Faculty Bibliography

Severe geographic disparities exist in liver transplantation; for patients with comparable disease severity, 90-day transplant rates range from 18% to 86% and death rates range from 14% to 82% across donation service areas (DSAs). Broader sharing has been proposed to resolve geographic inequity; however, we hypothesized that the efficacy of broader sharing depends on the geographic partitions used. To determine the potential impact of redistricting on geographic disparity in disease severity at transplantation, we combined existing DSAs into novel regions using mathematical redistricting optimization. Optimized maps and current maps were evaluated using the Liver Simulated Allocation Model. Primary analysis was based on 6700 deceased donors, 28 063 liver transplant candidates, and 242 727 Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) changes in 2010. Fully regional sharing within the current regional map would paradoxically worsen geographic disparity (variance in MELD at transplantation increases from 11.2 to 13.5, p = 0.021), although it would decrease waitlist deaths (from 1368 to 1329, p = 0.002). In contrast, regional sharing within an optimized map would significantly reduce geographic disparity (to 7.0, p = 0.002) while achieving a larger decrease in waitlist deaths (to 1307, p = 0.002). Redistricting optimization, but not broader sharing alone, would reduce geographic disparity in allocation of livers for transplant across the United States.

While kidney paired donation (KPD) enables the utilization of living donor kidneys from healthy and willing donors incompatible with their intended recipients, the strategy poses complex challenges that have limited its adoption in United States and Canada. A consensus conference was convened March 29-30, 2012 to address the dynamic challenges and complexities of KPD that inhibit optimal implementation. Stakeholders considered donor evaluation and care, histocompatibility testing, allocation algorithms, financing, geographic challenges and implementation strategies with the goal to safely maximize KPD at every transplant center. Best practices, knowledge gaps and research goals were identified and summarized in this document.

BACKGROUND:Disparity in access to liver transplantation (LT) in the United States persists despite directives from the federal government to reduce geographic variation. We assessed the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) and traveling to alternative donation service areas (DSAs) on patient survival. METHODS:A prospective cohort study integrating transplant registry and U.S. Census data was analyzed using multivariate linear Cox proportional hazards models. A separate matched-pairs analysis was used to assess the benefit of traveling on patient survival and transplantation rate. RESULTS:High SES is associated with increased access to LT (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.01-1.08) and reduced mortality after waitlisting (aHR [95% CI], 0.88 [0.85-0.93]). Increased access is mediated, in part, through inter-DSA travel. Travel was associated with high SES, white race, blood group O, private insurance, and residence in regions 1, 5, and 11. Transplant candidates in the highest SES quartile were approximately 70% more likely to travel (aHR [95% CI], 1.67 [1.43-1.97]) than those in the lowest SES quartile. Compared with matched control patients, travelers were 74% more likely to be transplanted (aHR [95% CI], 1.74 [1.56-1.94]) and 20% less likely to die after listing (aHR [95% CI], 0.79 [0.69-0.92]). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:High SES and inter-DSA travel are strongly associated with increased LT access and reduced mortality. Travelers are more likely to be sociodemographically advantaged and privately insured and to live in regions with reduced access to deceased-donor organs.

With many multicenter consortia and a United Network for Organ Sharing program, participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) has become mainstream in the United States and should be feasible for any center that performs live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Lack of participation in KPD may significantly disadvantage patients with incompatible donors. To explore utilization of this modality, we analyzed adjusted center-specific KPD rates based on casemix of adult LDKT-eligible patients at 207 centers between 2006 and 2011 using SRTR data. From 2006 to 2008, KPD transplants became more evenly distributed across centers, but from 2008 to 2011 the distribution remained unchanged (Gini coefficient = 0.91 for 2006, 0.76 for 2008 and 0.77 for 2011), showing an unfortunate stall in dissemination. At the 10% of centers with the highest KPD rates, 9.9-38.5% of LDKTs occurred through KPD during 2009-2011; if all centers adopted KPD at rates observed in the very high-KPD centers, the number of KPD transplants per year would increase by a factor of 3.2 (from 494 to 1593). Broader implementation of KPD across a wide number of centers is crucial to properly serve transplant candidates with healthy but incompatible live donors.

For 7 years, the Kidney Transplantation Committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network has attempted to revise the kidney allocation algorithm for adults (≥18 years) in end-stage renal disease awaiting deceased donor kidney transplants. Changes to the kidney allocation system must conform to the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) which clearly states that allocation must take into account both efficiency (graft and person survival) and equity (fair distribution). In this article, we evaluate three allocation models: the current system, age-matching and a two-step model that we call "Equal Opportunity Supplemented by Fair Innings (EOFI)". We discuss the different conceptions of efficiency and equity employed by each model and evaluate whether EOFI could actually achieve the NOTA criteria of balancing equity and efficiency given current conditions of growing scarcity and donor-candidate age mismatch.

Kidney paired donation represented 10% of living kidney donation in the United States in 2011. National registries around the world and several separate registries in the United States arrange paired donations, although with significant variations in their practices. Concerns about ethical considerations, clinical advisability, and the quantitative effectiveness of these approaches in paired donation result in these variations. For instance, although donor travel can be burdensome and might discourage paired donation, it was nearly universal until convincing analysis showed that living donor kidneys can sustain many hours of cold ischemia time without adverse consequences. Opinions also differ about whether the last donor in a chain of paired donation transplants initiated by a nondirected donor should donate immediately to someone on the deceased donor wait-list (a domino or closed chain) or should be asked to wait some length of time and donate to start another sequence of paired donations later (an open chain); some argue that asking the donor to donate later may be coercive, and others focus on balancing the probability that the waiting donor withdraws versus the number of additional transplants if the chain can be continued. Other controversies in paired donation include simultaneous versus nonsimultaneous donor operations, whether to enroll compatible pairs, and interactions with desensitization protocols. Efforts to expand public awareness of and participation in paired donation are needed to generate more transplant opportunities.

Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based allocation of deceased donor livers allows exceptions for patients whose score may not reflect their true mortality risk. We hypothesized that organ procurement organizations (OPOs) may differ in exception practices, use of exceptions may be increasing over time, and exception patients may be advantaged relative to other patients. We analyzed longitudinal MELD score, exception and outcome in 88 981 adult liver candidates as reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from 2002 to 2010. Proportion of patients receiving an HCC exception was 0-21.4% at the OPO-level and 11.9-18.8% at the region level; proportion receiving an exception for other conditions was 0.0%-13.1% (OPO-level) and 3.7-9.5 (region-level). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exceptions rose over time (10.5% in 2002 vs. 15.5% in 2008, HR = 1.09 per year, p<0.001) as did other exceptions (7.0% in 2002 vs. 13.5% in 2008, HR = 1.11, p<0.001). In the most recent era of HCC point assignment (since April 2005), both HCC and other exceptions were associated with decreased risk of waitlist mortality compared to nonexception patients with equivalent listing priority (multinomial logistic regression odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 for HCC, OR = 0.43 for other, p<0.001) and increased odds of transplant (OR = 1.65 for HCC, OR = 1.33 for other, p<0.001). Policy advantages patients with MELD exceptions; differing rates of exceptions by OPO may create, or reflect, geographic inequity.

Liver transplantation has evolved over the past four decades into the most effective method to treat end-stage liver failure and one of the most expensive medical technologies available. Accurate understanding of the financial implication of recipient severity of illness is crucial to assessing the economic impact of allocation policies. A novel database of linked clinical data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network with cost accounting data from the University HealthSystem Consortium was used to analyze liver transplant costs for 15,813 liver transplants. This data was then utilized to consider the economic impact of alternative allocation systems designed to increase sharing of liver allografts using simulation results. Transplant costs were strongly associated with recipient severity of illness as assessed by the MELD score (p < 0.0001); however, this relationship was not linear. Simulation analysis of the reallocation of livers from low MELD patients to high MELD using a two-tiered regional sharing approach (MELD 15/25) resulted in 88 fewer deaths annually at estimated cost of $17,056 per quality-adjusted life-year saved. The results suggest that broader sharing of liver allografts offers a cost-effective strategy to reduce the mortality from end stage liver disease.