The road less traveled: how to grow a pancreas transplant program

Four Decades of Research Productivity and Hot Spots in Pancreas Transplantation

Background: The field of pancreas transplantation has undergone transformative phases, progressing from its promising inception in 1966 to becoming a standard treatment for patients with insulin-dependent diabetes. This bibliometric analysis explores the progression of pancreas transplantation research over a period of four decades, mapping milestones, contributors, and emerging trends. Methods: Our bibliometric analysis utilizes the comprehensive Scopus database, which includes publication titles, author information, affiliations, abstracts, keywords, and journal details. The search strategy was centered on research related to pancreas and pancreas-kidney transplantation. The analysis encompasses the time frame spanning from 1983 to 2023, with the data extraction taking place on October 7th, 2023. Results: The analysis of 4,897 articles uncovered unique trends in the field of pancreas transplantation research. The years 1989, 1996, and 2021 saw significant increases in the number of publications, which corresponded to the responses to clinical challenges and advancements. Contributions by authors from the United States of America were the most numerous, with 1,905 publications and 49,949 citations. The research topics were highlighted by keywords such as "graft survival," "graft rejection," and" Immunosuppressive treatment." Conclusion: The fluctuations in publication trends that have been identified indicate dynamic reactions to changing priorities and challenges. Although it has limitations, this analysis provides valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers who are dealing with the complex field of pancreas transplantation literature. Further bibliometric research may advance our knowledge and direct future initiatives in this developing field.

Generating strategies for a national comeback in pancreas transplantation: A Delphi survey and US conference report

In the United States, potential transplant candidates with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus are inconsistently offered pancreas transplantation (PTx), contributing to a dramatic decline in pancreas allograft utilization over the past 2 decades. The American Society of Transplantation organized a workshop to identify barriers inhibiting PTx and to develop strategies for a national comeback. The 2-day workshop focused on 4 main topics: (1) referral/candidate selection, (2) organ recovery/utilization, (3) program performance/patient outcomes, and (4) enhanced education/research. Topics were explored through expert presentations, patient testimonials, breakout sessions, and strategic planning, including the identification of tasks for immediate focus. Additionally, a modified-Delphi survey was conducted among workshop members to develop and rate the importance of barriers, and the impact and feasibility of workgroup-identified improvement strategies. The panelists identified 16 barriers to progress and 44 strategies for consideration. The steps for a national comeback in PTx involve greater emphasis on efficient referral and candidate selection, better donor pancreas utilization practices, eliminating financial barriers to procurement and transplant, improving collaboration between transplant and diabetes societies and professionals, and increasing focus on PTx training, education, and research. Partnership between national societies, patient advocacy groups, and professionals will be essential to realizing this critical agenda.

Comparing Outcomes and Cost Between Pancreas Transplant and Standard of Care in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Pancreas transplant is the only treatment that establishes normal glucose levels for patients diagnosed with diabetes. We analyzed the outcome of pancreas transplant alone (PTA) versus standard of care in the United States from 2008 to 2018. We also developed an economic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pancreas transplant versus continuing standard of care.

METHODS

We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database and analyzed PTA recipient survival. Using those results, we developed a Markov model that followed a cohort of 40-year-old patients with type 1 diabetes over a 10-year time horizon. The primary outcomes were (i) the survival benefit of a pancreas transplant, (ii) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and (iii) total costs.

RESULTS

We found no difference in survival advantage of PTA compared with standard of care (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-2.14). However, pancreas transplant ($172,823, 6.87 QALY) was cost-saving compared with standard of care ($232,897, 6.04 QALY) for type 1 diabetes. Pancreas transplantation was cost-effective in 95% of 10,000 simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no difference in survival for PTA compared with standard of care, PTA is a cost-saving therapy for type 1 diabetes.

Isolated pancreas transplantation: Is rank list position related to outcomes of imported grafts?

Transplant centers may decline an import pancreas offer based on demographics and laboratory test results, without information on actual gland quality. The relationship between position on the match run, indicative of the number of centers that chose not to use a pancreas, and patient and death-censored graft survival, is not known. We studied all 199 isolated pancreas grafts transplanted at the University of Wisconsin since July 2000 and compared overall patient and death-censored graft survival based on import vs local status. Of the 199 isolated pancreas transplants, 184 (92.5%) were imported from another donor service area with a median match rank of 49 (interquartile range 14-129). Median cold ischemia time was longer for imported pancreata (16.6 vs 13.4 hours, P = .02). In multivariate Cox modeling, there was no association with position on the rank list and patient (P = .44) or death-censored graft survival (P = .99). There was an overall rate of 6.5% of graft failure within 30 days; however, there was no association with position on the rank list and graft failure at 30 days (P = .33). Although the logistics may be challenging, sound judgment to accept offers independent of prior centers' decisions can result in quality utilization of imported pancreata.

Comparison of glycemic control after pancreas transplantation for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetic recipients at a high volume center

INTRODUCTION

The number of pancreas transplants (PTX) in patients with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) has increased in response to excellent outcomes in appropriately selected patients. Not all pancreas transplant centers share an enthusiasm for performing PTX for T2DM out of concern for increased complication rates. This study aims to clarify the characteristics of T2DM recipients with successful outcomes to clarify which candidates are more suitable for PTX as means of maximizing access to this highly effective therapy for Type 2 patients.

METHODS & RESULTS

At MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 50 patients underwent pancreas transplant between 2013 and 2016. Based on patient characteristics, 38 (78%) were categorized as T1DM, and 11 (22%) were considered T2DM. One case was excluded due to early graft loss. The estimated age of diabetes onset was significantly different between T1DM and T2DM cohorts (13 years vs. 29 years, P < .001). T2DM patients had significantly higher preoperative C-peptide levels (4.11 vs. 0.05, P < .001). Preoperative HbA1c, preoperative Body Mass Index (BMI), number of diabetic complications, and hemodialysis status were similar between both groups. At 2-year follow-up, there was no statistical difference in glycemic control between the two groups (T1DM vs. T2DM). Infectious complications and readmission rates were similar. Other trends that did not meet statistical significance included T1DM group with a slightly higher mortality and re-intervention rate. The T2DM group demonstrated higher BMI, higher rejection rates, and higher short-term postoperative insulin requirements. Graft survival was 95% and 82% for T1 and T2DM at 2 years post-transplant, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Successful PTX in T1DM and T2DM recipient groups resulted in comparable glycemic control at 2-year post-transplant follow-up. T2DM group had a trend toward higher BMI as well as higher rates of rejection, temporary insulin requirement and graft failure, although none of these trends reached statistical significance. These results suggest that strict classification of T1 and T2DM by itself may not be relevant to achieving excellent outcomes in pancreas transplantation and, therefore, patient selection for PTX should not be based primarily on this classification.