Understanding Risks and Our Responsibility to Living Donors

Lithium and the living kidney donor: Science or stigma?

Nearly 10 000 people are removed from the kidney transplant waiting list each year either due to becoming too ill for transplant or due to death. Live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) provides superior outcomes and survival benefit relative to deceased donor transplant, but the number of LDKT has decreased over the past few years. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that transplant centers employ evaluation processes that safely maximize LDKT. Decisions about donor candidacy should be based on the best available data, rather than on processes prone to bias. Here, we examine the common practice of declining potential donors based solely on treatment with lithium. We conclude that the risk of end-stage renal disease related to lithium treatment is comparable to other generally accepted risks in LDKT. We present this viewpoint to specifically challenge the carte blanche exclusion of individuals taking lithium and highlight the importance of using the best available data relevant to any risk factor, rather than relying on biases, when evaluating potential living kidney donors.

Living donor liver transplant candidate and donor selection and engagement: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference

INTRODUCTION

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur.

METHODS

In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier.

RESULTS

Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Practice patterns of the medical evaluation of living liver donors in the United States

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can help address the growing organ shortage in the United States, yet little is known about the current practice patterns in the medical evaluation of living liver donors. We conducted a 131-question survey of all 53 active LDLT transplant programs in the United States to assess current LDLT practices. The response rate was 100%. Donor acceptance rate was 0.33 with an interquartile range of 0.33-0.54 across all centers. Areas of high intercenter agreement included minimum age cutoff of 18 years (73.6%) and the exclusion of those with greater than Class 1 obesity (body mass index, 30.0-34.9 m/kg 2 ) (88.4%). Diabetes mellitus was not an absolute exclusion at most centers (61.5%). Selective liver biopsies were performed for steatosis or iron overload on imaging (67.9% and 62.3%, respectively) or for elevated liver enzymes (60.4%). Steatohepatitis is considered an exclusion at most centers (84.9%). The most common hypercoagulable tests performed were factor V Leiden (FVL) (88.5%), protein C (73.1%), protein S (71.2%), antithrombin III (71.2%) and prothrombin gene mutation (65.4%). At 41.5% of centers, donors were allowed to proceed with donation with FVL heterozygote status. Most programs discontinue oral contraceptive pills at least 28 days prior to surgery. At most centers, the need for cardiovascular ischemic risk testing is based on age (73.6%) and the presence of one or more cardiac risk factors (68.0%). Defining areas of practice consensus and variation underscores the need for data generation to develop evidence-based guidance for the evaluation and risk assessment of living liver donors.

Cancer risk in living kidney donors

Living kidney donors are screened for transmissible diseases including cancer. Outcomes following donation are excellent, but concern exists regarding development of chronic kidney disease, and cancer risk is unknown. We used linked transplant and cancer registry data to identify incident cancers among 84,357 kidney donors in the United States (1995-2017). We compared risk with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). For selected cancers, we used Poisson regression to compare donors with 47,451 Adventist Health Study 2 (AHS-2) participants, who typically have healthy lifestyles. During follow-up, 2843 cancers were diagnosed in donors, representing an overall deficit (SIR 0.79, 95%CI 0.76-0.82). None of 46 specified cancer sites occurred in excess relative to the general population, and 15 showed significant deficits (SIR < 1.00). Compared with AHS-2 participants, donors had similar incidence of liver cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma but, starting 7 years after donation, elevated incidence of colorectal cancer (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.07, 95%CI 1.54-2.79) and kidney cancer (2.97, 1.58-5.58, accounting for the presence of a single kidney in donors). Elevated kidney cancer incidence may reflect adverse processes in donors' remaining kidney. Nonetheless, cancer risk is lower than in the general population, suggesting that enhanced screening is unnecessary.