient method for mitigating warm ischemia after circulatory arrest is normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in situ. This strategy requires restarting circulation after declaration of death according to circulatory criteria, which appears to challenge the legal circulatory death definition requiring irreversible cessation. Permanent cessation for life-saving efforts must be achieved to assuage this concern and ligating principal vessels maintains no blood flow to the brain, which ensures natural progression to cessation of brain function. This practice-standard in some countries-raises unique concerns about prioritizing life-saving efforts, informed authorization from decision-makers, and the clinician's role in the patient's death. To preserve public trust, medical integrity, and respect for the donor, the donation conversation must not take place until after an un-coerced decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment made in accordance with the patient's treatment goals. The decision-maker(s) must understand cDCD procedure well enough to provide genuine authorization and the preservation/procurement teams must be kept separate from the clinical care team.

Solid organ donation after death in the United States: Data-driven messaging to encourage potential donors

US deceased donor solid organ transplantation (dd-SOT) depends upon an individual's/family's altruistic willingness to donate organs after death; however, there is a shortage of deceased organ donors in the United States. Informing individuals of their own lifetime risk of needing dd-SOT could reframe the decision-making around organ donation after death. Using United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data (2007-2016), this cross-sectional study identified (1) deceased organ donors, (2) individuals waitlisted for dd-SOT (liver, kidney, pancreas, heart, lung, intestine), and (3) dd-SOT recipients. Using US population projections, life tables, and mortality estimates, we quantified probabilities (Pr) of (1) becoming deceased organ donors, (2) needing dd-SOT, and (3) receiving dd-SOT. Lifetime Pr (per 100 000 US population) for males and females of becoming deceased organ donors were 212 and 146, respectively, and of needing dd-SOT were 1323 and 803, respectively. Lifetime Pr of receiving dd-SOT was 50% for males, 48% for females. Over a lifetime, males were 6.2 and females 5.5 times more likely to need dd-SOT than to become deceased organ donors. Organ donation is traditionally contextualized in terms of charity toward others. Our analyses yield a new tool, in the form of quantifying an individual's own likelihood of needing dd-SOT, which may assist with reframing motivations toward deceased donor organ donation.

Implications of the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative for kidney transplant centers

The announcement of the Advancing American Kidney Health (AAKH) Initiative on July 10, 2019 was met with a mix of excitement and trepidation, befitting a proposed radical reconfiguration of the delivery of kidney disease care. Aspiring to reduce the incidence of end-stage renal disease, increase the prevalence of home dialysis, and double the number of organs available for transplant, the AAKH payment models primarily focus on incenting behaviors of general nephrologists, though actualizing positive incentives will require the active cooperation of dialysis providers and transplant centers. Here, we review the AAKH initiatives' potential impact on all stakeholders and opine on financial and regulatory pressures on kidney transplant programs, outlining areas of uncertainty and concern, and suggest key points of reflection for clinical and administrative leaders of kidney transplant centers weighing participation in any of the voluntary payment models.

New French heart allocation system: Comparison with Eurotransplant and US allocation systems

Graft allocation rules for heart transplantation are necessary because of the shortage of heart donors, resulting in high waitlist mortality. The Agence de la biomédecine is the agency in charge of the organ allocation system in France. Assessment of the 2004 urgency-based allocation system identified challenging limitations. A new system based on a score ranking all candidates was implemented in January 2018. In the revised system, medical urgency is defined according to candidate characteristics rather than the treatment modalities, and an interplay between urgency, donor-recipient matching, and geographic sharing was introduced. In this article, we describe in detail the new allocation system and compare these allocation rules to Eurotransplant and US allocation policies.

Mental health and chemical dependency services at US transplant centers

The purpose of this study was to assess the availability of mental health (MH) and chemical dependency (CD) services at US transplant centers, because appropriate psychosocial assessment and care is associated with better transplant outcomes. We used the 2017-2018 American Hospital Association survey, Area Health Resource File, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare databases to quantify availability of services and examined associations of hospital- and health services area-level characteristics with odds of offering services with generalized linear mixed models. We found that 15% of transplant centers did not offer MH services and 62% did not offer CD services. Hospitals were more likely to offer MH services if they were larger (OR [95% CI]: 1.03 [1.01, 1.06]) and had a lower rate of uninsured patients in the health services area (OR [95% CI]: 0.89 [0.80, 0.99]) and were more likely to offer CD services if they were larger (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [1.01, 1.03]) or were members of a system (OR [95% CI]: 2.31 [1.26, 4.24]). Additional research is needed to understand whether lack of MH or CD services at transplant centers affects patients' ability to access comprehensive psychosocial care and whether this affects patient outcomes.