Liver Transplant Costs and Activity After United Network for Organ Sharing Allocation Policy Changes

The liver allocation landscape: MELD 3.0 and continuous distribution

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights recent advancements in liver organ allocation, specifically the transition to MELD 3.0 and the potential introduction of continuous distribution. These developments are timely, as they address the increasing need for a more efficient, equitable, and personalized system for prioritizing liver transplant candidates.

RECENT FINDINGS

The review covers two key innovations: MELD 3.0: A refined version of the original MELD score, designed to improve the prioritization process by incorporating additional factors that offer a more accurate and urgent measure of transplant need. This approach aims to better assess the severity of liver disease and the need for transplantation. Continuous distribution: A dynamic approach that shifts away from the static allocation model. It integrates multiple donor and recipient variables - such as geographic location, organ quality, and recipient condition - into a continuous, flexible allocation process. This framework seeks to make more nuanced decisions based on a broader set of factors that reflect transplant suitability.

SUMMARY

These innovations aim to enhance fairness and patient outcomes by refining candidate prioritization and reducing disparities in access to transplants. However, implementing these systems presents challenges, such as technical complexities and regional differences in access. Ongoing evaluation is necessary to ensure their effectiveness and equitable implementation across diverse patient populations.

Living Donor Liver Transplant Programs in the United States Need to Be Carefully Nurtured Amidst Expanding Use of Perfusion Technology

Living donor transplantation constitutes a small portion of total transplants in the United States as compared Southeast Asia and Middle East. Recent consensus meeting has identified reluctance on the part of transplant providers and donor financial concerns as the major hindrance in increasing the Living donor liver transplants in US. There is a need to carefully analyze the recent outcome data from across the globe and from large volume North American centers that clearly establishes the benefit of Living donor transplants for both adults and children and reducing wait list mortality. LDLT also provides an opportunity for expanding the indications to offer transplant for indications like colorectal metastasis and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma without reducing the number of livers available for traditional indications. Recent expansion of perfusion technology has demonstrated significant increase in utilization of Non heart beating donor livers over the last few years. However, with simultaneous increase in patients being added to the wait list, the wait list mortality and dropouts have been persistently high. In this opinion piece, the authors have looked at the transplant trends in the US in the last few years and advocate for adopting a complementary rather than a singular approach for expansion of LDLT along with new perfusion technologies for increasing the number of liver transplants in the US.

The importance of equity in transplant oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transplant oncology encompasses and utilizes liver transplantation (LT) in combination with other aspects of cancer care to offer improved long-term outcomes for patients with liver cancer, but not all patients have equal access and ability to undergo LT. Social determinants of health may negatively impact a patient's ability to receive liver-related oncologic care, including LT. This review highlights recent work exposing gaps in access to LT, including transplant oncology, and interventions to ameliorate these disparities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Members of racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous groups, females, socioeconomically disadvantaged persons, and patients from rural areas are less likely to undergo LT. Recent studies have also described programs that have successfully mitigated some of the barriers in access to transplant oncology that these patients experience, including targeted outreach programs and access to virtual healthcare.

SUMMARY

Disparities in access to LT for liver cancer are increasingly well described, but additional research is needed to find effective ways to ameliorate these differences.

Association of a Liver Allocation Policy Change With Domestic Travel for Liver Transplantation

Background

In 2020, liver allocation policy in the United States was changed to allow for broader organ sharing, which was hypothesized to reduce patient incentives to travel for transplant. Our objective was to describe patterns of travel for domestic liver transplant pre- and post-acuity circle (AC) implementation.

Methods

Incident adult liver transplant listings between August 16, 2016, and February 3, 2020 (pre-AC) or June 13, 2020, and December 3, 2023 (post-AC) were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We used previously defined geographic catchment areas to classify patients as (1) no travel, (2) travel to a neighboring region, and (3) travel beyond a neighboring region. We used multinomial logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with travel and cause-specific hazards modeling to estimate the association between travel and time to deceased donor transplant, stratified by model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and AC era.

Results

Among 83 033 liver candidates, 76% were listed in their home region. Black race, lower educational attainment, increased neighborhood social deprivation, and Medicaid were significantly associated with decreased odds of traveling beyond a neighboring region. After AC, traveling beyond a neighboring region was associated with an increased hazard of transplant for patients with a MELD score <15 (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.40), MELD score 15-24 (csHR: 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31), and MELD score 25-34 (csHR: 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32).

Conclusions

Travel frequency, geographic patterns of travel, and characteristics associated with travel were largely unchanged after AC. Changes to allocation policy alone may not equalize patient means or desire to travel for transplant care.