Potential Unintended Consequences of National Infectious Disease Screening Strategies in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

In order to counter the lack of sufficient kidney donors, there has been interest in expanding the utilization of organs from increased infectious-risk donors. Negative nucleic acid testing of increased infectious-risk organs has been shown to increase their use as compared to only enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay negativity. However, it is not known how the expanded use of nucleic acid testing on a national scale might affect total donor utilization.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to determine if a national screening policy requiring the use of nucleic acid testing in both increased infectious-risk and non-increased infectious-risk renal transplant donors would increase the donor organ pool.

METHODS

This study used decision-tree analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of four US national screening policies based on an increasingly expansive use of nucleic acid testing for increased infectious-risk and non-increased infectious-risk kidneys. Parameters were taken from the literature. All costs were reported in 2020 US dollars using a Medicare payer perspective and a life-time horizon.

RESULTS

The use of nucleic acid screening solely for increased infectious-risk organs was the dominant strategy. Our results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. One of the main driving factors of cost-effectiveness was the false-positive rate of nucleic acid testing.

CONCLUSION

Before implementing nucleic acid screening outside of increased infectious-risk organs, its false-positivity rate should be directly studied to ensure that its use does not detrimentally affect transplantation numbers, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs.

Heart transplant outcomes in recipients of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) high risk donors

BACKGROUND

A lack of donor hearts remains a major limitation of heart transplantation. Hearts from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) high-risk donors can be utilized with specific recipient consent. However, outcomes of heart transplantation with CDC high-risk donors are not well known. We sought to define outcomes, including posttransplant hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, in recipients of CDC high-risk donor hearts at our institution.

METHODS

All heart transplant recipients from August 2010 to December 2014 (n = 74) were reviewed. Comparison of 1) CDC high-risk donor (HRD) versus 2) standard-risk donor (SRD) groups were performed using chi-squared tests for nominal data and Wilcoxon two-sample tests for continuous variables. Survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Of 74 heart transplant recipients reviewed, 66 (89%) received a SRD heart and eight (11%) received a CDC HRD heart. We found no significant differences in recipient age, sex, waiting list 1A status, pretransplant left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, cytomegalovirus (CMV) status, and graft ischemia times (p = NS) between the HRD and SRD groups. All of the eight HRD were seronegative at the time of transplant. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in rejection rates at six and 12 months posttransplant. Importantly, no HRD recipients acquired hepatitis or HIV. Survival in HRD versus SRD recipients was not significantly different by Kaplan-Meier analysis (log rank p = 0.644) at five years posttransplant.

CONCLUSION

Heart transplants that were seronegative at the time of transplant had similar posttransplant graft function, rejection rates, and five-year posttransplant survival versus recipients of SRD hearts. At our institution, no cases of hepatitis or HIV occurred in HRD recipients in early follow-up.

Organ donor screening using parallel nucleic acid testing allows assessment of transmission risk and assay results in real time

Expansion of the donor pool may lead to utilization of donors with risk factors for viral infections. Donor laboratory screening relies on serological and nucleic acid testing (NAT). The increased sensitivity of NAT in low prevalence populations may result in false-positive results (FPR) and may cause unnecessary discard of organs.We developed a screening algorithm to deal, in real time, with potential FPR. Three NAT assays: COBAS AmpliScreen assay (CAS), AmpliPrep Total Nucleic Acid Isolation/CAS, and AmpliPrep/TaqMan assays, were validated and used in parallel for prospective screening of increased-risk donors (IRD), and the probability of FPR was calculated. The lower limit of detection of this algorithm was 9.79, 21.02, and 4.31 IU/mL for human immunodeficiency virus-1, hepatitis C virus, and hepatitis B virus, respectively, with an average turn-around-time of 7.67 h from sample receipt to result reporting. The probability that a donor is potentially infectious with two NAT concordant results was >90%. NAT screening of 35 IRD within 18 months resulted in transplantation of 102 additional organs that without screening would either not be used or used with restrictions in Australia. Using a parallel testing algorithm, real-time confirmation of seropositive donors allows use of organs from IRD and safer expansion of the donor pool.

Risk of window period HIV infection in high infectious risk donors: systematic review and meta-analysis

The OPTN defines high risk donors (HRDs), colloquially known as 'CDC high risk donors', as those thought to carry an increased risk of HIV window period (WP) infection prior to serologic detectability. However, the true risk of such infection remains unknown. To quantify the risk of WP infection in each HRD behavior category, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of HIV prevalence and incidence. Of 3476 abstracts reviewed, 27 eligible studies of HIV infection in HRD populations were identified. Pooled HIV incidence estimates were calculated for each category of HRD behavior and used to calculate the risk of WP HIV infection. Risks ranged from 0.09-12.1 per 10 000 donors based on WP for ELISA and 0.04-4.9 based on nucleic acid testing (NAT), with NAT reducing WP risk by over 50% in each category. Injection drug users had the greatest risk of WP infection (4.9 per 10 000 donors by NAT WP), followed by men who have sex with men (4.2:10 000), commercial sex workers (2.7:10 000), incarcerated donors (0.9:10 000), donors exposed to HIV through blood (0.6:10 000), donors engaging in high-risk sex (0.3:10 000) and hemophiliacs (0.035:10 000). These estimates can help inform patient and provider decision making regarding HRDs.

Risk of window period hepatitis-C infection in high infectious risk donors: systematic review and meta-analysis

The OPTN classifies high infectious risk donors (HRDs) based on criteria originally intended to identify people at risk for HIV infection. These donors are sometimes referred to as 'CDC high risk donors' in reference to the CDC-published guidelines adopted by the OPTN. However, these guidelines are also being used to identify deceased donors at increased risk of window period (WP) hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, although not designed for this purpose. The actual risk of WP HCV infection in HRDs is unknown. We performed a systematic review of 3476 abstracts and identified 37 eligible estimates of HCV incidence in HRD populations in the United States/Canada. Pooled HCV incidence was derived and used to estimate the risk of WP infection for each HRD category. Risks ranged from 0.26 to 300.6 per 10,000 donors based on WP for ELISA and 0.027 to 32.4 based on nucleic acid testing (NAT). Injection drug users were at highest risk (32.4 per 10,000 donors by NAT WP), followed by commercial sex workers and donors exhibiting high risk sexual behavior (12.3 per 10,000), men who have sex with men (3.5 per 10,000), incarcerated donors (0.8 per 10,000), donors exposed to HIV infected blood (0.4 per 10,000) and hemophiliacs (0.027 per 10,000). NAT reduced WP risk by approximately 10-fold in each category.