It is time to revise the kidney allocation system to restore the pediatric advantage

Deceased donor organ allocation in pediatric transplantation: A historical narrative

BACKGROUND

Since the earliest clinical successes in solid organ transplantation, the proper method of organ allocation for children has been a contentious subject. Over the past 30-35 years, the medical and social establishments of various countries have favored some degree of preference for children on the respective waiting lists. However, the specific policies to accomplish this have varied widely and changed frequently between organ type and country.

METHODS

Organ allocation policies over time were examined. This review traces the reasons behind and the measures/principles put in place to promote early deceased donor transplantation in children.

RESULTS

Preferred allocation in children has been approached in a variety of ways and with varying degrees of commitment in different solid organ transplant disciplines and national medical systems.

CONCLUSION

The success of policies to advantage children has varied significantly by both organ and medical system. Further work is needed to optimize allocation strategies for pediatric candidates.

Access to kidney transplantation among pediatric candidates with prior solid organ transplants in the United States

BACKGROUND

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates require timely access to transplant to optimize growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We studied access to transplant for pediatric candidates with prior organ transplants.

METHODS

We used US registry data to identify pediatric kidney transplant candidates added to the waiting list 2015-2019 and used competing risk regression to study the association between prior transplant status and probability of receiving a kidney transplant, treating wait-list removal and death as competing events.

RESULTS

Of 4962 pediatric kidney transplant candidates included, 89% had no prior transplant and 11% had received a prior organ transplant (kidney 87%, liver 5%, heart 5%). Prior transplant recipients were older at listing (median 15 vs. 12 years) and more likely to have PRA≥98% (22% vs. 0.3%) (both p < .001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of candidates from each group who were preemptively wait-listed. Unadjusted competing risk regression showed a lower risk of kidney transplant after wait-listing among candidates with prior organ transplant (HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.47-0.59, p < .001). This association remained significant after adjusting for candidate characteristics (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.63-0.83, p < .001). Among deceased donor kidney recipients, median KDPI was similar between groups, but recipients with prior transplants were more likely to receive kidneys from donors with hypertension (4% vs. 1%, p = .01) and donors after cardiac death (11% vs. 4%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates with prior organ transplants have reduced access to transplant after wait-listing. Allocation system changes are needed to improve timely access to transplant for this vulnerable group.

Kidney Allocation Policy: Past, Present, and Future

Despite an increase in the number of kidney transplants performed annually, there remain more than 90,000 individuals awaiting transplantation in the United States. As kidney transplantation has evolved, so has kidney allocation policies. The Kidney Allocation System, which was introduced in 2014, made significant strides to improve utility and equity, but regional and geographic disparities remain. Further modifications eliminating donor service areas have been introduced. Moving forward, systems involving continuous distribution and artificial intelligence may provide further advancement toward an ideal allocation system.

Changes in offer and acceptance patterns for pediatric kidney transplant candidates under the new Kidney Allocation System

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding decreased deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rates for pediatric candidates under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). To better understand what might be driving this, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients kidney offer data for 3642 pediatric (age <18 years) kidney-only transplant candidates between December 31, 2012 to December 3, 2014 (pre-KAS) and December 4, 2014 to January 6, 2017 (post-KAS). We used negative binomial regression and multilevel logistic regression to compare offer and acceptance rates pre- and post-KAS. We stratified by donor age (<18, 18-34, and 35+ years) and KDPI (<35% and ≥35%) to reflect differing allocation prioritization pre-KAS and post-KAS. As might be expected from prioritization changes, post-KAS candidates were less likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old with KDPI ≥ 35% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 0.18 0.210.25 , P < .001), and more likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% (aIRR: 1.12 1.201.29 , P < .001). However, offer acceptance practices also changed post-KAS: kidneys from donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% were 23% less likely to be accepted post-KAS (adjusted odds ratio: 0.61 0.770.98 , P = .03). Using kidneys from donors 18-34 years old with KDPI < 35% post-KAS to the same extent they were used pre-KAS might be an effective strategy to mitigate any decrease in DDKT rates for pediatric candidates.

Pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant outcomes under the Kidney Allocation System

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) has resulted in fewer pediatric kidneys being allocated to pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant (pDDKT) recipients. This had prompted concerns that post-pDDKT outcomes may worsen. To study this, we used SRTR data to compare the outcomes of 953 pre-KAS pDDKT (age <18 years) recipients (December 4, 2012-December 3, 2014) with the outcomes of 934 post-KAS pDDKT recipients (December 4, 2014-December 3, 2016). We analyzed mortality and graft loss by using Cox regression, delayed graft function (DGF) by using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) by using negative binomial regression. Post-KAS recipients had longer pretransplant dialysis times (median 1.26 vs 1.07 years, P = .02) and were more often cPRA 100% (2.0% vs 0.1%, P = .001). Post-KAS recipients had less graft loss than pre-KAS recipients (hazard ratio [HR]: _0.35 0.54_0.83 , P = .005) but no statistically significant differences in mortality (HR: _0.29 0.72_1.83 , P = .5), DGF (odds ratio: _0.93 1.32_1.93 , P = .2), and LOS (LOS ratio: _0.96 1.06_1.19 , P = .4). After adjusting for donor-recipient characteristics, there were no statistically significant post-KAS differences in mortality (adjusted HR: _0.37 1.04_2.92 , P = .9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio: _0.94 1.41_2.13 , P = .1), or LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: _0.93 1.04_1.16 , P = .5). However, post-KAS pDDKT recipients still had less graft loss (adjusted HR: _0.38 0.59_0.91 , P = .02). KAS has had a mixed effect on short-term posttransplant outcomes for pDDKT recipients, although our results are limited by only 2 years of posttransplant follow-up.

Use of public health service increased risk kidneys in pediatric renal transplant recipients

With the opioid epidemic and expansion of "IR" classification, 25% of deceased donors are categorized PHS-IR. Studies have assessed utilization of PHS-IR organs among adults, but little is known about pediatric recipients. This retrospective cohort study from 2004-2016 (IR period) aimed to: (a) assess IR kidney utilization patterns between adults and children; (b) identify recipient factors associated with transplant from IR donors among pediatric kidney recipients; and (c) determine geography's role in IR kidney utilization for children. The proportion of pediatric recipients receiving IR kidneys was significantly lower than adults (P < 0.001), even when stratified by donor mechanism of death (non-overdose/overdose) and era. In mixed effects models accounting for clustering within centers and regions, older recipient age, later era (post-PHS-IR expansion), and blood type were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving an IR kidney (17 years era 5: OR 5.16 [CI 2.05-13.1] P < 0.001; 18-21 years era 5: OR 2.72 [CI 1.05-7.06] P = 0.04; blood type O: OR 1.32 [CI 1.06-1.64] P = 0.013). The median odds ratio for center within region was 1.77 indicating that when comparing two patients in a region, the odds of receiving an IR kidney were 77% higher for a patient from a center with higher likelihood of receiving an IR kidney. Utilization of PHS-IR kidneys is significantly lower among pediatric recipients versus adult counterparts. More work is needed to understand the reasons for these differences in children in order to continue their access to this life-prolonging therapy.