Care of international living kidney donor candidates in the United States: A survey of contemporary experience, practice, and challenges

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up.

METHODS

To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021.

RESULTS

We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Managing the Costs of Routine Follow-up Care After Living Kidney Donation: a Review and Survey of Contemporary Experience, Practices, and Challenges

Purpose of Review

While living organ donor follow-up is mandated for 2 years in the USA, formal guidance on recovering associated costs of follow-up care is lacking. In this review, we discuss current billing practices of transplant programs for living kidney donor follow-up, and propose future directions for managing follow-up costs and supporting cost neutrality in donor care.

Recent Findings

Living donors may incur costs and financial risks in the donation process, including travel, lost time from work, and dependent care. In addition, adherence to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) mandate for US transplant programs to submit 6-, 12-, and 24-month postdonation follow-up data to the national registry may incur out-of-pocket medical costs for donors. Notably, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has explicitly disallowed transplant programs to bill routine, mandated follow-up costs to the organ acquisition cost center or to the recipient’s Medicare insurance. We conducted a survey of transplant staff in the USA (distributed October 22, 2020–March 15, 2021), which identified that the mechanisms for recovering or covering the costs of mandated routine postdonation follow-up at responding programs commonly include billing recipients’ private insurance (40%), while 41% bill recipients’ Medicare insurance. Many programs reported utilizing institutional allowancing (up to 50%), and some programs billed the organ acquisition cost center (25%). A small percentage (11%) reported billing donors or donors’ insurance.

Summary

To maintain a high level of adherence to living donor follow-up without financially burdening donors, up-to-date resources are needed on handling routine donor follow-up costs in ways that are policy-compliant and effective for donors and programs. Development of a government-supported national living donor follow-up registry like the Living Donor Collective may provide solutions for aspects of postdonation follow-up, but requires transplant program commitment to register donors and donor candidates as well as donor engagement with follow-up outreach contacts after donation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00379-w.

The Role of Registries in Kidney Transplantation Across International Boundaries

Transplant professionals strive to improve domestic kidney transplantation rates safely, cost efficiently, and ethically, but to increase rates further may wish to allow their recipients and donors to traverse international boundaries. Travel for transplantation presents significant challenges to the practice of transplantation medicine and donor medicine, but can be enhanced if sustainable international registries develop to include low- and low-middle income countries. Robust data collection and sharing across registries, linking pretransplant information to post-transplant information, linking donor to recipient information, increasing living donor transplant activity through paired exchange, and ongoing reporting of results to permit flexibility and adaptability to changing clinical environments, will all serve to enhance kidney transplantation across international boundaries.

Ethical Aspects of Kidney Donation and Transplantation for Migrants

Migrants represent a large and diverse population globally that includes international refugees, stateless persons, expatriate workers, and more. Many migrants face significant barriers in accessing health care, especially scarce and costly resources such as dialysis and kidney transplantation. Improving equity of access to these kidney replacement therapies for migrant populations may present a range of complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the setting of crises and when considering the use of residency status and citizenship as eligibility criteria for access to treatment. In this article, we discuss ethical obligations to provide kidney care for migrants, the implications of the self-sufficiency concept with regard to access to deceased donation and transplantation, factors that may influence evaluation of the risks and benefits of transplantation for migrants with insecure access to care, and the vulnerability of migrants to organ trafficking. We also present a set of general recommendations to assist in preventing and managing ethical dilemmas when making decisions about policy or practice regarding kidney care for migrants.

Survey of current transplant center practices regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States

An electronic survey canvassing current policies of transplant centers regarding a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for transplant candidates and living donors was distributed to clinicians at US solid organ transplant centers performing transplants from October 14, 2021-November 15, 2021. Responses were received from staff at 141 unique transplant centers. These respondents represented 56.4% of US transplant centers, and responding centers performed 78.5% of kidney transplants and 82.4% of liver transplants in the year prior to survey administration. Only 35.7% of centers reported implementing a vaccine mandate, while 60.7% reported that vaccination was not required. A minority (42%) of responding centers with a vaccine mandate for transplant candidates also mandated vaccination for living organ donors. Centers with a vaccine mandate most frequently cited clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of pre-transplant vaccination (82%) and stewardship obligations to ensure organs were transplanted into the lowest risk patients (64%). Centers without a vaccine mandate cited a variety of reasons including administrative, equity, and legal considerations for their decision. Transplant centers in the United States exhibit significant heterogeneity in COVID-19 vaccination mandate policies for transplant candidates. While all centers encourage vaccination, most centers have not mandated COVID-19 vaccination for candidates and living donors, citing administrative opposition, legal prohibitions, and concern about equity in access to transplants.

Deceased Donor Procurement Biopsy Practices, Interpretation, and Histology-Based Decision Making: A Survey of U.S. Transplant Centers

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Transplant Clinician Opinions on Use of Race in the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Current race-based eGFR calculators assign a higher eGFR value to Black patients, which could affect the care of kidney transplant candidates and potential living donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a survey of staff at adult kidney transplant centers in the United States (December 17, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to assess opinions on use of race-based eGFR equations for waitlisting and living donor candidate evaluation, availability of serum cystatin C testing and measured GFR, and related practices.

RESULTS

Respondents represented 57% (124 of 218) of adult kidney transplant programs, and the responding centers conducted 70% of recent kidney transplant volume. Most (93%) programs use serum creatinine-based eGFR for listing candidates. However, only 6% of respondents felt that current race-based eGFR calculators are appropriate, with desire for change grounded in concerns for promotion of health care disparities by current equations and inaccuracies in reporting of race. Most respondents (70%) believed that elimination of race would allow more preemptive waitlisting for Black patients, but a majority (79%) also raised concerns that such an approach could incur harms. More than one third of the responding programs lacked or were unsure of availability of testing for cystatin C or measured GFR. At this time, 40% of represented centers did not plan to remove race from eGFR calculators, 46% were planning to remove, and 15% had already done so. There was substantial variability in eGFR reporting and listing of multiracial patients with some Black ancestry. There was no difference in GFR acceptance thresholds for Black versus non-Black living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

This national survey highlights a broad consensus that extant approaches to GFR estimation are unsatisfactory, but it also identified a range of current opinions.

Pancreas transplantation perceptions and practice: Results from a national US survey

BACKGROUND

Due to a substantial decline in pancreas transplantation (PT) across the United States over the past 15 years, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices of US PT programs.

METHODS

Surveys were sent to members of the American Society of Transplantation Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation by email and professional society postings between August 2019 and November 2019.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty three responses were recorded from 56 unique programs. Program characteristics were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Respondents were transplant surgeons (71%), transplant nephrologists (17%), trainees (9%), and allied professionals (3%). Programs were defined according to annual volume as: low (<5 PT/year), intermediate (6-20), or high (>20). High-volume programs reported that these factors were most important for increased PT: expansion of recipient selection, more aggressive donor utilization, and hiring of PT program-specific personnel. At both the program and national level, the vast majority (82% and 79%, respectively) felt the number of PTs currently performed are not in balance with patients' needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, programs reported that the option of PT is not offered adequately to diabetic patients and that strategies to maintain higher PT volume are most evident at intermediate, and especially, high-volume programs.