Reciprocity to Increase Participation of Compatible Living Donor and Recipient Pairs in Kidney Paired Donation

Liver paired exchange: A US single-center experience-Pairs, chains, and use of compatible pairs

In the United States, the discrepancy between organ availability and need has persisted despite changes in allocation, innovations in preservation, and policy initiatives. Living donor liver transplant remains an underutilized means of improving access to timely liver transplantation and decreasing waitlist mortality. Liver paired exchange (LPE) represents an opportunity to overcome living donor liver transplant pair incompatibility due to size, anatomy, or blood type. LPE was adopted as a strategy to augment access to liver transplantation at our institution. Specific educational materials, consent forms, and selection processes were developed to facilitate LPE. From 2019 through October 2023, our center performed 11 LPEs, resulting in 23 living donor liver transplant pairs. The series included several types of LPE: those combining complementary incompatible pairs, the inclusion of compatible pairs to overcome incompatibility, and the use of altruistic nondirected donors to initiate chains. These exchanges facilitated transplantation for 23 recipients, including 1 pediatric patient. LPE improved access to liver transplantation at our institution. The ethical application of LPE includes tailored patient education, assessment and disclosure of exchange balance, mitigation of risk, and maximization of benefit for donors and recipients.

Increasing Kidney-Exchange Options Within the Existing Living Donor Pool With CIAT: A Pilot Implementation Study

Computerized integration of alternative transplantation programs (CIAT) is a kidney-exchange program that allows AB0- and/or HLA-incompatible allocation to difficult-to-match patients, thereby increasing their chances. Altruistic donors make this available for waiting list patients as well. Strict criteria were defined for selected highly-immunized (sHI) and long waiting (LW) candidates. For LW patients AB0i allocation was allowed. sHI patients were given priority and AB0i and/or CDC cross-match negative HLAi allocations were allowed. A local pilot was established between 2017 and 2022. CIAT results were assessed against all other transplant programs available. In the period studied there were 131 incompatible couples; CIAT transplanted the highest number of couples (35%), compared to the other programs. There were 55 sHI patients; CIAT transplanted as many sHI patients as the Acceptable Mismatch program (18%); Other programs contributed less. There were 69 LW patients; 53% received deceased donor transplantations, 20% were transplanted via CIAT. In total, 72 CIAT transplants were performed: 66 compatible, 5 AB0i and 1 both AB0i and HLAi. CIAT increased opportunities for difficult-to-match patients, not by increasing pool size, but through prioritization and allowing AB0i and "low risk" HLAi allocation. CIAT is a powerful addition to the limited number of programs available for difficult-to-match patients.

The living kidney donor profile index fails to discriminate allograft survival: implications for its use in kidney paired donation programs

The inclusion of blood group- and human leukocyte antigen-compatible donor and recipient pairs (CPs) in kidney paired donation (KPD) programs is a novel strategy to increase living donor (LD) transplantation. Transplantation from a donor with a better Living Donor Kidney Profile Index (LKDPI) may encourage CP participation in KPD programs. We undertook parallel analyses using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry to determine whether the LKDPI discriminates death-censored graft survival (DCGS) between LDs. Discrimination was assessed by the following: (1) the change in the Harrell C statistic with the sequential addition of variables in the LKDPI equation to reference models that included only recipient factors and (2) whether the LKDPI discriminated DCGS among pairs of prognosis-matched LD recipients. The addition of the LKDPI to reference models based on recipient variables increased the C statistic by only 0.02. Among prognosis-matched pairs, the C statistic in Cox models to determine the association of the LKDPI with DCGS was no better than chance alone (0.51 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient and 0.54 in the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry cohorts). We conclude that the LKDPI does not discriminate DCGS and should not be used to promote CP participation in KPD programs.

Characteristics of Potential and Actual Living Kidney Donors: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

There are limited data and no national capture of barriers associated with initiating and completing the donation process for potential living kidney donors (LKDs).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3001 intake forms completed by prospective LKDs from 2016 to 2019 at a single transplant center. We analyzed data from all potential donors who completed the intake until they became ineligible or withdrew or donation was complete. We used univariate and multivariate models to evaluate independent factors associated with donation at various stages in the donation process.

RESULTS

The donation process was deconstructed into 5 steps: intake form, immunologic compatibility testing, clinic evaluation, selection committee review, and donation. The highest percentage of potential donors dropped out after completing the intake form, primarily because of not responding to the follow-up phone call (22.6%). Of 455 potential LKDs that completed immunologic compatibility testing, 36% were ABO or crossmatch incompatible. One-hundred eighty-eight (7.5%) of all LKD applicants reached donation, the majority of whom were White (91.0%) and female (63.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of LKD applicants make it to donation. Our ability to track all potential LKDs from the initial touch point to the transplant center will help us develop interventions to address barriers to a successful donation.

Motivations and outcomes of compatible living donor-recipient pairs in paired exchange

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

Compatible Donor and Recipient Pairs' Perspectives on Participation in Kidney Paired Donation Programs: A Mixed-Methods Study

Background:

Compatible pair participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) may increase the likelihood of finding suitable matches for all registered pairs. Retrospective studies have shown variable enthusiasm for participating in KPD in compatible pairs.

Objective:

The study objective was to gather potential living donor (PLD) and transplant candidate (TC) perspectives on compatible pair participation in KPD.

Design:

Surveys and qualitative interviews.

Setting:

Three transplant programs in Canada: Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal in Montreal (Québec), Vancouver General Hospital, and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver (British Columbia).

Patients:

Both PLDs and TCs undergoing evaluation for donation/transplantation between 2016 and 2018 at 3 transplant programs in Canada.

Methods:

Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for the results of the survey and thematic and content analysis method was used for the content of the qualitative interviews.

Results:

A total of 116 PLDs and 111 TCs completed surveys and an additional 18 PLDs and 17 TCs underwent semi-directed interviews. Of those surveyed, 61.2% of PLDs and 76.6% of TCs reported a willingness to participate in KPD as a compatible pair. The possibility of a more optimally matched kidney for the TC and policies ensuring prioritization of the TC for repeat transplantation in the event of early graft failure increased willingness to participate in KPD. Major concerns expressed during the interviews included the desire to retain the emotional bond of directed donation, the fear of chain breaks or donor reneging, delays in transplantation, and additional travel associated with participation in KPD.

Limitation:

The limitations of this study are that it was conducted in only 3 Canadian transplant programs and that the interviews and surveys were in French and in English. As a consequence, the results may not be reflective of the views of individuals not living in these 2 provinces and from ethnic minority populations.

Conclusion:

Most of the compatible PLDs and TCs surveyed were willing to participate in KPD. Ensuring timely transplantation and a more optimal match for TCs and offering a policy of reciprocity to ensure timely repeat transplantation for compatible recipients if their allograft fails post KPD transplant may further increase compatible pair participation in KPD.

Ten Years of Kidney Paired Donation at Mayo Clinic: The Benefits of Incorporating ABO/HLA Compatible Pairs

BACKGROUND

We examined the 10-year experience of Mayo Clinic's kidney paired donation (KPD).We aimed to determine the benefits for the recipients of enrolled ABO/HLA compatible pairs and determine the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 332 kidney transplants facilitated by the Mayo 3-site KPD program from September 2007 to June 2018.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) time from KPD entry to transplantation was 89 days (42-187 days). The factors independently associated with receiving a transplant >3 months after KPD entry included recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies ≥98%. Fifty-four ABO/HLA compatible pairs participated in KPD for the following reasons: cytomegalovirus mismatch (18.5% [10/54]), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mismatch (EBV) (9.3% [5/54]), age/size mismatch (51.9% [28/54]), or altruistic reasons (20.3% [11/54]). Cytomegalovirus and EBV mismatch were avoided in 90% (9/10) and 100% (5/5) of cases. Recipients who entered KPD for age/size mismatch and altruistic reasons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual donor (median [interquartile range] 31.5 [12.3-47]; P < 0.001 and 26 (-1 to 46); P = 0.01 points lower, respectively). Median time to transplant from KPD entry for compatible pair recipients was 70 days (41-163 days), and 44.4% (24/54) of these transplants were preemptive. All chains/swaps incorporating compatible pairs included ABO/HLA incompatible pairs.

CONCLUSIONS

KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of these pairs can derive personal benefit from KPD while increasing the donor pool for difficult to match pairs.

Improving HLA matching in living donor kidney transplantation using kidney paired exchange program

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of compatible pairs within kidney paired exchange programs has been described as a way to enhance these programs. Improved immunological matching for the recipient in compatible pair has been described to be a possible benefit.

METHODS

The main purpose of our study was to determine if the introduction of compatible pairs in the Portuguese kidney paired exchange program would result in a better match for these patients, but also to assess if this strategy would increase the number of incompatible pairs with a possible match. We included 17 compatible pairs in kidney paired exchange pool of 35 pairs and performed an in-silico simulation determining HLA eplet mismatch load between the co-registered and matched pairs using HLA MatchMaker, version 3.0.

RESULTS

Our study showed that the inclusion of fully HLA-A, -B, -DR mismatched compatible pairs within the national Portuguese KEP increased matched rate within ICP (0.71%) and improved HLA eplet matching within compatible pairs. 16 of 17 (94.12%) of the CP obtained one or more transplants possibilities and 13 (81.25%) would have been transplanted with significantly lower HLA class I and class II total and antibody-verified eplet mismatch load (83.9 ± 16.9 vs. 59.8 ± 12.2, P = .002 and 30.1 ± 5.5 vs. 21.2 ± 3.0, P = .003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This strategy is a viable alternative for compatible pairs seeking a better matched kidney and Portuguese KEP program should allow them this possibility.

Current opinions in organ allocation

Existing methods of academic publication provide limited opportunity to obtain stakeholder input on issues of broad interest. This article reports the results of an experiment to produce a collaborative, crowdsourced article examining a current controversial issue in transplant medicine (hereby referred to as the "C4 Article"). The editorial team as a whole selected the topic of organ allocation, then divided into six sections, each supported by an individual editorial team. Widely promoted by the American Journal of Transplantation, the C4 Article was open for public comment for 1 month. The nonblinded editorial teams reviewed the contributions daily and interacted with contributors in near-real time to clarify and expand on the content received. Draft summaries of each section were posted and subsequently revised as new contributions were received. One hundred ninety-four individuals viewed the manuscript, and 107 individuals contributed to the manuscript during the submission period. The article engaged the international transplant community in producing a contemporary delineation of issues of agreement and controversy related to organ allocation and identified opportunities for new policy development. This initial experience successfully demonstrated the potential of a crowdsourced academic manuscript to advance a broad-based understanding of a complex issue.