By the Contributors to the C4 Article (Appendix 1). Current opinions in organ allocation

Kidney Allocation Policy: Past, Present, and Future

Despite an increase in the number of kidney transplants performed annually, there remain more than 90,000 individuals awaiting transplantation in the United States. As kidney transplantation has evolved, so has kidney allocation policies. The Kidney Allocation System, which was introduced in 2014, made significant strides to improve utility and equity, but regional and geographic disparities remain. Further modifications eliminating donor service areas have been introduced. Moving forward, systems involving continuous distribution and artificial intelligence may provide further advancement toward an ideal allocation system.

Current State of Multiorgan Transplantation and Implications for Future Practice and Policy

The incidence of kidney dysfunction has increased in liver transplant and heart transplant candidates, reflecting a changing patient population and allocation policies that prioritize the most urgent candidates. A higher burden of pretransplant kidney dysfunction has resulted in a substantial rise in the utilization of multiorgan transplantation (MOT). Owing to a shortage of available deceased donor kidneys, the increased use of MOT has the potential to disadvantage kidney-alone transplant candidates, as current allocation policies generally provide priority for MOT candidates above all kidney-alone transplant candidates. In this review, the implications of kidney disease in liver transplant and heart transplant candidates is reviewed, and current policies used to allocate organs are discussed. Important ethical considerations pertaining to MOT allocation are examined, and future policy modifications that may improve both equity and utility in MOT policy are considered.

Outcomes after kidney transplantation, let's focus on the patients' perspectives

Graft function and patient survival are traditionally the most used parameters to assess the objective benefits of kidney transplantation. Monitoring graft function, along with therapeutic drug concentrations and transplant complications, comprises the essence of outpatient management in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, the patient's perspective is not always included in this process. Patients' perspectives on their health after kidney transplantation, albeit subjective, are increasingly acknowledged as valuable healthcare outcomes and should be considered in order to provide patient-centred healthcare. Such outcomes are known as patient-reported outcomes (PROs; e.g. health-related quality of life and symptom burden) and are captured using PRO measures (PROMs). So far, PROMs have not been routinely used in clinical care for KTRs. In this review we will introduce PROMs and their potential application and value in the field of kidney transplantation, describe commonly used PROMs in KTRs and discuss structural PROMs implementation into kidney transplantation care.

Organ utilization - the next hurdle in transplantation?

Nonutilization of organs from consented deceased donors remains a significant factor in limiting patient access to transplantation. Critical to reducing waste is a clear understanding of why organs are not used: accurate metrics are essential to identify the extent and causes of waste but use of these measures as targets or comparators between units/jurisdictions must be done with caution as focus on any one measure may result in unintended adverse consequences. Comparison between centres or countries may be misleading because of variation in definitions, patient or graft characteristics. Two of the most challenging areas to improve appropriate deceased donor organ utilization are appetite for risk and lack of validated tools to help identify an organ that will function appropriately. Currently, the implanting surgeon is widely considered to be accountable for the use of a donated organ so guidelines must be clear to allow and support sensible decisions and recognition that graft failure or inadvertent disease transmission are not necessarily attributable to poor decision-making. Accepting an organ involves balancing risk and benefit for the potential recipient. Novel technologies such as machine perfusion may allow for more robust guidance as to the functioning of the organ.