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

Engineering Equity Into the Promise of Xenotransplantation

Two of the greatest challenges facing kidney transplantation are the lack of donated organs and inequities in who receives a transplant. Xenotransplantation holds promise as a treatment approach that could solve the supply problem. Major advances in gene-editing procedures have enabled several companies to raise genetically engineered pigs for organ donation. These porcine organs lack antigens and have other modifications that should reduce the probability of immunological rejection when transplanted into humans. The US Food and Drug Administration and transplantation leaders are starting to chart a path to test xenotransplants in clinical trials and later integrate them into routine clinical care. Here we provide a framework that industry, regulatory authorities, payers, transplantation professionals, and patient groups can implement to promote equity during every stage in this process. We also call for immediate action. Companies developing xenotransplant technology should assemble patient advocacy boards to bring the concerns of individuals with end-stage kidney disease to the forefront. For trials, xenotransplantation companies should partner with transplant programs with substantial patient populations of racial and ethnic minority groups and that have reciprocal relationships with those communities. Those companies and transplant programs should reach out now to those communities to inform them about xenotransplantation and try to address their concerns. These actions have the potential to make these communities full partners in the promise of xenotransplantation.

Assessing reliability and validity of SIPAT and opportunities for improvement: A single-center cohort study

Psychosocial assessment is a standard component of patient evaluations for transplant candidacy. The Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant (SIPAT) is a widely used measure to assess psychosocial risk for transplant. However, there are questions regarding the SIPAT's reliability and validity. We examined the SIPAT's psychometric performance and its impact on equitable access to transplant in a diverse cohort of 2825 patients seeking liver transplantation between 2014 and 2021 at an urban transplant center. The SIPAT demonstrated good internal consistency reliability at the overall score [Cronbach's α = 0.85, 95% CI (0.83, 0.86)] and domain levels (0.80 > α > 0.70). There was mixed support for structural validity, with poor overall model fit in confirmatory factor analysis and 50% of questions achieving the 0.70-factor loadings threshold. Adjusting for sociodemographic variables, the odds of not being waitlisted for psychosocial reasons were three times higher for patients with Medicaid insurance than patients with private insurance [OR 3.24, 95% CI (2.09, 4.99)] or Medicare [OR 2.89, 95% CI (1.84, 4.53)], mediated by higher SIPAT scores. Black patients had nearly twice the odds of White patients [OR 1.88, 95% CI (1.20, 2.91)], partially mediated by higher social support domain scores. Patients with Medicaid, non-White patients, and those without a college degree scored significantly higher on collinear questions, disproportionately contributing to higher SIPAT scores. The SIPAT did not perform equally across insurance type, race/ethnicity, and education groups, with the lowest subgroup validity associated with patient readiness and psychopathology domains. The SIPAT should be interpreted with caution, especially as a composite score. Future studies should examine validity in other populations.

Social Support: From Exclusion Criteria to Medical Service

One of the criteria used by many transplant centers in assessing psychosocial eligibility for solid organ transplantation is social support. Yet, social support is a highly controversial requirement that has generated ongoing debate between ethicists and clinicians who favor its consideration (i.e., utility maximizers) and those who object to its use on equity grounds (i.e., equity maximizers). The assumption underlying both of these approaches is that social support is not a commodity that can be purchased in the marketplace. This essay argues for the reconceptualization of social support as a product that can-and should-be purchased for transplant candidates to render them eligible for transplant.

Clinical and Psychosocial Factors Considered When Deciding Whether to Offer Deep Brain Stimulation for Childhood Dystonia

INTRODUCTION

Childhood dystonia is often nonresponsive to medications, and refractory cases are increasingly being treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS). However, many have noted that there is little consensus about when DBS should be offered, and there has been little examination of clinicians' decision-making process when determining whether to offer DBS for childhood dystonia.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify and examine the factors considered by pediatric movement disorder specialists before offering DBS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semistructured interviews (N = 29) with pediatric dystonia clinicians were conducted, transcribed, and coded. Using thematic content analysis, nine central themes were identified when clinicians were asked about key factors, clinical factors, and psychosocial factors considered before offering pediatric DBS.

RESULTS

Clinicians identified nine main factors. Five of these were classified primarily as clinical factors: early intervention and younger age (raised by 86% of respondents), disease progression and symptom severity (83%), etiology and genetic status (79%), clinicians' perceived risks and benefits of DBS for the patient (79%), and exhaustion of other treatment options (55%). The remaining four were classified primarily as psychosocial factors: social and family support (raised by 97% of respondents), patient and caregiver expectations about outcomes and understanding of DBS treatment (90%), impact of dystonia on quality of life (69%), and financial resources and access to care (31%).

CONCLUSIONS

Candidacy determinations, in this context, are complicated by an interrelation of clinical and psychosocial factors that contribute to the decision. There is potential for bias when considering family support and quality of life. Uncertainty of outcomes related to the etiology of dystonia makes candidacy judgments challenging. More systematic examination of the characteristics and criteria used to identify pediatric patients with dystonia who can significantly benefit from DBS is necessary to develop clear guidelines and promote the well-being of these children.

Disparities in Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Among Young Patients Without Medical Comorbidities

Importance

Disparities in kidney transplant referral and waitlisting contribute to disparities in kidney disease outcomes. Whether these differences are rooted in population differences in comorbidity burden is unclear.

Objective

To examine whether disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting were present among a young, relatively healthy cohort of patients unlikely to have medical contraindications to kidney transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used the US Renal Data System Registry to identify patients with end-stage kidney disease who initiated dialysis between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2019. Patients who were older than 40 years, received a preemptive transplant, were preemptively waitlisted, or had documented medical comorbidities other than hypertension or smoking were excluded, yielding an analytic cohort of 52 902 patients. Data were analyzed between March 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023.

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Kidney transplant waitlisting after dialysis initiation.

Results

Of 52 902 patients (mean [SD] age, 31 [5] years; 31 132 [59%] male; 3547 [7%] Asian/Pacific Islander, 20 782 [39%] Black/African American, and 28 006 [53%] White) included in the analysis, 15 840 (30%) were waitlisted for a kidney transplant within 1 year of dialysis initiation, 11 122 (21%) were waitlisted between 1 and 5 years after dialysis initiation, and 25 940 (49%) were not waitlisted by 5 years. Patients waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation were more likely to be male, to be White, to be employed full time, and to have had predialysis nephrology care. There were large state-level differences in the proportion of patients waitlisted within 1 year (median, 33%; range, 15%-58%). In competing risk regression, female sex (adjusted subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.94), Hispanic ethnicity (SHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80), and Black race (SHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68) were all associated with lower waitlisting after dialysis initiation. Unemployment (SHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.45-0.48) and part-time employment (SHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77) were associated with lower waitlisting compared with full-time employment, and more than 1 year of predialysis nephrology care, compared with none, was associated with greater waitlisting (SHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.46-1.56).

Conclusions and Relevance

This retrospective cohort study found that fewer than one-third of patients without major medical comorbidities were waitlisted for a kidney transplant within 1 year of dialysis initiation, with sociodemographic disparities in waitlisting even in this cohort of young, relatively healthy patients unlikely to have a medical contraindication to transplantation. Transplant policy changes are needed to increase transparency and address structural barriers to waitlist access.

The Mediating Role of Self-Perceived Burden Between Social Support and Fear of Progression in Renal Transplant Recipients: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To explore the mechanism of social support and fear of progression (FoP) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) and the self-perceived burden that acts as a mediator between social support and FoP.

Patients and Methods

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS), the Self-Perceived Burden Scale (SPBS), and the Fear of Progression-Questionnaire-Short Form (FoP-Q-SF) were used. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the mediating role of self-perceived burden.

Results

Our results showed that social support was negatively related to the self-perceived burden (r = -0.28, p < 0.001) and FoP (r = -0.37, p < 0.001). Moreover, we determined that self-perceived burden was positively related to FoP (r = 0.58, p < 0.001) and that the indirect effect of social support on FoP via self-perceived burden was significant (β = -0.172, 95% CI: -0.253, -0.097), and with a mediating effect value of 36.9%.

Conclusion

The FoP in RTRs is a concern. Higher social support and lower self-perceived burden can reduce the risk of FoP. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) should assist RTRs in correctly evaluating an individual's social support system, helping them optimize social support to reduce the self-perceived burden and the development of FoP.

Ethical and Psychosocial Factors in the Decision-Making and Informed Consent Process for Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Mixed-Methods Study

Although upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) aims to improve quality of life, relatively few have been performed worldwide to support evidence-based treatment and informed decision-making.

Methods

We qualitatively examined factors contributing to anticipated and actual decision-making about UE VCA and perceptions of the elements of informed consent among people with UE amputations, and UE VCA candidates, participants, and recipients through in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.

Results

Fifty individuals participated; most were male (78%) and had a mean age of 45 y and a unilateral amputation (84%). One-third (35%) were "a lot" or "completely" willing to pursue UE VCA. UE VCA decision-making themes included the utility of UE VCA, psychosocial impact of UE VCA and amputation on individuals' lives, altruism, and anticipated burden of UE VCA on lifestyle. Most respondents who underwent UE VCA evaluation (n = 8/10) perceived having no reasonable treatment alternatives. Generally, respondents (n = 50) recognized the potential for familial, societal, cultural, medical, and self-driven pressures to pursue UE VCA among individuals with amputations. Some (n = 9/50, 18%) reported personally feeling "a little," "somewhat," "a lot," or "completely" pressured to pursue UE VCA. Respondents recommended that individuals be informed about the option of UE VCA near the amputation date.

Conclusions

Our study identified psychosocial and other factors affecting decision-making about UE VCA, which should be addressed to enhance informed consent. Study participants' perceptions and preferences about UE VCA suggest re-examination of assumptions guiding the UE VCA clinical evaluation process.

Disparities in Adult Patient Selection for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the United States: A Population-Level Study

Rationale: Disparities in patient selection for advanced therapeutics in health care have been identified in multiple studies, but it is unclear if disparities exist in patient selection for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), a rapidly expanding critical care resource. Objectives: To determine if disparities exist in patient selection for ECMO based on sex, primary insurance, and median income of the patient's neighborhood. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2016-2019, we identified patients treated with mechanical ventilation (MV) and/or ECMO with billing codes. Patient sex, insurance, and income level for patients receiving ECMO were compared with the patients treated with MV only, and hierarchical logistic regression with the hospital as a random intercept was used to determine odds of receiving ECMO based on patient demographics. Results: We identified 2,170,752 MV hospitalizations with 18,725 cases of ECMO. Among patients treated with ECMO, 36.1% were female compared with 44.5% of patients treated with> MV only (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for ECMO, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.75). Of patients treated with ECMO, 38.1% had private insurance compared with 17.4% of patients treated with MV only. Patients with Medicaid were less likely to receive ECMO than patients with private insurance (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.57). Patients treated with ECMO were more likely to live in the highest-income neighborhoods compared with patients treated with MV only (25.1% vs. 17.3%). Patients living in the lowest-income neighborhoods were less likely to receive ECMO than those living in the highest-income neighborhoods (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.67). Conclusions: Significant disparities exist in patient selection for ECMO. Female patients, patients with Medicaid, and patients living in the lowest-income neighborhoods are less likely to be treated with ECMO. Despite possible unmeasured confounding, these findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. On the basis of previous work describing disparities in other areas of health care, we speculate that limited access in some neighborhoods, restrictive/biased interhospital transfer practices, differences in patient preferences, and implicit provider bias may contribute to the observed differences. Future studies with more granular data are needed to identify and modify drivers of observed disparities.

Homelessness, organ donation, transplantation, and a call for equity in the United States

While social justice is a pillar that society seeks to uphold, in the area of organ transplantation, social justice, equity, and inclusion fail in the unbefriended and undomiciled population. Due to lack of social support of the homeless population, such status often renders these individuals ineligible to be organ recipients. Though it can be argued that organ donation by an unbefriended, undomciled patient benefits the greater good, there is clear inequity in the fact that homeless individuals are denied transplants due to inadequate social support. To illustrate such social breakdown, we describe two unbefriended, undomiciled patients brought to our hospitals by emergency services with diagnoses of intracerebral haemorrhage that progressed to brain death. This proposal represents a call to action to remediate the broken system: how the inherent inequity in organ donation by unbefriended, undomiciled patients would be ethically optimized if social support systems were implemented to allow for their candidacy for organ transplantation.

Partnering with charity-care services to manage cirrhosis with ascites in an adult experiencing homelessness: A case report

Charity care services can be an important tool for reducing healthcare disparities among populations with housing instability.

Liver transplantation in alcohol-associated liver disease: ensuring equity through new processes

Worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the US, in large part due to alcohol-associated liver disease. Throughout history, liver transplantation for this population has been controversial, and many policies and regulations have existed to limit access to lifesaving transplant for patients who use alcohol. In recent years, the rates of liver transplantation for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease have increased dramatically; however, disparities persist. For instance, many criteria used in evaluation for transplant listing, such as social support and prior knowledge of the harms of alcohol use, are not evidence based and may selectively disadvantage patients with alcohol use disorder. In addition, few transplant providers have adequate training in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, and few transplant centers offer specialized addiction treatment. Finally, current approaches to liver transplantation would benefit from adopting principles of harm reduction, which have demonstrated efficacy in the realm of addiction medicine for years. As we look toward the future, we must emphasize the use of evidence-based measures in selecting patients for listing, ensure access to high-quality addiction care for all patients pretransplant and posttransplant, and adopt harm reduction beliefs to better address relapse when it inevitably occurs. We believe that only by addressing each of these issues will we be able to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources in liver transplantation for all patients.

A Conceptual Model for Sources of Differential Selection in Lung Transplant Allocation

Rationale: In the United States, donor lungs are allocated to transplant candidates on the basis of lung allocation scores (LAS). However, additional factors beyond the LAS can impact who is transplanted, including listing and donor-organ acceptance practices. These factors can result in differential selection, undermining the objectivity of lung allocation. Yet their impact on the lung transplant pathway has been underexplored. Objectives: We sought to systematically examine sources of differential selection in lung transplantation via qualitative methods. Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with lung transplant surgeons and pulmonologists in the United States between June 2019 and June 2020 to understand clinician perspectives on differential selection in lung transplantation and the LAS. Results: A total of 51 respondents (30 surgeons and 21 pulmonologists) identified many sources of differential selection arising throughout the pathway from referral to transplantation. We synthesized these sources into a conceptual model with five themes: 1) transplant center's degree of risk tolerance and accountability; 2) successfulness and fairness of the LAS; 3) donor-organ availability and regional competition; 4) patient health versus program health; and 5) access to care versus responsible stewardship of organs. Conclusions: Our conceptual model demonstrates how differential selection can arise throughout lung transplantation and facilitates the further study of such selection. As new organ allocation models are developed, differential selection should be considered carefully to ensure that these models are more equitable.

Rethinking Second Chances: When Rejected Liver Transplant Candidates Seek Reevaluation Elsewhere

AbstractLiver transplantation offers a lifesaving treatment for patients suffering from end-stage liver failure, but not all candidates in the United States are eligible owing to center-specific criteria. When a patient is rejected at a transplantation center for medical, surgical, or psychosocial issues, they are often referred to other centers. We focus on this practice of reevaluation at a second center when the candidate was rejected for psychosocial reasons. We review the criteria used by health professionals to determine psychosocial eligibility and present three case examples from a large teaching hospital that demonstrate this phenomenon in practice. The cases illustrate the conflicts among autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. We present arguments for and against this practice and provide concrete solutions as a path forward.

Psychosocial and bioethical challenges and developments for the future of vascularized composite allotransplantation: A scoping review and viewpoint of recent developments and clinical experiences in the field of vascularized composite allotransplantation

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (VCA) has evolved in recent years, encompassing hand, face, uterus, penile, and lower extremity transplantation. Accordingly, without centralized oversight by United States Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) or European Programs, centers have developed their own practices and procedures that likely vary, and accordingly, present different levels of rigor to the evaluation process, internationally. The importance of psychosocial factors in the selection process and treatment course has been widely recognized, and therefore, several approaches have been developed to standardize and guide care of VCA candidates and recipients. We propose to develop an international multidisciplinary platform for the exchange of expertise that includes clinical, patient, and research perspectives. Patient perspectives would derive from peer education and the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. To establish a foundation for such a platform, future research should review and combine current VCA protocols, to develop the ethical framework for a standardized psychosocial evaluation and follow-up of VCA candidates and recipients. This review presents a comprehensive overview of recent results in the field of VCA, developments in structural aspects of VCA, and provides viewpoints driven from clinical experience.

Social support criteria in vascularized composite allotransplantation versus solid organ transplantation: Should the same ethical considerations apply?

The field of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is evolving, with some procedures poised to transition from highly experimental research toward standard of care. At present, the use of social support as an eligibility criterion for VCA candidacy is at the discretion of individual VCA programs, allowing VCA teams to consider the unique needs of each potential candidate. Yet this flexibility also creates potential for bias during the evaluation process which may disproportionately impact members of certain communities where social configurations may not resemble the model considered "optimal." We examine the extent to which ethical considerations for social support in solid organ transplantation (SOT) may be applied to or adapted for VCA, and the ethically meaningful ways in which VCA procedures differ from SOT. We conclude that VCA programs must retain some flexibility in determining criteria for candidacy at present; however, considerations of equity will become more pressing as VCA procedures evolve toward standard of care, and further empirical evidence will be needed to demonstrate the association between social support and post-operative success. The field of VCA has an opportunity to proactively address considerations of equity and justice and incorporate fair, inclusive practices into this innovative area of transplantation.

Reevaluating the Ethical Issues in Porcine-to-Human Heart Xenotransplantation

A major limiting factor with heart allotransplantation remains the availability of organs from deceased donors. Porcine heart xenotransplantation could serve as an alternative source of organs for patients with terminal heart failure. A first-in-human porcine xenotransplantation that occurred in January 2022 at the University of Maryland Medical Center provided an opportunity to examine several ethical issues to guide selection criteria for future xenotransplantation clinical trials. In this article, the authors, who are clinicians at UMMC, discuss the appropriate balancing of risks and benefits and the significance, if any, of clinical equipoise. The authors also review the alleged role of the psychosocial evaluation in identifying patients at an elevated risk of posttransplant noncompliance, and they consider how the evaluation's implementation might enhance inequities among diverse populations. The authors argue that, based on the principle of reciprocity, psychosocial criteria should be used, not to exclude patients, but instead to identify patients who need additional support. Finally, the authors discuss the requirements for and the proper assessment of informed and voluntary consent from patients being considered for xenotransplantation.

A Population Health Approach to Transplant Access: Challenging the Status Quo

Transplant referral and evaluation are critical steps to waitlisting yet remain an elusive part of the transplant process. Despite calls for more data collection on pre-waitlisting steps, there are currently no national surveillance data to aid in understanding the causes and potential solutions for the extreme variation in access to transplantation. As population health scientists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and ethicists we submit that the transplant community has an obligation to better understand disparities in transplant access as a first necessary step to effectively mitigating these inequities. Our position is grounded in a population health approach, consistent with several new overarching national policy and quality initiatives. The purpose of this Perspective is to (1) provide an overview of how a population health approach should inform current multisystem policies impacting kidney transplantation and demonstrate how these efforts could be enhanced with national data collection on pre-waitlisting steps; (2) demonstrate the feasibility and concrete next steps for pre-waitlisting data collection; and (3) identify potential opportunities to use these data to implement effective population-level interventions, policies, and quality measures to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

A Novel Comorbidity Risk Score for Predicting Post-Operative 30-day Complications in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty & Elucidation of Potential Racial Disparities

Background

Efficient and effective preoperative identification of those patients with elevated risk may allow for more cost-effective interventions, accurate bundled payment adjustments, and overall improved patient care. Few comorbidity indices have provided clinical utility and adequate discriminative ability in the setting of complications after shoulder arthroplasty (SA).

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for anatomic and/or reverse SA procedures between 2010 and 2019. A subset of comorbidities were utilized including end-stage renal disease, history of hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, functional status, history of bleeding disorder, and disseminated cancer.

Results

A total of 25,927 patients with an average age of 69.2 (standard deviation ±9.5) years were included in the study. Patients with a comorbidity risk score (CRS) at or above 2 were indicated to have at least a 29.6% 30-day postoperative complication rate after undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty, significantly higher than the described average of approximately 15%. The area under receiver operator curve for the novel CRS scoring system was 0.595, indicating fair discriminative ability to predict 30-day postoperative complications after SA. This illustrates a discriminative ability similar to that of the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (0.584, confidence interval [CI] 0.578-0.589), modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.567, CI 0.561-0.573), and modified Frailty Index (0.534, CI 0.529-0.539), each of which are common comorbidity indices used for the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The average CRS for the population was 0.8537 (CI 0.8011-0.8150; P < .05) while that for the Black demographic was 1.08 (CI 1.03-1.13; P < .001). Our results suggest that if the disparity in CRS among races was corrected, the average complication rate would be decreased by 2.0%.

Discussion and Conclusion

A higher CRS score resulted in higher rates of 30-day postoperative complications following SA. Black patients had a higher average CRS than all other races illustrating a racial disparity in comorbidity risk. Although the average complication rate of each race would still be unequal, this could mitigate some of the racial disparities observed and decrease the overall 30-day complication rate in SA. With the rise of bundled payments further increasing the need to preoperatively identify patients at high risk for costly complications, the CRS is based on easily identified, relevant comorbidities that may be an advantageous tool to identify patients at increased risk of complications following SA.

Defining the ethical considerations surrounding kidney transplantation for frail and cognitively impaired patients: a Delphi study of geriatric transplant experts

Background

Among adult kidney transplant (KT) candidates, 21% are frail and 55% have cognitive impairment, increasing the risk of pre- and post-KT mortality. Centers often assess frailty status and cognitive function during transplant evaluation to help identify appropriate candidate. Yet, there are no ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during this evaluation. We seek to develop a clinical consensus on balancing utility and justice in access to KT for frail and cognitively impaired patients.

Methods

Twenty-seven experts caring for ESRD patients completed a two-round Delphi panel designed to facilitate consensus (> 80% agreement).

Results

Experts believed that denying patients transplantation based solely on expected patient survival was inequitable to frail or cognitively impaired candidates; 100% agreed that frailty and cognitive impairment are important factors to consider during KT evaluation. There was consensus that health related quality of life and social support are important to consider before waitlisting frail or cognitively impaired patients. Experts identified important factors to consider before waitlisting frail (likely to benefit from KT, frailty reversibility, age, and medical contraindications) and cognitively impaired (degree of impairment and medication adherence) patients.

Conclusions

Clinical experts believed it was ethically unacceptable to allocate organs solely based on patients’ expected survival; frailty and cognitive impairment should be measured at evaluation when weighed against other clinical factors. Ethical guidelines regarding the use of frailty and cognitive function during KT evaluation ought to be developed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03209-x.

Living Kidney Donation Stories and Advice Shared Through a Digital Storytelling Library: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis

Rationale & Objective

Despite the development of numerous educational interventions, there has been limited change in actual living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) rates over time. New strategies, such as the inclusion of patient stories in patient education, show promise to inspire more people to donate kidneys. This study identified the challenges faced, coping strategies used, and advice shared by transplant donors and recipients.

Study Design

Qualitative thematic analysis.

Setting & Participants

One hundred eighteen storytellers across the United States and Canada, including 82 living donors and 36 kidney recipients of living donor transplants who shared their stories on the Living Donation Storytelling Project (explorelivingdonation.org), an online digital storytelling platform and library.

Analytical Approach

A poststorytelling survey assessed participant demographics. Two coders conducted tool-assisted (Dedoose v.8.3.35) thematic analysis on narrative storytelling videos and transcripts.

Results

Storytellers were predominantly White (79/118, 66.95%), female (76/118, 64.41%), and non-Hispanic (109/118, 92.37%) with college/vocational education (50/118, 42.37%). Common themes were found related to living donation challenges for donors and recipients (eg, the fear of not being able to complete the LDKT process, of unsupportive family or rejected donation requests, and of unknown or adverse surgical outcomes and graft rejection) and recommended coping strategies (eg, seeking LDKT information, using prayer, and relying on a support network). Recipients provided advice that included being proactive and staying hopeful, whereas donors recommended seeking support, researching LDKT to comprehensively learn, and building a community of support.

Limitations

Limited representation of diverse demographics.

Conclusions

Although supplementary to traditional education about LDKT, digital storytelling provides a source of peer support that can enhance the experience of donors and recipients and encourage autonomy and self-management after transplant.

Evolving Metrics of Quality for Kidney Transplant Candidates: Transplant Center Variability in Delisting and 1-Year Mortality

BACKGROUND

Management of patients on the kidney transplant waitlist lacks oversight, and transplant centers can delist candidates without consequence. To better understand between-center differences in waitlist management, we examined delisting rates and mortality after delisting within 3 years of removal from the kidney transplant waitlist.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients of adults listed for deceased donor kidney transplant in 2015 and followed until the end of 2018. Patients of interest were those delisted for reasons other than transplant, death, or transfer. Centers were excluded if they had fewer than 20 waitlisted patients per year. We calculated probability of delisting and death after delisting using multivariable competing risk models.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 14.2% of patients were delisted. The median probability of delisting within 3 years, adjusted for center-level variability, was 7.0% (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.9% to 10.6%). Median probability of death was 58.2% (IQR: 40% to 73.4%). There was no meaningful correlation between probability of delisting and death (τ = -0.05, p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in the rate of death after delisting across kidney transplant centers. Likelihood of transplant is extremely important to candidates, and improved data collection efforts are needed to inform whether current delisting practices are successfully removing patients who could not meaningfully benefit from transplant, or whether certain populations may benefit from remaining on the list and maintaining eligibility.

Caregiver COVID-19 vaccination for solid organ transplant candidates

An increasing proportion of transplant centers have implemented a mandate for vaccination against COVID-19 for solid organ transplant candidates. There has been comparatively little exploration of the ethical considerations of mandating vaccination of a candidate's primary caregiver, despite a high risk of transmission given the close nature of contact between the candidate and caregiver. We examine how a caregiver mandate can improve overall utility in organ allocation, particularly in circumstances where vaccine effectiveness at preventing transmission and serious disease is low among recipients but high in caregivers. Our analysis reveals how sensitive such mandates must be to the evolving circumstances of disease severity, transmissibility, and vaccine effectiveness: as the facts change, the degree of benefit gained and therefore the degree of infringement on access to transplant and caregiver choice that is tolerated will likewise change.

Association of race and gender with primary caregiver relationships and eligibility for advanced heart failure therapies

BACKGROUND

Caregiver support is considered necessary after heart transplant (HT) and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Few studies have demonstrated how caregivers differ by gender and race, and whether that impacts therapy eligibility.

METHODS

We examined caregiver relationships among 674 patients (32% women, 55% Black) evaluated at Emory University from 2011 to 2017. Therapy readiness was assessed using the Stanford Integrated Assessment for Transplant (SIPAT). Evaluation outcome according to caregiver relationship was compared using χ² analysis. Multivariable logistic regression determined the association between caregiver and eligibility according to gender and race.

RESULTS

Women and Black patients were less likely to have spouses as their support person (P < .001). Women were less likely to be considered eligible for advanced therapies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] .64, 95% confidence interval [CI] .46-.89; P = .008), with Black women having lower eligibility than White women (aOR .28, 95% CI .11-.72; P = .008). Social support and SIPAT scores did not significantly influence eligibility by gender or race.

CONCLUSION

Lack of caregiver support is considered a relative contraindication to advanced therapies. Type of caregiver in our cohort varied according to race and gender but did not explain differences in eligibility for advanced therapies.

Psychosocial Evaluation of Candidates for Solid Organ Transplantation

Transplant candidates should undergo an assessment of their mental health, social support, lifestyle, and behaviors. The primary aims of this "psychosocial evaluation" are to ensure that transplantation is of benefit to life expectancy and quality of life, and to allow optimization of the candidate and transplant outcomes. The content of psychosocial evaluations is informed by evidence regarding pretransplant psychosocial predictors of transplant outcomes. This review summarizes the current literature on pretransplant psychosocial predictors of transplant outcomes across differing solid organ transplants and discusses the limitations of existing research. Pretransplant depression, substance misuse, and nonadherence are associated with poorer posttransplant outcomes. Depression, smoking, and high levels of prescription opioid use are associated with reduced posttransplant survival. Pretransplant nonadherence is associated with posttransplant rejection, and nonadherence may mediate the effects of other psychosocial variables such as substance misuse. There is evidence to suggest that social support is associated with likelihood of substance misuse relapse after transplantation, but there is a lack of consistent evidence for an association between social support and posttransplant adherence, rejection, or survival across all organ transplant types. Psychosocial evaluations should be undertaken by a trained individual and should comprise multiple consultations with the transplant candidate, family members, and healthcare professionals. Tools exist that can be useful for guiding and standardizing assessment, but research is needed to determine how well scores predict posttransplant outcomes. Few studies have evaluated interventions designed to improve psychosocial functioning specifically pretransplant. We highlight the challenges of carrying out such research and make recommendations regarding future work.

Protecting our Elders and Developing Equitable Policies During Public Health Emergencies: Ethical Recommendations

Purpose of the Review

Experiences of patients, families, healthcare workers and health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic and recent national focus on racial justice have forced a reconsideration of policies and processes of providing care in crisis situations when resources are scarce. The purpose of this review is to present recent developments in conceptualizing ethical crisis standards.

Recent findings

Several recent papers have raised concerns that “objective” scarce resource allocation protocols will serve to exacerbate underlying social inequities. Older adults and their formal and informal caregivers suffered from intersecting planning failures including lack of adequate stockpiling of personal protective equipment, failure to protect essential workers, neglect of long-term care facilities and homecare in disaster planning and de-prioiritization in triage algorithms.

Summary

Revision of disaster planning guidelines is urgent. The time is now to apply lessons learned from COVID-19 before another disaster occurs. We present several suggestions for future plans.

A Cascade of Structural Barriers Contributing to Racial Kidney Transplant Inequities

Stark racial disparities in access to and receipt of kidney transplantation, especially living donor and pre-emptive transplantation, have persisted despite decades of investigation and intervention. The causes of these disparities are complex, are inter-related, and result from a cascade of structural barriers to transplantation which disproportionately impact minoritized individuals and communities. Structural barriers contributing to racial transplant inequities have been acknowledged but are often not fully explored with regard to transplant equity. We describe longstanding racial disparities in transplantation, and we discuss contributing structural barriers which occur along the transplant pathway including pretransplant health care, evaluation, referral processes, and the evaluation of transplant candidates. We also consider the role of multilevel socio-contextual influences on these processes. We believe focused efforts which apply an equity lens to key transplant processes and systems are required to achieve greater structural competency and, ultimately, racial transplant equity.

Dialysis Nonadherence and Kidney Transplant Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Concerns about non-adherent behaviors often prevent dialysis patients from entering waitlists for transplantation, despite an inconsistent association with posttransplant outcomes. We examined the association between plausible metrics of non-adherence related to dialysis treatment and posttransplant outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort. We linked national dialysis treatment data with transplant registry data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients on maintenance hemodialysis from 1/1/2004-12/31/2014 who received a kidney transplant at US centers.

EXPOSURES

We examined five nonadherence metrics: serum potassium (≥5.2 mEq/L), serum phosphorus (>5.5 mg/dL), intradialytic weight gain (IDWG, ≥5 L), shortened treatments (≥30 minutes) and missed treatments (≥1); missed treatment data was only available for 2004-2009. These metrics were characterized as the proportion of time under observation. Dialysis observation time was divided into 3-month intervals (quarters) and the number of "non-adherent" measurements in each domain was calculated for each quarter.

OUTCOMES

Allograft loss; mortality; and acute rejection in the first posttransplant year.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Using Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression, we estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for graft loss and mortality, and odds ratios (OR) for rejection.

RESULTS

9543 patients met inclusion criteria. In our primary model, hyperphosphatemia (aHR 1.27, 05% CI 1.08-1.49), IDWG (aHR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23-1.59) and shortened treatments (aHR 1.54, 95% CI 1.12-2.13) were associated with greater rates of allograft loss but hyperkalemia was not. IDWG (aHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.29-1.73) and shortened treatments (aHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13-1.58) were associated with mortality while hyperkalemia and hyperphosphatemia were not. Only shortened treatments was associated with an increased risk of acute rejection (aOR 3.88, 95% CI 1.98-7.58). In models limited to the years 2004 to 2009 that included missed treatments, missed treatments were only associated with mortality.

LIMITATIONS

Unmeasured confounding (e.g., dietary data); adherence metrics used may have multiple, complex causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Plausible measures of dialysis nonadherence have long-term associations with allograft and patient survival. Behavioral metrics were more closely associated with outcomes than laboratory markers. The implications of non-adherent behaviors for dialysis patients must be carefully considered before excluding patients from transplantation.

Guidance for Timely and Appropriate Referral of Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Among the estimated 6.2 million Americans living with heart failure (HF), ≈5%/y may progress to advanced, or stage D, disease. Advanced HF has a high morbidity and mortality, such that early recognition of this condition is important to optimize care. Delayed referral or lack of referral in patients who are likely to derive benefit from an advanced HF evaluation can have important adverse consequences for patients and their families. A 2-step process can be used by practitioners when considering referral of a patient with advanced HF for consideration of advanced therapies, focused on recognizing the clinical clues associated with stage D HF and assessing potential benefits of referral to an advanced HF center. Although patients are often referred to an advanced HF center to undergo evaluation for advanced therapies such as heart transplantation or implantation of a left ventricular assist device, there are other reasons to refer, including access to the infrastructure and multidisciplinary team of the advanced HF center that offers a broad range of expertise. The intent of this statement is to provide a framework for practitioners and health systems to help identify and refer patients with HF who are most likely to derive benefit from referral to an advanced HF center.

Hospice care for end stage liver disease in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) have impaired physical, psychological, and social functions, which can diminish patient quality of life, burden family caregivers, and increase health-care utilization. For those with a life expectancy of less than six months, these impairments and their downstream effects can be addressed effectively through high-quality hospice care, delivered by multidisciplinary teams and focused on the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual wellbeing of patients and caregivers, with a goal of improving quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we examine the evidence supporting hospice for ESLD, we compare this evidence to that supporting hospice more broadly, and we identify potential criteria that may be useful in determining hospice appropriateness.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the potential for hospice to improve care for those at the end of life, it is underutilized for patients with ESLD. Increasing the appropriate utilization of hospice for ESLD requires a better understanding of patient eligibility, which can be based on predictors of high short-term mortality and liver transplant ineligibility. Such hospice criteria should be data-driven and should accommodate the uncertainty faced by patients and physicians.

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.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2020 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation

Evaluation of patients for kidney transplant candidacy is a comprehensive process that involves a detailed assessment of medical and surgical issues, psychosocial factors, and patients' physical and cognitive abilities with an aim of balancing the benefits of transplantation and potential risks of surgery and long-term immunosuppression. There is considerable variability among transplant centers in their approach to evaluation and decision-making regarding transplant candidacy. The 2020 KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Guidelines Outcome) clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and management of candidates for kidney transplantation provides practice recommendations that can serve as a useful reference guide to transplant professionals. The guideline, covering a broad range of topics, was developed by an international group of experts from transplant and nephrology through a review of literature published until May 2019. A work group of US transplant nephrologists convened by NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Quality Initiative) chose key topics for this commentary with a goal of presenting a broad discussion to the US transplant community. Each section of this article has a summary of the key KDIGO guideline recommendations, followed by a brief commentary on the recommendations, their clinical utility, and potential implementation challenges. The KDOQI work group agrees broadly with the KDIGO recommendations but also recognizes and highlights the decision-making challenges that arise from lack of high-quality evidence and the need to balance equity with utility of organ transplantation.

Wait expectations: The impact of delisting as an outcome from the kidney transplant waitlist

BACKGROUND

While kidney transplantation is optimal for the treatment of end-stage kidney disease, available organs do not meet demand. Little is known about the outcomes of patients who are delisted (removed from the waitlist) and unable to benefit from transplant. We describe patients who are delisted and their life expectancy after delisting.

METHODS

Patients ≥ 18 years listed for deceased donor kidney transplant between 01/2003 and 12/2013 were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and followed through 12/2018. A competing risk model was used to measure the association of demographic and clinical factors with waitlist outcomes of delisting, transplant, and death. Multivariate Cox modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with death after delisting.

RESULTS

Of 324,582 patients listed, 18.0% were delisted, most common reasons were "too sick" or "other." After delisting, half (49.7%) had died by end of follow-up; time to death after removal was 5 years. Increasing age and public insurance were associated with increased risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one in five patients will be delisted from the kidney transplant waitlist. These patients live a surprisingly long time after removal. Much remains unknown about these patients, which could be improved through data collection. Delisting is an important patient outcome that warrants further exploration.

The structural conundrum of parolees and kidney transplantation

In the United States, there are a large number of incarcerated individuals, resulting in high numbers of previously incarcerated individuals out on parole undergoing reentry into society. An aging prison population translates to an older parolee population and increased incidence of kidney disease requiring either long-term dialysis or transplantation. This paper argues that due to challenges specific to the parolee population as well as societal biases and priorities, Transplant Centers and healthcare professionals face an ethical imperative to attend to the needs of parolees as a class and take steps to address challenges related to access to Centers for renal transplantation evaluation for this disadvantaged group. It will first review the regulatory context of kidney transplantation and highlight the specific ways it effects parolees. The paper will then discuss the broader social context of parolee reentry into society and barriers faced by parolees in this process. This ethical analysis examines the complexity of these issues, and deliberates on ways to balance the competing priorities of justice, respect for this patient population as individuals and as a disadvantaged class, and the societal interests regarding organ allocation and considerable economic burdens of end-stage renal disease on parolees, the justice system, and the public.

Gender Disparities in Patients With Alcoholic Liver Disease Evaluated for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and mortality from alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) is increasing in the United States. However, little is known about gender differences in evaluation and listing for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with ALD.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of adult patients with ALD evaluated for LT at a single transplant center from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2017. Univariate, multivariate, and time-series analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 949 patients with ALD evaluated, mean age was 53 years, 84% were Caucasian, and 33% were women. The median model for end-stage liver disease score was similar between the genders. Women were less likely to be listed for LT (10% versus 19%; P < 0.05). The proportion of women not listed due to active substance use was significantly higher versus men (42% versus 35%; P < 0.05), while the frequency of medical contraindications was comparable between the genders. During a median follow-up of 416 days (range: 0-2784), listed women with ALD were less likely to undergo transplantation (42% versus 47%; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Men with ALD were 95% more likely to be listed and 105% more likely to be transplanted compared to women with ALD. While men had more lifetime substance use and related consequences, women had more psychiatric comorbidities and were less likely to be listed due to active alcohol and opioid use. Early detection and effective treatment of psychiatric and substance use disorders in women with ALD may improve their transplant eligibility.

Mediators of Socioeconomic Inequity in Living-donor Kidney Transplantation: Results From a UK Multicenter Case-Control Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

There is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplantation, but limited evidence as to why. We investigated possible mediators of the inequity.

Improved outcomes after live donor renal transplantation for septuagenarians

The average age of renal transplant recipients in the United States has increased over the past decade. The implications, however, have not been fully investigated. We explored predictors of success and demographic variables related to outcomes in elderly live donor transplantation. Retrospective analysis was performed using the UNOS database between 2001 and 2016. Donor characteristics and the graft failure rate of recipients above and below 70 years of age were compared across four eras: 2001-2004, 2005-2008, 2009-2012, and 2013-2016. There was a steady increase in average donor age from the first era to the fourth era (40-44) which was more evident among the septuagenarian patients (43-50) (P < .001). The 2-year graft survival rate improved from 92% in the first era to 96% in the fourth era (P < .001), and this was also more prominent in the >70 population (87%-93%) (P < .001). The >70 recipients were more likely to be non-Hispanic white (80.1% vs 65.1%, P < .001) and male (70.1% vs 61.0% P < .001), respectively. The donors were more likely to be non-Hispanic white and female in the >70 population. Live donation in the elderly is justified based on graft survival and patient survival. However, racial and gender differences exist in septuagenarian recipients and their donors.

Should Lack of Social Support Prevent Access to Organ Transplantation?

Transplantation programs commonly rely on clinicians' judgments about patients' social support (care from friends or family) when deciding whether to list them for organ transplantation. We examine whether using social support to make listing decisions for adults seeking transplantation is morally legitimate, drawing on recent data about the evidence-base, implementation, and potential impacts of the criterion on underserved and diverse populations. We demonstrate that the rationale for the social support criterion, based in the principle of utility, is undermined by its reliance on tenuous evidence. Moreover, social support requirements may reinforce transplant inequities, interfere in patients' personal relationships, and contribute to biased and inconsistent listing procedures. As such, accommodating the needs of patients with limited social support would better balance ethical commitments to equity, utility, and respect for persons in transplantation. We suggest steps for researchers, transplantation programs, and policymakers to improve fair use of social support in transplantation.

A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding Variation in Social Support Requirements and Implications for Access to Transplantation in the United States

Social support is a key component of transplantation evaluation in the United States. Social support definitions and evaluation procedures require examination to achieve clear, consistent implementation. We surveyed psychosocial clinicians from the Society for Transplant Social Workers and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their definitions and evaluation procedures for using social support to determine transplant eligibility. Bivariate statistical analysis was used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. Among 276 psychosocial clinicians (50.2% response rate), 92% had ruled out patients from transplantation due to inadequate support. Social support definitions varied significantly: 10% of respondents indicated their center lacked a definition. Key domains of social support included informational, emotional, instrumental, motivational, paid support, and the patient's importance to others. Almost half of clinicians (47%) rarely or never requested second opinions when excluding patients due to social support. Confidence and perceived clarity and consistency in center guidelines were significantly associated with informing patients when support contributed to negative wait-listing decisions (P = .001). Clinicians who excluded fewer patients because of social support offered significantly more supportive health care (P = .02). Clearer definitions and more supportive care may reduce the number of patients excluded from transplant candidacy due to inadequate social support.

Migration of Patients for Liver Transplantation and Waitlist Outcomes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients in need of liver transplantation may travel to improve their chance of receiving an organ. We evaluated factors to determine which transplant candidates travel to other regions to increase their chances of receiving a liver and effects of travel on waitlist outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients registered for primary deceased donor liver transplantation in the United States from January 2004 to December 2016. Zip code data were used to calculate the travel distance from a patient's residence to centers at which they were on the waitlist or received a liver transplant. Distant listing and migration were defined as placement on a waitlist and receipt of liver transplantation, respectively, outside the home transplantation region and greater than 500 miles from the home zip code. We assessed the effect of distant listing on outcomes (death and liver transplantation) and predictors of distant listing or migration using multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

There were 104,914 waitlist registrations during the study period; of these, 2930 (2.8%) pursued listing at a distant center. Of waitlist registrants, 60,985 received liver transplants, of whom 1985 (3.3%) had migrated. In a multivariable competing risk analysis in which liver transplantation was considered as a competing event, distant listing was associated with a 22% reduction in the risk of death within 1 year (subhazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88). Distant listing and migration were associated with non-black race, non-Medicaid payer, residence in a higher income area, and education beyond high school.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement on a liver transplant waitlist outside the home transplantation region is associated with reduced waitlist mortality and an increased probability of receiving a liver transplant. Geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation have disproportionate effects on patients who are minorities, have lower levels of education, or have public insurance.

Marital privilege: Bias against divorced patients in medical decision-making

Social support consists of the emotional, informational, and instrumental resources we receive from others, and buffers against negative health outcomes. However, as an eligibility criterion for scarce medical resources, such as organ transplants, it can be vague, subjective, and vulnerable to bias. In three studies, we examine bias associated with marital status, and assess whether those with nonspousal relationships with their caregivers (e.g., divorcees) and those without documented primary caregivers experience bias in transplant listing evaluations. We found evidence of bias against those with nonspousal relationships with their caregivers. Divorced patients were perceived as having less durable and adequate social support than those who were married to their caregivers. Divorced patients were also perceived as less deserving of a transplant and were less likely to be recommended for transplant wait-listing. Recommendations for avoiding bias in social support evaluations are discussed.