Impact of US Public Health Service increased risk deceased donor designation on organ utilization

Donor-derived infections in the United States: Opportunities to learn from the Disease Transmission Advisory Committee's experience

The Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC) of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network focuses on issues related to the transmission of disease through organ transplantation. Providing a review of potential cases of transmission, translating aggregate data into actionable education and guidance for the transplant community, and providing input for policy development, DTAC aims to improve the safety of organ transplantation through a reduction in donor-derived transmission events. Through its nearly 20-year history, DTAC has provided education, guidance, and policy, addressed numerous emerging infections, and continuously focused on the community's understanding of risk assessment related to donor-derived transmission. By updating the DTAC mission to both decrease transmission and safely expand the donor pool with additional guidance to safely use organs previously not considered for transplantation due to transmission concerns, the Committee's role will remain critical.

Organ Nonutilization Following Revision to the Public Health Service Donor Risk Criteria for HIV, HCV, or HBV Transmission

BACKGROUND

Organs from Public Health Service criteria (PHSC) donors, previously referred to as PHS infectious-risk donors, have historically been recovered but not used, traditionally referred to as "discard," at higher rates despite negligible risk to recipients. On March 1, 2021, the definition of PHSC donors narrowed to include only the subset of donors deemed to have meaningfully elevated risk in the current era of improved infectious disease testing.

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from May 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, we compared rates of PHSC classification and nonutilization of PHSC organs before versus after the March 1, 2021, policy change among recovered decedents using the χ 2 tests. We performed an adjusted interrupted time series analysis to examine kidney and liver recovery/nonuse (traditionally termed "discard") and kidney, liver, lung, and heart nonutilization (nonrecovery or recovery/nonuse) prepolicy versus postpolicy.

RESULTS

PHSC classification dropped sharply from 24.5% prepolicy to 15.4% postpolicy ( P  < 0.001). Before the policy change, PHSC kidney recovery/nonuse, liver nonuse, lung nonuse, and heart nonuse were comparable to non-PHSC estimates (adjusted odds ratio: kidney =  0.98 1.06 1.14 , P  = 0.14; liver =  0.85 0.92 1.01 , P  = 0.07; lung =  0.91 0.99 1.08 , P  = 0.83; heart =  0.89 0.97 1.05 , P  = 0.47); following the policy change, PHSC kidney recovery/nonuse, liver nonuse, lung nonuse, and heart nonuse were lower than non-PHSC estimates (adjusted odds ratio: kidney =  0.77 0.84 0.91 , P  < 0.001; liver =  0.77 0.84 0.92 , P  < 0.001; lung =  0.74 0.81 0.90 , P  < 0.001; heart =  0.61 0.67 0.73 , P  < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Even though PHSC donors under the new definition are a narrower and theoretically riskier subpopulation than under the previous classification, PHSC status appears to be associated with a reduced risk of kidney and liver recovery/nonuse and nonutilization of all organs. Although historically PHSC organs have been underused, our findings demonstrate a notable shift toward increased PHSC organ utilization.

Collaborative leadership in transplantation: Blending clinical, business, and regulatory roles

Transplantation is a high-risk, high-cost treatment for end-stage diseases and is the most strictly regulated area of healthcare in the United States. Thus, achieving success for patients and the program requires skillful and collaborative leadership. Various factors, such as outcomes, volume, and financial health, may measure the success of a transplant program. Strong collaboration between clinical and administrative leaders is key to achieving and maintaining success in those three categories. Clinical leaders of adult programs, such as medical and surgical directors, bear the primary responsibility for a program's volume, outcomes, and patient safety, while administrative directors are focused on business intelligence and regulatory compliance. This paper aims to provide readers with insights into the critical role of collaborative leadership in running a successful program, with a focus on clinical, business, and regulatory perspectives.

Recently Acquired Blood-borne Virus Infections in Australian Deceased Organ Donors: Estimation of the Residual Risk of Unexpected Transmission

Unexpected donor-derived infections of hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and HIV are rare but important potential complications of deceased organ transplantation. The prevalence of recently acquired (yield) infections has not been previously described in a national cohort of Australian deceased organ donors. Donor yield infections are of particularly significance, as they can be used to gain insights in the incidence of disease in the donor pool and in turn, estimate the risk of unexpected disease transmission to recipients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who commenced workup for donation in Australia between 2014 and 2020. Yield cases were defined by having both unreactive serological screening for current or previous infection and reactive nucleic acid testing screening on initial and repeat testing. Incidence was calculated using a yield window estimate and residual risk using the incidence/window period model.

Results

The review identified only a single yield infection of HBV in 3724 persons who commenced donation workup. There were no yield cases of HIV or HCV. There were no yield infections in donors with increased viral risk behaviors. The prevalence of HBV, HCV, and HIV was 0.06% (0.01-0.22), 0.00% (0-0.11), and 0.00% (0-0.11), respectively. The residual risk of HBV was estimated to be 0.021% (0.001-0.119).

Conclusions

The prevalence of recently acquired HBV, HCV, and HIV in Australians who commence workup for deceased donation is low. This novel application of yield-case-methodology has produced estimates of unexpected disease transmission which are modest, particularly when contrasted with local average waitlist mortality. Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TXD/A503.

Effectiveness of education and attitudes toward different types of deceased donor kidneys: Survey analysis of single-center experience

Background

We lack data on the effectiveness of education and the patient's attitude toward different deceased donor kidney types. A prospective study was performed to evaluate patient attitudes, baseline knowledge, and effectiveness of our kidney transplant education process. We also analyzed the knowledge retention of our waitlist patients.

Design

We prospectively surveyed a patient cohort using a paired analysis pre and post education with initial evaluation visit. Knowledge retention among waitlist patients was assessed with annual waitlist visit.

Results

One hundred four patients received paired surveys to assess the baseline knowledge and effectiveness of education. Forty-three patients received a single survey with their annual waitlist evaluation to assess knowledge retention. Paired survey showed mixed results, with no statistically significant improvement in the kidney donor profile index domain. Significant improvement was seen in the hepatitis C virus-positive donor domain and the Public Health Service (PHS) increased-risk donor domain. For the waitlist cohort, overall knowledge retention ranged from excellent to fair, with a decline in knowledge for the PHS increased-risk donor domain.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the education intervention regarding different deceased donor kidney types is effective overall and transplant candidates retain the knowledge while waiting for transplant.

Donor Utilization in the Recent Era: Effect of Sex, Drugs, and Increased Risk

Background:

Heart transplantation volumes have increased in recent years, yet less than a third of donors are typically accepted for transplantation. Whether donor sex, donor drug use, or perception of increased risk affects utilization for transplantation is unclear.

Methods:

The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for donors from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2017. Donor toxicology was collected when available. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine correlations with donor utilization.

Results:

Between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, there were 87 816 heart donors aged ≥15 years. The mean age was 42.7±15.8 years, and 24 831 donors (28.3%) were utilized for heart transplantation. Subsequent analyses focused on donors between 15 and 39 years old.

The strongest associations with donor acceptance were for male donor sex, blood type, hepatitis C antibody, donor age, left ventricular hypertrophy, and history of donor drug use. After removing hepatitis C, Public Health Service Increased Risk was identified as a strong negative predictor. Most positive drug toxicology results were associated with donor nonuse except for donors between 15 and 19 years of age. Exceptions included alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. Opiates were associated with less utilization at all donor ages. The Public Health Service Increased Risk status was associated with significantly less utilization in all age groups except 15- to 19-year-old donors.

Conclusions:

While male donors were preferentially utilized, donors with drug use or those deemed Public Health Service Increased Risk were significantly less utilized for heart transplantation. Further consideration of such donors would be appropriate particularly as the demand for transplantation continues to increase.

Prevalence of Blood-Borne Viruses and Predictors of Risk in Potential Organ Donors in Australia

Internationally, the designation of a patient as an increased viral risk organ donor has been associated with lower utilisation rates. The actual prevalence of blood borne viruses in Australian potential organ donors, and the predictive performance of questionnaires administered to stratify this risk, remains unknown. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who commenced workup for donation on the national database between 2014-2020. The prevalence of HIV, Active HBV and Active HCV in 3650 potential organ donors was 0.16%, 0.9%, and 2.2%, respectively. The behavioural risk profile was assessed in a subset of 3633 patients. Next-of-kin reported increased risk behaviours were associated with an increased prevalence of HCV but not of HIV or HBV (OR 13.8, p < 0.01, OR 0.3. p = 0.42, OR 1.5, p = 0.14). Furthermore, the majority of HIV and HBV infections occurred in potential donors without a disclosed history of increased risk behaviours. In this series, donors had a higher prevalence of HCV, and similar rates of HBV and HIV to the broader community. Behavioural transmission risks were poorly predictive of HIV and HBV. Rather than pre-transplantation behavioural risk screening, routine post-transplant recipient screening may provide a more powerful tool in mitigating the consequences of unexpected viral transmission.

Misplaced emphasis, misunderstood risk: a cultural history of Public Health Service infectious disease guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review and summarize the evolution of the Public Health Service (PHS) guidelines and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regulations for the prevention of blood borne virus transmission in solid organ transplant through the lens of popular culture, scientific evolution, patient and practitioner bias and outcomes research.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most recent set of guidelines and regulations were released in 2020 and represent a culmination of decades of opinion, research and debate within the scientific and lay communities.

SUMMARY

The guidelines were created to address public concern, and the risk of undiagnosed disease transmission in the context of the novel public health crisis of AIDS. We reviewed milestone publications from the scientific and lay press from the first description of AIDS in 1981 to the present to help illustrate the context in which the guidelines were created, the way they changed with subsequent editions, and offer critical consideration of issues with the current set of guidelines and a potential way forward. Further consideration should be given to the way in which the current guidelines identify donors with risk criteria for infectious disease transmission and mandate explanation of donor-specific risk factors to potential recipients, in our era of universal donor screening and recipient surveillance.

Successful Implementation of an Increased Viral Risk Donor Waiting List for Preconsented Kidney Transplant Candidates in Victoria, Australia

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Increased viral risk donors (IVRDs) with increased risk behaviors for blood-borne virus infection and negative nucleic acid testing have a low absolute risk of “window period” infection. Utilization and allocation of IVRD organs differ between jurisdictions.

Associations Among Different Domains of Quality Among US Liver Transplant Programs

Importance

US liver transplant programs have traditionally been evaluated on 1-year patient and graft survival. However, there is concern that a narrow focus on recipient outcomes may not incentivize programs to improve in other ways that would benefit patients with end-stage liver disease.

Objective

To determine the correlation among different potential domains of quality for adult liver transplant programs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2014 to 2019 among adult liver transplant programs included in the United Network for Organ Sharing and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients program-specific reports. Liver transplant programs in the United States completing at least 10 liver transplants per year were included. Data were analyzed from March 2 to August 13, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The potential domains of quality examined included recipient outcomes (1-year graft and patient survival), aggressiveness (ie, marginal graft use, defined as the rate of use of donors with body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] greater than 40, age older than 65 years, or deceased by cardiac death), and waiting list management (ie, waiting list mortality). The correlation among measures, aggregated at the center level, was evaluated using linear regression to control for mean Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score at organ allocation. The extent to which programs were able to achieve high quality across multiple domains was also evaluated.

Results

Among 114 transplant programs that performed a total of 44 554 transplants, the mean (SD) 1-year graft and patient survival was 90.3% (3.0%) with a total range of 75.9% to 96.6%. The mean (SD) waiting list mortality rate was 16.7 (6.1) deaths per 100 person-years, with a total range of 6.3 to 53.0 deaths per 100 person years. The mean (SD) marginal graft use rate was 15.8 (8.8) donors per 100 transplants, with a total range of 0 to 49.3 donors. There was no correlation between 1-year graft and patient survival and waiting list mortality (β = -0.053; P = .19) or marginal graft use (β = -0.007; P = .84) after correcting for mean allocation Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium scores. There were 2 transplant programs (1.8%) that performed in the top quartile on all 3 measures, while 4 transplant programs (3.6%) performed in the bottom quartile on all 3 measures.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that among US liver transplant programs, there were no correlations among 1-year recipient outcomes, measures of program aggressiveness, or waiting list management. These findings suggest that a program's performance in one domain may be independent and unrelated to its performance on others and that the understanding of factors contributing to these domains is incomplete.

Increased-risk donors and solid organ transplantation: current practices and opportunities for improvement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The development and implementation of 'increased risk donor' (IRD) status by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was intended to guide patients and providers in decision making regarding risk of infectious transmission via solid organ transplantation. Several contemporary studies have shown underutilization of these organs. This review summarizes the issues surrounding IRD status as well as recent advances in our understanding of the risks and benefits of increased risk organs and their appropriate utilization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk of window-period infection remains exceedingly low, and implementation of nucleic acid testing for HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) has resulted in decreasing risk of window-period infection often by an order of magnitude or more. Surgeons remain hesitant to utilize IRD organs. In addition, surgeon assessment of risk by donor behaviour was often discordant with known risks of those behaviours. Studies investigating outcomes of utilization of IRD organs suggest long-term mortality and graft survival is at least equivalent to non-IRD organs. Contemporary results suggest that IRD organs continue to be underutilized, particularly adult kidneys and lungs, with hundreds of wasted organs per year.

SUMMARY

CDC IRD labelling has led to an underutilization of organs for transplantation. The risks associated with acceptance of an IRD organ are inflated by surgeons and patients, and outcomes for patients who undergo transplantation with increased risk organs are similar to or better than those for patients whom accept standard risk organs. The rate of transmission of window-period infection from IRD organs is exceptionally low. The harms regarding the utility of Public Health Service increased risk classification outweigh the benefits for patients in need of transplant.

Assessing Solid Organ Donors and Monitoring Transplant Recipients for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus Infection - U.S. Public Health Service Guideline, 2020

The recommendations in this report supersede the U.S Public Health Service (PHS) guideline recommendations for reducing transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) through organ transplantation (Seem DL, Lee I, Umscheid CA, Kuehnert MJ. PHS guideline for reducing human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus transmission through organ transplantation. Public Health Rep 2013;128:247-343), hereafter referred to as the 2013 PHS guideline. PHS evaluated and revised the 2013 PHS guideline because of several advances in solid organ transplantation, including universal implementation of nucleic acid testing of solid organ donors for HIV, HBV, and HCV; improved understanding of risk factors for undetected organ donor infection with these viruses; and the availability of highly effective treatments for infection with these viruses. PHS solicited feedback from its relevant agencies, subject-matter experts, additional stakeholders, and the public to develop revised guideline recommendations for identification of risk factors for these infections among solid organ donors, implementation of laboratory screening of solid organ donors, and monitoring of solid organ transplant recipients. Recommendations that have changed since the 2013 PHS guideline include updated criteria for identifying donors at risk for undetected donor HIV, HBV, or HCV infection; the removal of any specific term to characterize donors with HIV, HBV, or HCV infection risk factors; universal organ donor HIV, HBV, and HCV nucleic acid testing; and universal posttransplant monitoring of transplant recipients for HIV, HBV, and HCV infections. The recommendations are to be used by organ procurement organization and transplant programs and are intended to apply only to solid organ donors and recipients and not to donors or recipients of other medical products of human origin (e.g., blood products, tissues, corneas, and breast milk). The recommendations pertain to transplantation of solid organs procured from donors without laboratory evidence of HIV, HBV, or HCV infection. Additional considerations when transplanting solid organs procured from donors with laboratory evidence of HCV infection are included but are not required to be incorporated into Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy. Transplant centers that transplant organs from HCV-positive donors should develop protocols for obtaining informed consent, testing and treating recipients for HCV, ensuring reimbursement, and reporting new infections to public health authorities.

Quantifying the risk of undetected HIV, hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus infection in Public Health Service increased risk donors

To reduce the risk of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission through organ transplantation, donors are universally screened for these infections by nucleic acid tests (NAT). Deceased organ donors are classified as "increased risk" if they engaged in specific behaviors during the 12 months before death. We developed a model to estimate the risk of undetected infection for HIV, HBV, and HCV among NAT-negative donors specific to the type and timing of donors' potential risk behavior to guide revisions to the 12-month timeline. Model parameters were estimated, including risk of disease acquisition for increased risk groups, number of virions that multiply to establish infection, virus doubling time, and limit of detection by NAT. Monte Carlo simulation was performed. The risk of undetected infection was <1/1 000 000 for HIV after 14 days, for HBV after 35 days, and for HCV after 7 days from the time of most recent potential exposure to the day of a negative NAT. The period during which reported donor risk behaviors result in an "increased risk" designation can be safely shortened.