Population-Based Analysis and Projections of Liver Supply Under Redistricting

Procurement characteristics of high- and low-performing OPOs as seen in OPTN/SRTR data

To meet new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) metrics, organ procurement organizations (OPOs) will benefit from understanding performance across decedent and hospital types. We sought to determine the utility of existing data-reporting structures for this purpose by reviewing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) OPO-Specific Reports (OSRs) from 2013 to 2019. OSRs contain both the Standardized donation rate ratio (SDRR) metric and OPO-reported numbers of "eligible deaths" and donors by hospital. Donor hospitals were characterized using information from Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, Dartmouth Atlas Hospital Service Area data, and the US Census Bureau. Hospital data reported by OPOs showed 51% higher eligible death donors and 140% higher noneligible death donors per 100 inpatient beds in CMS ranked top versus bottom-quartile OPOs. Top-quartile OPOs by the CMS metric recovered 78% more donors than those in the bottom quartile, but were indistinguishable by SDRR rankings. These differences persisted across hospital sizes, trauma case mix, and area demographics. OPOs with divergent performance were indistinguishable over time by SDRR, but showed changes to hospital-level recovery patterns in SRTR data. Contemporaneous recognition of underperformance across hospitals may provide important and actionable data for regulators and OPOs for focused quality improvement projects.

The Magnitude of the Health and Economic Impact of Increased Organ Donation on Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease

Objectives. There are several approaches such as presumed consent and compensation for deceased donor organs that could reduce the gap between supply and demand for kidneys. Our objective is to evaluate the magnitude of the economic impact of policies to increase deceased donor organ donation in the United States. Methods. We built a Markov model and simulate an open cohort of end-stage renal disease patients awaiting kidney transplantation in the United States over 20 years. Model inputs were derived from the United States Renal Data System and published literature. We evaluate the magnitude of the health and economic impact of policies to increase deceased donor kidney donation in the United States. Results. Increasing deceased kidney donation by 5% would save $4.7 billion, and gain 30,870 quality-adjusted life years over the lifetime of an open cohort of patients on dialysis on the waitlist for kidney transplantation. With an increase in donations of 25%, the cost saved was $21 billion, and 145,136 quality-adjusted life years were gained. Policies increasing deceased kidney donation by 5% could pay donor estates $8000 or incur a onetime cost of up to $4 billion and still be cost-saving. Conclusions. Increasing deceased kidney donation could significantly impact national spending and health for end-stage renal disease patients.

Geographic disparities in transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Final Rule clearly states that geography should not be a determinant of a chance of a potential candidate being transplanted. There have been multiple concerns about geographic disparities in patients in need of solid organ transplantation. Allocation policy adjustments have been designed to address these concerns, but there is little evidence that the disparities have been solved. The purpose of this review is to describe the main drivers of geographic disparities in solid organ transplantation and how allocation policy changes and other potential actions could impact these inequalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Geographical disparities have been reported in kidney, pancreas, liver, and lung transplantation. Organ Procurement and Transplant Network has modified organ allocation rules to underplay geography as a key determinant of a candidates' chance of receiving an organ. Thus, heart, lung, and more recently liver and Kidney Allocation Systems have incorporated broader organ sharing to reduce geographical disparities. Whether these policy adjustments will indeed eliminate geographical disparities are still unclear.

SUMMARY

Modern allocation policy focus in patients need, regardless of geography. Innovative actions to further reduce geographical disparities are needed.

Heterogeneous Circles for Liver Allocation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In February 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network replaced donor service area-based allocation of livers with acuity circles, a system based on three homogeneous circles around each donor hospital. This system has been criticized for neglecting to consider varying population density and proximity to coast and national borders.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from July 2013 to June 2017, we designed heterogeneous circles to reduce both circle size and variation in liver supply/demand ratios across transplant centers. We weighted liver demand by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) because higher MELD/PELD candidates are more likely to be transplanted. Transplant centers in the West had the largest circles; transplant centers in the Midwest and South had the smallest circles. Supply/demand ratios ranged from 0.471 to 0.655 livers per MELD-weighted incident candidate. Our heterogeneous circles had lower variation in supply/demand ratios than homogeneous circles of any radius between 150 and 1,000 nautical miles (nm). Homogeneous circles of 500 nm, the largest circle used in the acuity circles allocation system, had a variance in supply/demand ratios 16 times higher than our heterogeneous circles (0.0156 vs. 0.0009) and a range of supply/demand ratios 2.3 times higher than our heterogeneous circles (0.421 vs. 0.184). Our heterogeneous circles had a median (interquartile range) radius of only 326 (275-470) nm but reduced disparities in supply/demand ratios significantly by accounting for population density, national borders, and geographic variation of supply and demand.

CONCLUSIONS

Large homogeneous circles create logistical burdens on transplant centers that do not need them, whereas small homogeneous circles increase geographic disparity. Using carefully designed heterogeneous circles can reduce geographic disparity in liver supply/demand ratios compared with homogeneous circles of radius ranging from 150 to 1,000 nm.

Persistent sex disparity in liver transplantation rates

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated that there are sex disparities in the rate of liver transplantation. However, little is known statistically about whether this disparity is caused by liver compartment size, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease adjustments, or regional differences.

METHODS

We use retrospective data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Treatment Analysis and Research data files for liver transplantation from 1995 through 2012. The final sample consists of 150,149 patients. These data contain information on all individuals who registered for the liver transplant waiting list as well as updated outcome data. Linear probability and logistic regression models were both used.

RESULTS

Women were 4.8 percentage points less likely to receive a transplant. Adjustment for race, weight, body mass index, region, education, and other characteristics attenuated the sex difference by roughly 19% (from 4.8 to 3.9 percentage points). The disparity was consistent across the 11 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation regions. Comparing the heaviest women to the lightest men, the disparity flipped. Pairwise comparisons between men and women of various sizes suggest that disparities in favor of men increase with the ratio of male-to-female size.

CONCLUSION

Our results document persistent sex disparity in liver transplantation, only 19% of which is explained by size differentials between men and women. Differences in rates of transplantation are increasing in the ratio of male-to-female height and weight, suggesting that some of the disparity is explained by differences in liver compartment size.

Quantifying Sex-Based Disparities in Liver Allocation

Importance

Differences in local organ supply and demand have introduced geographic inequities in the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based liver allocation system, prompting national debate and patient-initiated lawsuits. No study to our knowledge has quantified the sex disparities in allocation associated with clinical vs geographic characteristics.

Objective

To estimate the proportion of sex disparity in wait list mortality and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) associated with clinical and geographic characteristics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used adult (age ≥18 years) liver-only transplant listings reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network from June 18, 2013, through March 1, 2018.

Exposure

Liver transplant waiting list.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes included wait list mortality and DDLT. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed, and inverse odds ratio weighting was used to estimate the proportion of disparity across geographic location, MELD score, and candidate anthropometric and liver measurements.

Results

Among 81 357 adults wait-listed for liver transplant only, 36.1% were women (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [11.3] years; interquartile range, 49.0-63.0 years) and 63.9% were men (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [10.1] years; interquartile range, 51.0-63.0 years). Compared with men, women were 8.6% more likely to die while on the waiting list (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18) and were 14.4% less likely to receive a DDLT (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.88). In the geographic domain, organ procurement organization was the only variable that was significantly associated with increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality (22.1% increase; aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.30); no measure of the geographic domain was associated with DDLT. Laboratory and allocation MELD scores were associated with increases in disparities in wait list mortality: 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.19; 50.1% increase among women) and DDLT: 0.87 (95% CI, 0.86-0.88; 10.3% increase among women). Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements had the strongest association with disparities between men and women in wait list mortality (125.8% increase among women) and DDLT (49.0% increase among women).

Conclusions and Relevance

Our findings suggest that addressing geographic disparities alone may not mitigate sex-based disparities, which were associated with the inability of the MELD score to accurately estimate disease severity in women and to account for candidate anthropometric and liver measurements in this study.

Geographic Disparity in Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Rates Following Share 35

BACKGROUND

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented Share 35 on June 18, 2013, to broaden deceased donor liver sharing within regional boundaries. We investigated whether increased sharing under Share 35 impacted geographic disparity in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) across donation service areas (DSAs).

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients June 2009 to June 2017, we identified 86 083 adult liver transplant candidates and retrospectively estimated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-adjusted DDLT rates using nested multilevel Poisson regression with random intercepts for DSA and transplant program. From the variance in DDLT rates across 49 DSAs and 102 programs, we derived the DSA-level median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of DDLT rates. MIRR is a robust metric of heterogeneity across each hierarchical level; larger MIRR indicates greater disparity.

RESULTS

MIRR was 2.18 pre-Share 35 and 2.16 post-Share 35. Thus, 2 candidates with the same MELD in 2 different DSAs were expected to have a 2.2-fold difference in DDLT rate driven by geography alone. After accounting for program-level heterogeneity, MIRR was attenuated to 2.10 pre-Share 35 and 1.96 post-Share 35. For candidates with MELD 15-34, MIRR decreased from 2.51 pre- to 2.27 post-Share 35, and for candidates with MELD 35-40, MIRR increased from 1.46 pre- to 1.51 post-Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity in DDLT. DSA-level heterogeneity in DDLT rates was greater than program-level heterogeneity pre- and post-Share 35.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic disparity substantially impacted DDLT rates before and after Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity and particularly for candidates with MELD 35-40. Despite broader sharing, geography remains a major determinant of access to DDLT.

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.

Utilization of Declined Liver Grafts Yields Comparable Transplant Outcomes and Previous Decline Should Not Be a Deterrent to Graft Use

BACKGROUND

In the United Kingdom, up to 20% of liver graft offers are not used for transplantation, and the reasons for graft refusal are multifactorial and not consistent among transplant units.

METHODS

Liver grafts previously declined by other transplant centers in the United Kingdom but transplanted in our unit in Birmingham between 2011 and 2015 were analyzed. According to the indicated reason for previous declines, liver grafts were categorized into 3 refusal groups: "quality," "logistics," and "other reasons." Results were compared with a matched, low-risk cohort of livers primarily accepted and transplanted at our center.

RESULTS

During the study period, 206 livers (donation after brain death: n = 141 (68.4%); donation after circulatory arrest: n = 65 (31.6%) were transplanted, which were previously discarded by a median of 4 other UK centers. The majority of declines were donor quality (n = 102; 49.5%), refusals followed by logistics (n = 45; 21.8%), and other reasons (n = 59; 28.6%). Transplantation from both graft types (donation after brain death and donation after circulatory arrest) and all 3 refusal groups achieved equally good outcomes with an overall low complication rate. The incidence of primary nonfunction (2.4% vs 1.7%; P = 0.5483), in-hospital mortality (6.3% vs 4.1%; P = 0.2293) and 3-year graft (82.5% vs 84.1%; P = 0.6872) and patient (85.4% vs 87.6%; P = 0.8623) survival was comparable between livers previously declined and livers primarily accepted and transplanted at our center.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplantation of declined livers can achieve comparable outcomes to primary liver low-risk graft offers. Previous refusal should not be taken as a barrier to use the graft, and with appropriate recipient selection, more lives could be saved.