Nephrologists' Perspectives on Waitlisting and Allocation of Deceased Donor Kidneys for Transplant

Trends in Patient Characteristics on the Japanese Waiting Lists for Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation. Are There no Eligibility or Ineligibility Criteria for Registration and Renewal?

BACKGROUND

Controversial issues in registering candidates for deceased-donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) comprise various factors, including age, life expectancy, and dialysis duration. We investigated patient characteristics on the waiting list and discussed suitable criteria in Japan, which has a long waiting period.

METHODS

This study included 592 patients on the waiting list for DDKT at our institute between 1982 and 2023. We retrospectively reviewed patients' medical charts and obtained their clinical information. Patient characteristics according to outcomes and eligibility criteria for applying for or renewing registration were investigated. No prisoners were used in the study, and the participants were neither coerced nor paid.

RESULTS

Approximately 70%, 45%, and 14.5% of the registered patients were aged >60, >70, and 80 years, respectively. The number of patients aged ≥70 years gradually decreased over time. The median waiting periods of patients who underwent and interrupted DDKT were 13 and 7 years, respectively. Patients in their 70s with a >15-year dialysis period tended to have opportunities for DDKT. Living-donor kidney transplantation was performed in patients aged <60 years. Waiting patients were significantly younger and had a shorter dialysis duration. Advanced age at registration was associated with a significantly high risk of interruption.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced age and longer dialysis periods were considered at registration because patients with these factors tended to experience interruptions despite the long waiting period and high cost. Although older patients can undergo DDKT, factors including surgical cost and risks are considered. Eligibility/ineligibility criteria should be established for DDKT waiting lists in Japan.

Canadian Kidney Transplant Professionals' Perspectives on Precision Medicine and Molecular Matching in Kidney Allocation

Background

Antibody-mediated rejection is an important cause of kidney transplant loss. A new strategy requiring application of precision medicine tools in transplantation considers molecular compatibility between donors and recipients and holds the promise of improved immunologic risk, preventing rejection and premature graft loss. The objective of this study was to gather Canadian transplant professionals' perspectives on molecular compatibility in kidney transplantation.

Methods

Seventeen Canadian transplant professionals (14 nephrologists, 2 nurses, and 1 surgeon) participated in semistructured interviews in 2021. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the qualitative description approach.

Results

Participants identified fair access to transplantation as the most important principle in kidney allocation. Molecular compatibility was viewed as a promising innovation. However, participants were concerned about increased waiting times, negative impact on some patients, and potential problems related to the adequacy of information explaining this new technology. To mitigate the challenges associated with molecular matching, participants suggested integrating a maximum waiting time for molecular-matched kidneys and expanding the program nationally/internationally.

Conclusions

Molecular matching in kidney transplantation is viewed as a promising technology for decreasing the incidence of antibody-mediated rejection and improving graft survival. Further studies are needed to determine how to ethically integrate this technology into the kidney allocation algorithm.

Considerable Variability Among Transplant Nephrologists in Judging Deceased Donor Kidney Offers

Introduction

Transplant clinicians may disagree on whether or not to accept a deceased donor kidney offer. We investigated the interobserver variability between transplant nephrologists regarding organ acceptance and whether the use of a prediction model impacted their decisions.

Methods

We developed an observational online survey with 6 real-life cases of deceased donor kidneys offered to a waitlisted recipient. Per case, nephrologists were asked to estimate the risk of adverse outcome and whether they would accept the offer for this patient, or for a patient of their own choice, and how certain they felt. These questions were repeated after revealing the risk of adverse outcome, calculated by a validated prediction model.

Results

Sixty Dutch nephrologists completed the survey. The intraclass correlation coefficient of their estimated risk of adverse outcome was poor (0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.62). Interobserver agreement of the decision on whether or not to accept the kidney offer was also poor (Fleiss kappa 0.13, 95% CI 0.129-0.130). The acceptance rate before and after providing the outcome of the prediction model was significantly influenced in 2 of 6 cases. Acceptance rates varied considerably among transplant centers.

Conclusion

In this study, the estimated risk of adverse outcome and subsequent decision to accept a suboptimal donor kidney varied greatly among transplant nephrologists. The use of a prediction model could influence this decision and may enhance nephrologists' certainty about their decision.

Identifying the barriers to kidney transplantation for patients in rural and remote areas: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Populations in rural and remote areas have higher rates of chronic kidney disease and kidney failure than those in urban or metropolitan areas, and mortality rates for chronic kidney disease are almost twice as high in remote areas compared to major cities. Despite this, patients residing in regional, rural, or remote areas are less likely to be wait-listed for or receive a kidney transplant. The objective of this scoping review is to identify specific barriers to kidney transplantation for adult patients residing in rural and remote areas from the perspectives of health professionals and patients/carers.

METHODS

Studies were identified through database (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Scopus) searches and assessed against inclusion criteria to determine eligibility. A descriptive content analysis was undertaken to identify and describe barriers as key themes.

RESULTS

The 24 selected studies included both quantitative (n = 5) and qualitative (n = 19) methodologies. In studies conducted in health professional populations (n = 10) the most prevalent themes identified were perceived social and cultural issues (80%), burden of travel and distance from treatment (60%), and system-level factors as barriers (60%). In patient/carer populations (n = 14), the most prevalent themes were limited understanding of illness and treatment options (71%), dislocation from family and support network (71%), and physical and psychosocial effects of treatment (71%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in regional, rural, and remote areas face many additional barriers to kidney transplantation, which are predominantly associated with the need to travel or relocate to access required medical testing and transplantation facilities.

The global survival rate of graft and patient in kidney transplantation of children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis on published studies about the Global Survival Rate of Graft and Patients in the Kidney Transplantation of children.

Methods

Studies that investigated the survival rate of kidney transplants published until the 30th of December 2020 were selected using a systematic search strategy in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane. The extracted data were entered into the Excel software and STATA 16.0. The search identified 6007 study references. From the total, we excluded 1348 duplicates, 3688 reference titles and abstracts that were deemed irrelevant, and 846 references that were not original articles (i.e., letter, commentary, review) or did not meet the inclusion criteria. As such, 89 studies involving 12,330 participants were included in this meta-analysis.

Results

In this study 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10-year survival rates of graft were estimated to be 92, 83, 74.40, 67.10, and 63.50%, respectively. Also, 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10-year survival rates of patients were estimated to be 99.60, 97.30, 95.20, 74.60, and 97.90%, respectively.

Conclusions

The findings suggest differences in graft and patient survival among children with kidney transplants. Although differences in ethnic origin, incompatibility with deceased donor kidneys, and types of kidney disease are unavoidable, interventions to improve preventive and living-donor transplantation are particularly needed in minority groups. In addition, more research is needed to establish and address the contribution of medical and sociocultural barriers to preferential treatment of these groups.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03545-2.

Balancing Equity and Efficiency in Kidney Allocation: An Overview

Organs for transplantation are a scarce resource. Markedly, the transplant community's primary challenge is the stark disparity between the number of patients awaiting deceased donor organ transplants and the rate at which organs become available. However, the allocation of a limited number of organs poses another constant challenge: maintaining an equilibrium between renal transplant utility and equity, that is, striking a balance between the utilitarian argument of medical efficiency and the principle of equity. In this comprehensive overview, the authors delve into the challenge of maintaining an acceptable balance between equity and efficiency and elaborate on some of the factors that might inform a decisionmaker's evaluation of the extent to which a given allocation scheme is efficient or equitable.

Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation

Medical advancement has increased the confidence in successful organ transplants in end-stage patients. As the waitlist of organ demand is multiplying, the organ allocation process is becoming more crucial. In this situation, a transparent and efficient organ allocation policy is required. This study evaluates the preferences of medical experts to substantial factors for allocating organs in different hypothetical scenarios. Twenty-five medical professionals with a significant role in organ allocation were interviewed individually. The interview questionnaire comprised demographic information, organ donation status, important organ allocation factors, public preference knowledge, and experts’ preferences in different hypothetical scenarios. Most medical experts rated the waiting time and prognosis as the most important, while the next of kin donor status and care and contribution to the well-being of others were the least important factors for organ allocation. In expert opinion, medical experts significantly considered public preferences for organ allocation in making their decisions. Altogether, experts prioritized waiting time over successful transplant, age, and donor status in the hypothetical scenarios. In parallel, less chance of finding another organ, donor status, and successful transplant were prioritized over age. Medical experts are the key stakeholders; therefore, their opinions are substantial in formulating an organ allocation policy.

Healthcare professional and community preferences in deceased donor kidney allocation: A best-worst scaling survey

Deceased donor kidneys are a scarce community resource; therefore, the principles underpinning organ allocation should reflect societal values. This study aimed to elicit community and healthcare professional preferences for principles guiding the allocation of kidneys from deceased donors and compare how these differed across the populations. A best-worst scaling survey including 29 principles in a balanced incomplete block design was conducted among a representative sample of the general community (n = 1237) and healthcare professionals working in transplantation (n = 206). Sequential best-worst multinomial logistic regression was used to derive scaled preference scores (PS) (range 0-100). Thematic analysis of free text responses was performed. Five of the six most valued principles among members of the community related to equity, including priority for the longest waiting (PS 100), difficult to transplant (PS 94.5) and sickest (PS 93.9), and equitable access for men and women (PS 94.0), whereas the top four principles for healthcare professional focused on maximizing utility (PS 89.9-100). Latent class analysis identified unmeasured class membership among community members. There are discordant views between community members and healthcare professionals. These should be considered in the design, evaluation, and implementation of deceased donor kidney allocation protocols.

Sex Differences in Kidney Transplantation: Austria and the United States, 1978–2018

Background

Systematic analyses about sex differences in wait-listing and kidney transplantation after dialysis initiation are scarce. We aimed at identifying sex-specific disparities along the path of kidney disease treatment, comparing two countries with distinctive health care systems, the US and Austria, over time.

Methods

We analyzed subjects who initiated dialysis from 1979–2018, in observational cohort studies from the US and Austria. We used Cox regression to model male-to-female cause-specific hazard ratios (csHRs, 95% confidence intervals) for transitions along the consecutive states dialysis initiation, wait-listing, kidney transplantation and death, adjusted for age and stratified by country and decade of dialysis initiation.

Results

Among 3,053,206 US and 36,608 Austrian patients starting dialysis, men had higher chances to enter the wait-list, which however decreased over time [male-to-female csHRs for wait-listing, 1978–1987: US 1.94 (1.71, 2.20), AUT 1.61 (1.20, 2.17); 2008–2018: US 1.35 (1.32, 1.38), AUT 1.11 (0.94, 1.32)]. Once wait-listed, the advantage of the men became smaller, but persisted in the US [male-to-female csHR for transplantation after wait-listing, 2008–2018: 1.08 (1.05, 1.11)]. The greatest disparity between men and women occurred in older age groups in both countries [male-to-female csHR for wait-listing after dialysis, adjusted to 75% age quantile, 2008–2018: US 1.83 (1.74, 1.92), AUT 1.48 (1.02, 2.13)]. Male-to-female csHRs for death were close to one, but higher after transplantation than after dialysis.

Conclusions

We found evidence for sex disparities in both countries. Historically, men in the US and Austria had 90%, respectively, 60% higher chances of being wait-listed for kidney transplantation, although these gaps decreased over time. Efforts should be continued to render kidney transplantation equally accessible for both sexes, especially for older women.

Non-medical barriers reported by nephrologists when providing renal replacement therapy or comprehensive conservative management to end-stage kidney disease patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Large international differences exist in access to renal replacement therapy (RRT) modalities and comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), suggesting that some patients are not receiving the most appropriate treatment. Previous studies mainly focused on barriers reported by patients or medical barriers (e.g. comorbidities) reported by nephrologists. An overview of the non-medical barriers reported by nephrologists when providing the most appropriate form of RRT (other than conventional in-centre haemodialysis) or CCM is lacking.

METHODS

We searched in EMBASE and PubMed for original articles with a cross-sectional design (surveys, interviews or focus groups) published between January 2010 and September 2018. We included studies in which nephrologists reported barriers when providing RRT or CCM to adult patients with ESKD. We used the barriers and facilitators survey by Peters et al. [Ruimte Voor Verandering? Knelpunten en Mogelijkheden Voor Verbeteringen in de Patiëntenzorg. Nijmegen: Afdeling Kwaliteit van zorg (WOK), 2003] as preliminary framework to create our own model and performed meta-ethnographic analysis of non-medical barriers in text, tables and figures.

RESULTS

Of the 5973 articles screened, 16 articles were included using surveys (n = 10), interviews (n = 5) and focus groups (n = 1). We categorized the barriers into three levels: patient level (e.g. attitude, role perception, motivation, knowledge and socio-cultural background), level of the healthcare professional (e.g. fears and concerns, working style, communication skills) and level of the healthcare system (e.g. financial barriers, supportive staff and practice organization).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review has identified a number of modifiable, non-medical barriers that could be targeted by, for example, education and optimizing financing structure to improve access to RRT modalities and CCM.

Referral for Kidney Transplantation in Canadian Provinces

BACKGROUND

Patient referral to a transplant facility, a prerequisite for dialysis-treated patients to access kidney transplantation in Canada, is a subjective process that is not recorded in national dialysis or transplant registries. Patients who may benefit from transplant may not be referred.

METHODS

In this observational study, we prospectively identified referrals for kidney transplant in adult patients between June 2010 and May 2013 in 12 transplant centers, and linked these data to information on incident dialysis patients in a national registry.

RESULTS

Among 13,184 patients initiating chronic dialysis, the cumulative incidence of referral for transplant was 17.3%, 24.0%, and 26.8% at 1, 2, and 3 years after dialysis initiation, respectively; the rate of transplant referral was 15.8 per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 15.1 to 16.4). Transplant referral varied more than three-fold between provinces, but it was not associated with the rate of deceased organ donation or median waiting time for transplant in individual provinces. In a multivariable model, factors associated with a lower likelihood of referral included older patient age, female sex, diabetes-related ESKD, higher comorbid disease burden, longer durations (>12.0 months) of predialysis care, and receiving dialysis at a location >100 km from a transplant center. Median household income and non-Caucasian race were not associated with a lower likelihood of referral.

CONCLUSIONS

Referral rates for transplantation varied widely between Canadian provinces but were not lower among patients of non-Caucasian race or with lower socioeconomic status. Standardization of transplantation referral practices and ongoing national reporting of referral may decrease disparities in patient access to kidney transplant.

Excluding patients from transplant due to social support: Results from a national survey of transplant providers

Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6% (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6%-12.2%), and by center (21.7% among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3% vs 67.6%). Nearly 25% believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3% felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4% were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P = .03). Furthermore, 69.2% supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.

Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments

INTRODUCTION

Organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with severe organ failure. Nevertheless, donor organs are a scarce resource resulting in a large mismatch between supply and demand. Therefore, priority-setting leads to the dilemma of how these scarce organs should be allocated and who should be considered eligible to receive a suitable organ. In order to improve the supply-demand mismatch in transplantation medicine, this study explores preferences of different stakeholders (general public, medical professionals and patients) for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation in Germany. The aims are (1) to determine criteria and preferences, which are relevant for the allocation of scarce donor organs and (2) to compare the results between the three target groups to derive strategies for health policy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We outline the study protocol for discrete choice experiments, where respondents are presented with different choices including attributes with varied attribute levels. They were asked to choose between these choice sets. First, systematic reviews will be conducted to identify the state of art. Subsequently, focus group discussions with the public and patients as well as expert interviews with medical professionals will follow to establish the attributes that are going to be included in the experiments and to verify the results of the systematic reviews. Using this qualitative exploratory work, discrete choice studies will be designed to quantitatively assess preferences. We will use a D-efficient fractional factorial design to survey a total sample of 600 respondents according to the public, medical professionals and patients each. Multinomial conditional logit model and latent class model will be analysed to estimate the final results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received Ethics Approval from the Hannover Medical School Human Ethics Committee (Vote number: 7921_BO_K_2018). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, workshops with stakeholders and peer-reviewed journal articles.

How important is social support in determining patients' suitability for transplantation? Results from a National Survey of Transplant Clinicians

BACKGROUND

National guidelines require programmes use subjective assessments of social support when determining transplant suitability, despite limited evidence linking it to outcomes. We examined how transplant providers weigh the importance of social support for kidney transplantation compared with other factors, and variation by clinical role and personal beliefs.

METHODS

The National survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the Society of Transplant Social Work in 2016. Using a discrete choice approach, respondents compared two hypothetical patient profiles and selected one for transplantation. Conditional logistic regression estimated the relative importance of each factor; results were stratified by clinical role (psychosocial vs medical/surgical providers) and beliefs (outcomes vs equity).

RESULTS

Five hundred and eighy-four transplant providers completed the survey. Social support was the second most influential factor among transplant providers. Providers were most likely to choose a candidate who had social support (OR=1.68, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.86), always adhered to a medical regimen (OR=1.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.88), and had a 15 years life expectancy with transplant (OR=1.61, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.85). Psychosocial providers were more influenced by adherence and quality of life compared with medical/surgical providers, who were more influenced by candidates' life expectancy with transplant (p<0.05). For providers concerned with avoiding organ waste, social support was the most influential factor, while it was the least influential for clinicians concerned with fairness (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Social support is highly influential in listing decisions and may exacerbate transplant disparities. Providers' beliefs and reliance on social support in determining suitability vary considerably, raising concerns about transparency and justice.

Is social support associated with post-transplant medication adherence and outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Although social support is used to determine transplant eligibility, the relationship between social support, medication adherence, and survival among transplant recipients remains unclear. We estimated the relationship between social support and post-transplant medication adherence and outcomes using 10 electronic databases from inception to January 2016. Study quality was assessed and all review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Thirty-two studies (9102 participants) met inclusion criteria: 21 assessed medication adherence (5197 participants), and 13 assessed clinical outcomes (3905 participants). Among high quality studies, neither social support nor marital status was predictive of medication adherence or post-transplant outcomes. Social support was not associated with medication adherence. It was associated with superior post-transplant outcomes, but the relationship was not significant among high quality studies. Compared to unmarried recipients, married recipients were more likely to adhere to medication post-transplant, but this relationship was not significant among high quality studies. Marital status was not significantly associated with transplant success. Social support is weakly and inconsistently associated with post-transplant adherence and outcomes. Larger prospective studies using consistent and validated measures are needed to justify the use of inadequate social support as a contraindication to transplantation.

Preferences for Policy Options for Deceased Organ Donation for Transplantation: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Despite broad public support for organ donation, there is a chronic shortage of deceased donor organs. We sought to identify community preferences for features of organ donation policies.

METHODS

A discrete choice study was conducted using an online panel of Australian community respondents older than 18 years. Respondents were presented with scenarios comparing a "new" policy to the current policy. Tradeoffs between 8 policy aspects were quantified using mixed logit and latent class models: registration system, extent of donor family involvement, ease of registration, frequency of confirmation of intent, direct payment, and funeral expense reimbursement, priority for donor's family, and formal recognition of donation.

RESULTS

There were 2005 respondents (mean, 44.6 years). We found a strong preference for a new policy. Overall, respondents favored a policy that included: some involvement of the donor's family in the final decision, simple registration processes, less frequent reconfirmation of donation intent, direct payment or funeral expense reimbursement, and formal recognition of donation. However, there was significant preference heterogeneity across respondents, with various respondent groups valuing policy mechanisms differently. Respondents who viewed policy change negatively were also those who would be unlikely to be organ donors anyway, because they tended to hold negative views toward organ donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the Australian community are open to alternative organ donation policies including changes to: registration systems, family involvement, and financial and nonfinancial mechanisms. Future policy discussions should not be limited by preconceived notions of what is acceptable to the community, rather informed by actual community values and preferences.

Community preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: a discrete choice study

BACKGROUND

Demand for organs for transplant exceeds supply. There is an ongoing debate about the relative weighting that should be given to different allocation criteria. Little is known about the relative weight the community places on various allocation criteria. This study aims to determine community preferences for organ allocation.

METHODS

Community respondents recruited from a web-based panel chose which patient received a transplant in 30 scenarios presenting two hypothetical patients. Patients were described in age, sex, previous transplants, whether they or family were registered donors, had caring responsibilities, adherence, time on waiting list, estimated survival and quality of life (QOL) with and without transplant, comorbidities, and lifestyle factors, such as smoking. Analyses were conducted in NLOGIT 5.0, using a mixed-logit model.

RESULTS

Two thousand fifty-one respondents aged 18 to 83 years completed the survey. All attributes significantly influenced recipient choice except sex and having diabetes. Younger patients were preferred over older patients. Family member donor registration, having caring responsibilities, and longer time on waiting list increased priority. Pretransplant life expectancy was valued more highly than posttransplant life expectancy; 1 year less of pretransplant life expectancy required an increase of 1.49 years in posttransplant life expectancy to compensate. Posttransplant QOL was valued more highly than pretransplant QOL.

CONCLUSION

Lower pretransplant life expectancy (need) was more important than higher posttransplant life expectancy (utility). Although current allocation algorithms are consistent with community preferences for prioritizing children and time on the waiting list, favoring patients with high predicted posttransplant survival as potential recipients may not be aligned with community preferences.

'Suspended in a paradox'-patient attitudes to wait-listing for kidney transplantation: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

Patients on waiting lists for kidney transplantation have higher mortality rates and have specific anxieties about their eligibility, process, and outcomes of wait-listing. We aimed to describe patient experiences and attitudes to wait-listing for kidney transplantation. Electronic databases were searched to September 2014. Thematic synthesis was used to analyze the findings. From 22 studies (n = 795 patients), we identified six themes: accepting the only option (chance to regain normality, avoiding guilt, impulsive decision-making); maintaining hope (determined optimism, appreciating a fortuitous gift, enduring for optimal outcomes, trust in clinical judgment); burden of testing (strenuous commitment, losing the battle, medical mistrust); permeating vulnerability (eligibility enigma, being threatened, angst of timing uncertainty, desperate urgency, living in limbo, spiraling doubt and disappointment, residual ambivalence); deprived of opportunity (unfairly dismissed, unexpected disqualification, self-resignation and acceptance, jealousy, suspicious of inequity); and moral guilt (awaiting someone's death, questioning deservingness). The waiting list offered hope of restored normality. However, the demands of workup, uncertainty about eligibility, and waiting times that exceeded expectations impelled patients to disillusionment, despair, and suspicion of inequity. Managing patient expectations and ensuring transparency of wait-listing and allocation decisions may allay patient disappointment and skepticism, to improve patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes.

Public preferences for donor kidney allocation: a study in Iran

INTRODUCTION

Fair allocation of donor organs is essential to maintain public trust in a public healthcare system. A study of the public's views and opinions of this could clarify non-medical prioritization criteria. We report our survey of public opinion of criteria for donor kidney allocation.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study using random digit dialing to phone interview 706 Tehran residents. Patient scenarios were presented to determine interviewee opinions on nine recipient criteria: probability for survival, previous transplant history, time on the waiting list, age, an individual's role in developing their kidney failure, gender, marital status, social status, and financial situation. Each scenario introduced two patients and interviewees then chose the better candidate for transplantation.

RESULTS

More than 50% of the participants chose length of waiting time, a patient's role in causing their disease, age, and survival time after transplantation as important allograft allocation criteria.

CONCLUSION

This study disclosed other criteria in addition to the likelihood for successful transplantation-the patient's role in the development of their disease and patient age-which should be prioritization considerations.

Clinical practice guidelines on wait-listing for kidney transplantation: consistent and equitable?

BACKGROUND

Apparent variability in wait-listing criteria globally has raised concern about inequitable access to kidney transplantation. This study aimed to compare the quality, the scope, and the consistency of international guidelines on wait-listing for kidney transplantation.

METHODS

Electronic databases and guideline registries were searched to December 2011. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument and textual synthesis was used to assess and compare recommendations.

RESULTS

Fifteen guidelines published from 2001 to 2011 were included. Methodological rigor and scope were variable. We identified 4 major criteria across guidelines: recipient age and life expectancy, medical criteria, social and lifestyle circumstances, and psychosocial considerations. Whereas some recommendations were consistent, there were differences in age cutoffs, estimated life expectancy (2-5 years), and glomerular filtration rate at listing (15-20 mL/min/1.73 m). Cardiovascular contraindications were broadly defined. Recommended cancer-free periods also varied substantially, and whereas uncontrolled infections were universally contraindicated, human immunodeficiency virus thresholds and adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy were inconsistent. Most guidelines recommended psychological screening but were not augmented with specific clinical assessment tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Wait-listing recommendations in current guidelines are based on life expectancy, comorbidities, lifestyle, and psychosocial factors. Some recommendations are different across guidelines or broadly defined. There is a case for developing comprehensive, methodologically robust, and regularly updated guidelines on wait-listing for kidney transplantation.

If you can't comply with dialysis, how do you expect me to trust you with transplantation? Australian nephrologists' views on indigenous Australians' 'non-compliance' and their suitability for kidney transplantation

Introduction

Indigenous Australians suffer markedly higher rates of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) but are less likely than their non-Indigenous counterparts to receive a transplant. This difference is not fully explained by measurable clinical differences. Previous work suggests that Indigenous Australian patients may be regarded by treating specialists as 'non-compliers', which may negatively impact on referral for a transplant. However, this decision-making is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to investigate: whether Indigenous patients are commonly characterised as 'non-compliers'; how estimations of patient compliance factor into Australian nephrologists' decision-making about transplant referral; and whether this may pose a particular barrier for Indigenous patients accessing transplants.

Methods

Nineteen nephrologists, from eight renal units treating the majority of Indigenous Australian renal patients, were interviewed in 2005-06 as part of a larger study. Thematic analysis was undertaken to investigate how compliance factors in specialists' decision-making, and its implications for Indigenous patients' likelihood of obtaining transplants.

Results

Specialists commonly identified Indigenous patients as both non-compliers and high-risk transplant candidates. Definition and assessment of 'compliance' was neither formal nor systematic. There was uncertainty about the value of compliance status in predicting post-transplant outcomes and the issue of organ scarcity permeated participants' responses. Overall, there was marked variation in how specialists weighed perceptions of compliance and risk in their decision-making.

Conclusion

Reliance on notions of patient 'compliance' in decision-making for transplant referral is likely to result in continuing disadvantage for Indigenous Australian ESKD patients. In the absence of robust evidence on predictors of post-transplant outcomes, referral decision-making processes require attention and debate.