Search

After 2 decades of limited growth, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been increasingly accepted as a promising solution to the growing organ shortage in the US. With experience, LDLT offers superior graft and patient survival with low rates of rejection. However, not all waitlisted patients have equal access to LDLT, with financial toxicity representing a substantial barrier. Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity costs associated with donation as well as insurance-based discrimination and variable employer leave policies. There are multiple potential national, local, and patient-centered solutions to address some of the cost-related issues associated with living LDLT. These include standardization of employer leave policies, creation of federal and state-led tax relief programs, optimization of National Living Donor Assistance Center use, engagement of independent living donor advocates, creation of financial toolkits, and encouragement of recipient or donor-led fundraising. In this piece, members of the North American Living Liver Donation Group, a consortium of 37 LDLT programs, explore these financial challenges and discuss solutions to achieve financial neutrality, where individuals can donate free from financial constraints or gains. As a community, it is imperative that we confront factors driving financial toxicity to improve equity and access to LDLT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In a workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified current knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the scientific, conceptual, and ethical understanding of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death and its technologies. To minimize organ injury from warm ischemia and produce better recipient outcomes, innovative techniques to perfuse and oxygenate organs postmortem in situ, such as thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion, are being implemented in several medical centers in the US and elsewhere. These technologies have improved organ outcomes but have raised ethical and legal questions. Re-establishing donor circulation postmortem can be viewed as invalidating the condition of permanent cessation of circulation on which the earlier death determination was made and clamping arch vessels to exclude brain circulation can be viewed as inducing brain death. Alternatively, TA-NRP can be viewed as localized in-situ organ perfusion, not whole-body resuscitation, that does not invalidate death determination. Further scientific, conceptual, and ethical studies, such as those identified in this workshop, can inform and help resolve controversies raised by this practice., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement James L. Bernat has no conflicts of interest to disclose. All authors have submitted completed JHLT conflict of interest disclosure forms., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency-do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Inactive patients on the kidney transplant wait-list have a higher mortality. The implications of this status change on transplant outcomes between racial/ethnic groups are unknown., Objectives: To determine if activity status changes differ among races/ethnicities and levels of sensitization, and if these differences are associated with transplant probability after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multistate model was constructed from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network kidney transplant database (December 4, 2014, to September 8, 2016). The time interval followed Kidney Allocation System implementation and provided at least 1-year follow-up for all patients. The model calculated probabilities between active and inactive status and the following competing risk outcomes: living donor transplant, deceased donor transplant, and death/other. This retrospective cohort study included 42 558 patients on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network kidney transplant wait-list following Kidney Allocation System implementation. To rule out time-varying confounding from relisting, analysis was limited to first-time registrants. Owing to variations in listing practices, primary center listing data were used for dually listed patients. Individuals listed for another organ or pancreatic islets were excluded. Analysis began July 2017., Main Outcome and Measures: Probabilities were determined for transitions between active and inactive status and the following outcome states: active to living donor transplant, active to deceased donor transplant, active to death/other, inactive to living donor transplant, inactive to deceased donor transplant, and inactive to death/other., Results: The median (interquartile range) age at listing was 55.0 (18.0-89.0) years, and 26 535 of 42 558 (62.4%) were men. White individuals were 43.3% (n = 18 417) of wait-listed patients, while black and Hispanic individuals made up 27.8% (n = 11 837) and 19.5% (n = 8296), respectively. Patients in the calculated plasma reactive antibody categories of 0% or 1% to 79% showed no statistically significant difference in transplant probability among races/ethnicities. White individuals had an advantage in transplant probability over black individuals in calculated plasma reactive antibody categories of 80% to 89% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8 [95% CI, 1.4-2.2]) and 90% or higher (HR, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1-2.6]), while Hispanic individuals had an advantage over black individuals in the calculated plasma reactive antibody group of 90% or higher (HR, 2.5 [95% CI, 2.1-2.8]). Once on the inactive list, white individuals were more likely than Hispanic individuals (HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.17-1.3]) or black individuals (HR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.3-1.4]) to resolve issues for inactivity resulting in activation., Conclusions and Relevance: For patients who are highly sensitized, there continues to be less access to kidney transplant in the black population after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System. Health disparities continue after listing where individuals from minority groups have greater difficulty in resolving issues of inactivity.

Recently, a redistricting proposal intended to equalize Model for End-stage Liver Disease score at transplant recommended expanding liver sharing to mitigate geographic variation in liver transplantation. Yet, it is unclear whether variation in liver availability is arbitrary and a disparity requiring rectification or reflects differences in access to care. We evaluate the proposal's claim that organ supply is an "accident of geography" by examining the relationship between local organ supply and the uneven landscape of social determinants and policies that contribute to differential death rates across the United States. We show that higher mortality leading to greater availability of organs may in part result from disproportionate risks incurred at the local level. Disparities in public safety laws, health care infrastructure, and public funding may influence the risk of death and subsequent availability of deceased donors. These risk factors are disproportionately prevalent in regions with high organ supply. Policies calling for organ redistribution from high-supply to low-supply regions may exacerbate existing social and health inequalities by redistributing the single benefit (greater organ availability) of greater exposure to environmental and contextual risks (e.g. violent death, healthcare scarcity). Variation in liver availability may not be an "accident of geography" but rather a byproduct of disadvantage., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Policy Points: The growing shortage of life-saving organs has reached unprecedented levels, with more than 120,000 Americans waiting for them. Despite national attempts to increase organ donation and federal laws mandating the equitable allocation of organs, geographic disparities remain. A better understanding of the contextual determinants of organ donor designation, including social capital, may enhance efforts to increase organ donation by raising the probability of collective action and fostering norms of reciprocity and cooperation while increasing costs to defectors. Because community-level factors, including social capital, predict more than half the variation in donor designation, future interventions should tailor strategies to specific communities as the unit of intervention., Context: The growing shortage of organs has reached unprecedented levels. Despite national attempts to increase donation and federal laws mandating the equitable allocation of organs, their availability and waiting times vary significantly nationwide. Organ donor designation is a collective action problem in public health, in which the regional organ supply and average waiting times are determined by the willingness of individuals to be listed as organ donors. Social capital increases the probability of collective action by fostering norms of reciprocity and cooperation while increasing costs to defectors. We examine whether social capital and other community-level factors explain geographic variation in organ donor designation rates in Massachusetts., Methods: We obtained a sample of 3,281,532 registered drivers in 2010 from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Registry of Motor Vehicles (MassDOT RMV). We then geocoded the registry data, matched them to 4,466 census blocks, and linked them to the 2010 US Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other sources to obtain community-level sociodemographic, social capital (residential segregation, voter registration and participation, residential mobility, violent-death rate), and religious characteristics. We used spatial modeling, including lagged variables to account for the effect of adjacent block groups, and multivariate regression analysis to examine the relationship of social capital and community-level characteristics with organ donor designation rates., Findings: Block groups with higher levels of social capital, racial homogeneity, income, workforce participation, owner-occupied housing, native-born residents, and white residents had higher rates of organ donor designation (p < 0.001). These factors remained significant in the multivariate model, which explained more than half the geographic variance in organ donor designation (R(2) = 0.52)., Conclusions: The findings suggest that community-level factors, including social capital, predict more than half the variation in donor designation. Future interventions should target the community as the unit of intervention and should tailor messaging for areas with low social capital., (© 2015 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

New approaches to address the kidney scarcity in the United States are urgently needed. The greatest potential source of kidneys is from living donors. Proposals to offer financial incentives to increase living kidney donation rates remain highly controversial. Despite repeated calls for a pilot study to assess the impact of financial compensation on living kidney donation rates, many fear that financial incentives will exploit vulnerable individuals and cast the field of transplantation in a negative public light, ultimately reducing donation rates. This paper provides an ethical justification for conducting a pilot study of a federally regulated approach to providing financial incentives to living kidney donors, with the goal of assessing donors' perceptions., (© Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

After 6 years of deliberation, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently released a concept document proposing changes to the kidney allocation algorithm, sparking a heated debate about priority-setting of scarce health resources and discrimination. Proponents of the proposal argue that it will result in an additional 15,223 life years following transplant annually for recipients, yet the benefit will not be equally distributed and will likely benefit younger patients. Critics argue that the new model will promote age discrimination and may lead to a further decrease in live kidney donation. If true, these concerns could undermine fairness and damage public trust in the organ allocation system. We address these objections and consider their merit, highlighting both benefits and shortcomings of the proposal. We argue that, despite weaknesses of the proposal and the importance of maintaining consistency in patient and provider expectations over time, the proposal represents a needed first step in balancing equity and efficiency., (©2011 The Authors Journal compilation © 2011 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)