Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non‐HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non‐HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013‐2017 SRTR data, we identified 39  350 adult, first‐time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non‐HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013‐October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015‐October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non‐HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6‐fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = _3.49 3.69 _3.89) and a 2.2‐fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = _2.09 2.21 _2.34). Compared to non‐HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = _0.54 0.63 _0.73) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = _0.81 0.95 _1.11). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest‐first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non‐HCC candidates.     

OPTN/SRTR 2017 Annual Data Report: Intestine

Despite improvements in medical and surgical treatment of intestinal failure, intestine transplant continues to play an important role. In 2017, 109 intestine transplants were performed, 62 in adults and 47 in children, reflecting the changed age distribution over the past decade of candidates waitlisted for intestine and intestine‐liver transplant from largely pediatric to increasing proportions of adults. In 2017, 56.0% of candidates on the intestine list at any time during the year were aged younger than 18 years, with a decrease over time in those aged younger than 6 years and an increase in those aged 6‐17 years. Adults accounted for 44.0% of candidates on the list at any time during the year, with an increase since 2013 in those aged 18‐34 years and a decrease in those aged 35 years or older. By age, the pretransplant mortality rate was highest for adult candidates at 7.9 per 100 waitlist‐years and lowest for pediatric candidates at 3.7 per 100 waitlist‐years. Patient survival varied by age and type of transplant, and was lowest for adult intestine‐liver recipients (1‐ and 5‐year survival 66.7% and 42.6%, respectively) and highest for pediatric intestine recipients (1‐ and 5‐year survival 86.2% and 75.4%, respectively).     

Geographic disparities in liver supply/demand ratio within fixed‐distance and fixed‐population circles

Recent OPTN proposals to address geographic disparity in liver allocation have involved circular boundaries: the policy selected 12/17 allocated to 150‐mile circles in addition to DSAs/regions, and the policy selected 12/18 allocated to 150‐mile circles eliminating DSA/region boundaries. However, methods to reduce geographic disparity remain controversial, within the OPTN and the transplant community. To inform ongoing discussions, we studied center‐level supply/demand ratios using SRTR data (07/2013‐06/2017) for 27 334 transplanted deceased donor livers and 44 652 incident waitlist candidates. Supply was the number of donors from an allocation unit (DSA or circle), allocated proportionally (by waitlist size) to the centers drawing on these donors. We measured geographic disparity as variance in log‐transformed supply/demand ratio, comparing allocation based on DSAs, fixed‐distance circles (150‐ or 400‐mile radius), and fixed‐population (12‐ or 50‐million) circles. The recently proposed 150‐mile radius circles (variance = 0.11, P = .9) or 12‐million‐population circles (variance = 0.08, P = .1) did not reduce the geographic disparity compared to DSA‐based allocation (variance = 0.11). However, geographic disparity decreased substantially to 0.02 in both larger fixed‐distance (400‐mile, P < .001) and larger fixed‐population (50‐million, P < .001) circles (P = .9 comparing fixed distance and fixed population). For allocation circles to reduce geographic disparities, they must be larger than a 150‐mile radius; additionally, fixed‐population circles are not superior to fixed‐distance circles.     

Organ donation and transplant: The Islamic perspective

Islam is the second most practiced religion globally, and the number of Muslims in Western countries has been increasing due to recent trends in migration. Studies have shown that Muslims in the Western world have more negative attitudes toward organ donation and transplantation compared with individuals from other religious backgrounds. Multiple barriers have been postulated that may prevent Muslims from exploring organ donation or transplantation. We conducted a literature review with the goal of summarizing the opinions of major Sunni and Shia scholars and Islamic bodies about organ donation and transplantation, including their opinions and rulings on the neurological determination of death to inform healthcare professionals, community members, and leaders. We also identified factors and attitudes that may prevent members of the Muslim community from achieving equitable access to transplantation or from consenting to donate organs during life or after death. Key factors or concerns identified included: lack of information regarding organ donation, mistrust of the healthcare system, family opinions, sacredness of the body, lack of clear understanding of religious rulings, and opinions of religious leaders. Studies have suggested that partnering with religious leaders to address these concerns may help foster positive attitudes toward organ donation and transplantation.     

Prevalence of primary aldosteronism in hypertensive kidney transplant recipients: A cross-sectional study

Due to high prevalence of primary aldosteronism (PA) in the general hypertensive population, and its association with worse cardiovascular and renal outcomes, the 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines explicitly recognize PA as a major public health issue requiring urgent attention. Its prevalence in hypertensive kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) is unknown. In this cross-sectional study, we screened KTRs with hypertension who were on ≥4 antihypertensive medications, on 3 antihypertensive medications with BP ≥ 140/90, and on potassium supplements, or were hypokalemic. 172 of 280 eligible patients successfully completed the testing. A positive screen for PA defined by an aldosterone-to-renin ratio of ≥20 and a plasma aldosterone concentration of >15 ng/dL yielded a prevalence of 15.7%. Potassium supplement requirement (52% vs 27%, P = .01) and hypokalemia (25.9% vs 4.8%, P < .01) were more common in patients who screened positive compared with those who screened negative. 67% of patients who screened positive were on potassium supplements and/or were hypokalemic. Our study is the first to systematically explore the prevalence of PA among the hypertensive KTR population, which has inherently high cardiovascular risk. Further studies are needed to determine the cardiovascular and renal risk attributable to PA, and define optimal therapy for KTRs with PA.     

The trials and tribulations of liver allocation

Allocation policies are necessary to ensure a fair distribution of a scarce resource. The goal of any liver transplant allocation policy is to achieve the best possible outcomes for the waiting list population, irrespective of the indication for transplant, whilst maximizing organ utilization. Organ allocation for liver transplantation has evolved from simple centre-based approaches driven by local issues, to complex, evidence-based algorithm prioritizing according to need. Despite the rapid evolution of allocation policies, there remain a number of challenges and new approaches are required to ensure transparency and equity on the decision-making process and the best possible outcomes for patients on the waiting list. New ways of modelling, together with novel outcome criteria, will be required to enable a dynamic adaptability of the allocation policies to the ever changing demographics of the donor population and the changing landscape of indications for transplantation.     

Split liver transplantation is utilized infrequently and concentrated at few transplant centers in the United States

Split liver transplantation (SLT) is 1 strategy for maximizing the number of deceased donor liver transplants. Recent reports suggest that utilization of SLT in the United States remains low. We examined deceased donor offers that were ultimately split between 2010 and 2014. SLTs were categorized as “primary” and “secondary” transplants. We analyzed allocation patterns and used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with secondary split discard. Four hundred eighteen livers were split: 54% from adult, 46% from pediatric donors. Of the 227 adult donor livers split, 61% met United Network for Organ Sharing “optimal” split criteria. A total of 770 recipients (418 primary and 352 secondary) were transplanted, indicating 16% discard. Ninety‐two percent of the 418 primary recipients were children, and 47% were accepted on the first offer. Eighty‐seven percent of the 352 secondary recipients were adults, and 7% were accepted on the first offer. Of the 352 pairs, 99% were transplanted in the same region, 36% at the same center. In logistic regression, shorter donor height was associated with secondary discard (odds ratio 0.97 per cm, 95% CI 0.94‐1.00, P = .02). SLT volume by center was not predictive of secondary discard. Current policy proposals that incentivize SLT in the United States could increase the number of transplants to children and adults.