The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 3.0: An Update Without Proven Accuracy

Superiority of the new sex-adjusted models to remove the female disadvantage restoring equity in liver transplant allocation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and MELDNa are used worldwide to guide graft allocation in liver transplantation (LT). Evidence exists that females are penalized in the present allocation systems. Recently, new sex-adjusted scores have been proposed with improved performance respect to MELD and MELDNa. GEMA-Na, MELD 3.0, and sex-adjusted MELDNa were developed to improve the 90-day dropout prediction from the list. The present study aimed at evaluating the accuracy and calibration of these scores in an Italian setting.

METHODS

The primary outcome of the present study was the dropout from the list up to 90 days because of death or clinical deterioration. We retrospectively analysed data from 855 adults enlisted for liver transplantation in the Lazio region (Italy) (2012-2018). Ninety-day prediction of GEMA-Na, MELD 3.0 and sex-adjusted MELDNa with respect to MELD and MELDNa was analysed. Brier score and Brier Skill score were used for accuracy, and the Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino test was used to evaluate the calibration of the models.

RESULTS

GEMA-Na (concordance = .82, 95% CI = .75-.89), MELD 3.0 (concordance = .81, 95% CI = .74-.87) and sex-adjusted MELDNa (concordance = .81, 95% CI = .74-.88) showed the best 90-day dropout prediction. GEMA-Na showed a higher increase in accuracy with respect to MELD (p = .03). No superiority was shown with respect to MELDNa. All the tested scores showed a good calibration of the models. Using GEMA-Na instead of MELD would potentially save one in nine dropouts and could save one dropout per 285 patients listed.

CONCLUSIONS

Validation and reclassification of the sex-adjusted score GEMA-Na confirm its superiority in predicting short-term dropout also in an Italian setting when compared with MELD.

Predicted Impact of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 3.0 in a Region Suffering Severe Organ Shortage

BACKGROUND

The model for end-stage liver disease 3.0 (MELD3.0) is expected to address the flaws of the current allocation system for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We aimed to validate MELD3.0 in the Korean population where living donor liver transplantation is predominant due to organ shortages.

METHODS

Korean large-volume single-centric waitlist data were merged with the Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS) data. The 90-day mortality was compared between MELD and MELD3.0 using the C-index in 2,353 eligible patients registered for liver transplantation. Patient numbers and outcomes were compared based on changes in KONOS-MELD categorization using MELD3.0. Possible gains in MELD points and reduced waitlist mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

MELD3.0 performed better than MELD (C-index 0.893 for MELD3.0 vs. 0.889 for MELD). When stratified according to the KONOS-MELD categories, 15.9% of the total patients and 35.2% of the deceased patients were up-categorized using MELD3.0 versus MELD categories. The mean gain of MELD points was higher in women (2.6 ± 2.1) than men (2.1 ± 1.9, P < 0.001), and higher in patients with severe ascites (3.3 ± 1.8) than in controls (1.9 ± 1.8, P < 0.001); however, this trend was not significant when the MELD score was higher than 30. When the possible increase in DDLT chance was calculated via up-categorizing using MELD3.0, reducible waitlist mortality was 2.7%.

CONCLUSION

MELD3.0 could predict better waitlist mortality than MELD; however, the merit for women and patients with severe ascites is uncertain, and reduced waitlist mortality from implementing MELD3.0 is limited in regions suffering from organ shortage, as in Korea.