Insurability of living organ donors: a systematic review

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

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.

Association Between the Economic Environment and the Living Organ Donation Rate: Evidence and Implications

BACKGROUND

We studied the contribution of the economic environment to an individual's decision to donate an organ by examining the relationship between the unemployment rate and the living donation rate.

STUDY DESIGN

We obtained living organ donation data from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) containing 134,138 organ donation events from 1990 through 2016. We obtained monthly unemployment rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from 1990 through 2016, and obtained quarterly real gross domestic product (real GDP) by state from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) from 2005 through 2016. We conducted graphical and statistical analysis with regression modeling using state and time fixed effects.

RESULTS

Descriptive graphical plots suggest that unlike the unemployment rate, the donation rate is non-cyclical over time, implying little association between the two factors. This is conferred by a linear regression model using state and calendar month fixed effects, where we found no significant association between the unemployment and donation rates (95% CI [-0.004, 0.008], interpreted as the change in number of donations per 100,000 people associated with 1% change in the unemployment rate). We also did not find any significant association between the real GDP and the donation rates. Subgroup analysis by sex, race, and age also revealed no significant associations.

CONCLUSIONS

The unemployment rate and the real GDP do not appear to be associated with the living organ donation rate, suggesting that the economic environment may not play a major role in the decision to donate an organ.

A Culturally Sensitive Web-based Intervention to Improve Living Donor Kidney Transplant Among African Americans

Introduction

There are pervasive racial disparities in access to living donor kidney transplantation, which for most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) represents the optimal treatment. We previously developed a theory-driven, culturally sensitive intervention for African American (AA) patients with kidney disease called Living ACTS (About Choices in Transplantation and Sharing) as a DVD and booklet, and found this intervention was effective in increasing living donor transplant knowledge. However, it is unknown whether modifying this intervention for a Web-based environment is effective at increasing access to living donor transplantation.

Methods

We describe the Web-based Living ACTS study, a multicenter, randomized controlled study designed to test the effectiveness of a revised Living ACTS intervention in 4 transplant centers in the southeastern United States. The intervention consists of a Web site with 5 modules: Introduction, Benefits and Risks, The Kidney Transplant Process, Identifying a Potential Kidney Donor, and ACT Now (which encourages communication with friends and family about transplantation).

Results

This study will enroll approximately 800 patients from the 4 transplant centers. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 inquiry from a potential living donor among patients who receive Living ACTS as compared with those who receive a control Web site.

Conclusion

The results from this study are expected to demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to increase access to living donor transplantation among AA individuals. If successful, the Web-based intervention could be disseminated across the >250 transplant centers in the United States to improve equity in living donor kidney transplantation.

Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors

In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.

Safe and ethical living kidney donation in Qatar: A national health system's approach

The increasing incidence of end-stage kidney disease in Qatar has led to growing demand for donor kidneys. The deceased donor kidney program has yet to achieve its full potential; hence, living kidney donation has been widely adopted as an appropriate alternative. The reliance on living kidney donors however, raises a number of social, ethical, and legal concerns surrounding informed consent, voluntarism, psychosocial evaluation, perioperative care, and long-term follow-up of living kidney donors. Many of these concerns become heightened in a multicultural, multilingual society within a Gulf country such as Qatar. This article provides an insight into the challenges that living kidney donation poses in a multiethnic society with significant socioeconomic divides. It also discusses the remedial measures that the Qatari government, healthcare authorities, and transplant community have adopted to address these issues.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease?

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT), outside of Asia, remains an important yet underutilized gift of life. For patients with end-stage liver disease, A2ALDLT is a proven transplantation option, with lower waiting list mortality and suffering, and equivalent or better allograft and patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The risks to living donors and the benefit to their recipients have been carefully defined with long-term level 1 and 2 evidence-based study. An overview of the development and practice of living donor liver transplant (LDLT), including donor and recipient surgical allograft innovation, is provided. The issues of recipient selection, outcomes and morbidity, including disease-variable study and challenges past and present are presented in comparison with DDLT cohorts, and future insights are described. Central to practice is the careful and concise review of donor evaluation and selection and donor outcome, morbidity, quality of life and present and future strategies for donor advocacy and growth of the technique.

Psychosocial Outcomes 3 to 10 Years After Donation in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Studies of liver donors' psychosocial outcomes focus on the short term and rely largely on quality-of-life measures not specific to donation. We sought to examine long-term donation effects on 3 psychosocial domains: perceived physical, emotional, and socioeconomic outcomes.

METHODS

Individuals donating 3 to 10 years previously at 9 centers were eligible for telephone surveys. Survey responses were examined descriptively. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct donor groups based on response profiles across psychosocial domains. Potential predictors of response profiles were evaluated with regression analysis.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventeen donors (66%) participated (M = 5.8 years postdonation, SD = 1.9). Fifteen percent to 48% of donors endorsed current donation-related physical health problems and concerns, and 7%-60% reported socioeconomic concerns (eg, insurance difficulties, financial expenditures). However, on average, donors experienced high psychological growth, and 90% felt positively about donation. Cluster analysis revealed 5 donor groups. One group showed high psychological benefit, with little endorsement of physical or socioeconomic concerns (15% of donors). Four groups showed less favorable profiles, with varying combinations of difficulties. The largest such group showed high endorsement of physical concerns and financial expenditures, and only modest psychological benefit (31% of donors). Men and nonHispanic whites were most likely to have unfavorable response profiles (Ps < 0.01). Compared with donors aged 19 to 30 years, older donors were less likely to have unfavorable profiles; these differences were significant for donors in the >40 to 50 year age group (Ps < 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Even many years postdonation, donors report adverse physical and socioeconomic effects, but positive emotional effects as well. Identification of response profiles and predictors may improve targeting of postdonation surveillance and care.

Social and Financial Outcomes of Living Liver Donation: A Prospective Investigation Within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2)

Because results from single-center (mostly kidney) donor studies demonstrate interpersonal relationship and financial strains for some donors, we conducted a liver donor study involving nine centers within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2) consortium. Among other initiatives, A2ALL-2 examined the nature of these outcomes following donation. Using validated measures, donors were prospectively surveyed before donation and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after donation. Repeated-measures regression models were used to examine social relationship and financial outcomes over time and to identify relevant predictors. Of 297 eligible donors, 271 (91%) consented and were interviewed at least once. Relationship changes were positive overall across postdonation time points, with nearly one-third reporting improved donor family and spousal or partner relationships and >50% reporting improved recipient relationships. The majority of donors, however, reported cumulative out-of-pocket medical and nonmedical expenses, which were judged burdensome by 44% of donors. Lower income predicted burdensome donation costs. Those who anticipated financial concerns and who held nonprofessional positions before donation were more likely to experience adverse financial outcomes. These data support the need for initiatives to reduce financial burden.

Decision aids to increase living donor kidney transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For the more than 636,000 adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the U.S., kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment compared to dialysis. Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) comprised 31% of kidney transplantations in 2015, an 8% decrease since 2004. We aimed to summarize the current literature on decision aids that could be used to improve LDKT rates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Decision aids are evidence-based tools designed to help patients and their families make difficult treatment decisions. LDKT decision aids can help ESRD patients, patients' family and friends, and healthcare providers engage in treatment decisions and thereby overcome multifactorial LDKT barriers.

SUMMARY

We identified 12 LDKT decision aids designed to provide information about LDKT, and/or to help ESRD patients identify potential living donors, and/or to help healthcare providers make decisions about treatment for ESRD or living donation. Of these, 4 were shown to be effective in increasing LDKT, donor inquiries, LDKT knowledge, and willingness to discuss LDKT. Although each LDKT decision aid has limitations, adherence to decision aid development guidelines may improve decision aid utilization and access to LDKT.

Interlaboratory Variability in Plasma Creatinine Measurement and the Relation with Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate and Chronic Kidney Disease Diagnosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The tracing of creatinine (Cr) reference materials to isotope dilution mass spectrometry-assigned values was implemented worldwide to reduce interlaboratory variability and improve assay accuracy. The aims of this study were to examine the current extent of interlaboratory variability and its effect on eGFR.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Leftover plasma from 2-3 consecutive days was obtained from 53 intensive care unit patients with a range of kidney functions. Individual patient samples were pooled and split and sent to 12 different laboratories for Cr measurement. For each patient, the mean Cr and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR (eGFR-EPI), assuming a 65-year-old nonblack woman, were determined. Interlaboratory variability was assessed by the range and SD of Cr and eGFR-EPI. This was repeated after stratifying by assay type and by the median Cr of 1.36 mg/dl. For patients whose eGFR-EPI range included 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2, the percentage of laboratories with eGFR-EPI<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 was determined.

RESULTS

The mean±SD of the Cr and eGFR-EPI ranges were 0.20±0.09 mg/dl and 14±9 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for Cr<1.36 mg/dl. Jaffe Cr results were an average 0.1 mg/dl (Cr≥1.36 mg/dl) and 0.05 mg/dl (Cr<1.36 mg/dl) higher than enzymatic results (P<0.001 for both). Ten patients had an eGFR-EPI range that included 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Their median eGFR-EPI range was 15 ml/min per 1.73 m2. There was significant discordance in the diagnosis of CKD (eGFR-EPI<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2), with laboratories using Jaffe Cr methods making the diagnosis more frequently than those using enzymatic Cr methods (60% versus 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant interlaboratory variability in Cr measurement still exists. Jaffe assays yield higher Cr values than enzymatic assays, leading to lower eGFR-EPIs and more frequent CKD diagnoses. Further improvements in assay performance are required to standardize patient CKD diagnosis and to facilitate longitudinal Cr monitoring across laboratories.

Reciprocating living kidney donor generosity: tax credits, health insurance and an outcomes registry

Kidney transplantation significantly improves patient survival, and is the most cost effective renal replacement option compared with dialysis therapy. Living kidney donors provide a valuable societal gift, but face many formidable disincentive barriers that include not only short- and long-term health risks, but also concerns regarding financial expenditures and health insurance. Other than governmental coverage for their medical evaluation and surgical expenses, donors are often asked to personally bear a significant financial responsibility due to lost work wages and travel expenses. In order to alleviate this economic burden for donors, we advocate for the consideration of tax credits, lifelong health insurance coverage, and an outcomes registry as societal reciprocity to reward their altruistic act of kidney donation.

Emotional and Financial Experiences of Kidney Donors over the Past 50 Years: The RELIVE Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Most kidney donors view their experience positively, but some may experience psychosocial and financial burdens. We hypothesized that certain donor characteristics, poor outcome of the recipient, negative perceptions of care, and lack of support may be associated with poor psychosocial outcomes for donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study (RELIVE) examined long-term medical and psychosocial outcomes for kidney donors (at three U.S. transplant centers) who donated between 1963 and 2005. Standardized questionnaires evaluated donor perspectives, recovery time, social support, motivation, financial impact, insurability after donation, and current psychological status. Questionnaires were mailed to 6909 donors.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 2455 donors, who had donated 17 ± 10 years earlier (range, 5-48 years), a response rate of 36%. Most (95%) rated their overall donation experience as good to excellent. Rating the overall donor experience more negatively was associated with donor complications, psychological difficulties, recipient graft failure, and longer time since donation. Nine percent (n=231) reported one or more of the following poor psychosocial outcomes: fair or poor overall donor experience, financial burden, regret or discomfort with decision to donate, or psychological difficulties since donation. Recipient graft failure was the only predictor for reporting one or more of these poor psychosocial outcomes (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 2.34). Donors with lower educational attainment experienced greater financial burden. One of five employed donors took unpaid leave; 2% reported health and life insurability concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of donors viewed their overall donation experience positively, almost 1 in 10 donors reported at least one negative consequence related to donation. Recipient graft failure was associated with poor psychosocial outcome, defined as one or more of these negative consequences. Some donors were financially disadvantaged, and some experienced insurance difficulties. Interventions to avoid negative psychosocial and financial consequences are warranted.

Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia in living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Young women wishing to become living kidney donors frequently ask whether nephrectomy will affect their future pregnancies.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of living kidney donors involving 85 women (131 pregnancies after cohort entry) who were matched in a 1:6 ratio with 510 healthy nondonors from the general population (788 pregnancies after cohort entry). Kidney donations occurred between 1992 and 2009 in Ontario, Canada, with follow-up through linked health care databases until March 2013. Donors and nondonors were matched with respect to age, year of cohort entry, residency (urban or rural), income, number of pregnancies before cohort entry, and the time to the first pregnancy after cohort entry. The primary outcome was a hospital diagnosis of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia. Secondary outcomes were each component of the primary outcome examined separately and other maternal and fetal outcomes.

RESULTS

Gestational hypertension or preeclampsia was more common among living kidney donors than among nondonors (occurring in 15 of 131 pregnancies [11%] vs. 38 of 788 pregnancies [5%]; odds ratio for donors, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 5.0; P=0.01). Each component of the primary outcome was also more common among donors (odds ratio, 2.5 for gestational hypertension and 2.4 for preeclampsia). There were no significant differences between donors and nondonors with respect to rates of preterm birth (8% and 7%, respectively) or low birth weight (6% and 4%, respectively). There were no reports of maternal death, stillbirth, or neonatal death among the donors. Most women had uncomplicated pregnancies after donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Gestational hypertension or preeclampsia was more likely to be diagnosed in kidney donors than in matched nondonors with similar indicators of baseline health. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others.).

Experiences obtaining insurance after live kidney donation

The impact of kidney donation on the ability to change or initiate health or life insurance following donation is unknown. To quantify this risk, we surveyed 1046 individuals who donated a kidney at our center between 1970 and 2011. Participants were asked whether they changed or initiated health or life insurance after donation, and if they had any difficulty doing so. Among 395 donors who changed or initiated health insurance after donation, 27 (7%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 15 were denied altogether, 12 were charged a higher premium and 8 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. Among 186 donors who changed or initiated life insurance after donation, 46 (25%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 23 were denied altogether, 27 were charged a higher premium and 17 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. In this single-center study, a high proportion of kidney donors reported difficulty changing or initiating insurance, particularly life insurance. These practices by insurers create unnecessary burden and stress for those choosing to donate and could negatively impact the likelihood of live kidney donation among those considering donation.

The consequences of chronic kidney disease mislabeling in living kidney donors

Despite numerous studies that substantiate its long-term safety, barriers to kidney donation persist. These include issues of insurability after donation and its consequent financial and emotional burdens. We present 2 cases in which mislabeling of kidney donors as having chronic kidney disease shortly after kidney donation adversely affected their insurability. A concerted effort should be made to affect public policy such that insurability and the psychosocial well-being of living donors are protected.

International survey of nephrologists' perceptions and attitudes about rewards and compensations for kidney donation

BACKGROUND

Payment for organ donation, whether in the form of incentives, rewards or compensation is highly debated and has been denounced by many professional and legislative bodies. Despite the passionate discussion in the literature, there is very limited data on attitudes and perceptions of physicians about providing rewards or compensation to organ donors. We investigated the relationship between demographic and practice characteristics of nephrologists and their perceptions and attitudes about rewards and compensations for organ donation.

METHODS

Using a web-based survey, we explored the views of nephrologists around the world about rewards and compensations for kidney donation. The relationship between attitudes and demographic characteristics of 1280 nephrologists from 74 countries was examined by univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Seventy-five percent agreed with donor health insurance, 26% favored direct financial compensation and 31% agreed with financial rewards for unrelated donors. Sixty-six percent believed that rewards will lead to increased donation. Seventy-three percent indicated that rewards will lead to exploitation of the poor and 78% agreed with legislation prohibiting organ sales. Thirty-seven percent believed that rewards will negatively impact deceased-donor transplantation. Nephrologists from India/Pakistan and the Middle East had more favorable views about rewards, while respondents from Latin America and Europe, older than 50, female nephrologists and those practicing in rural areas had less favorable views.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a minority of nephrologists favor rewards for donation, many agree with some compensation and a considerable majority favor donor health insurance. Perceptions of nephrologists about rewards and compensation are influenced by age, sex, urban versus rural location and geographic region of practice.

Managing the Psychosocial and Financial Consequences of Living Donation

There has been dramatic growth in the last decade in the literature on psychosocial and financial impacts of living organ donation. With this growth has come recognition that these impacts must be considered when educating prospective donors about the donation process, and when planning donor follow-up care after donation. Our review highlights recent studies that provide new information on the nature of psychosocial and financial outcomes in living donors, with special attention to studies examining unrelated donors (i.e., those with no biologic or longstanding emotional connection to the transplant patient), given that these individuals represent a growing segment of the living donor population. Limitations and gaps in available evidence are noted. We also discuss recent recommendations for post-donation monitoring of donors' psychosocial and financial outcomes, and we consider advances in evidence regarding interventions and prevention strategies to minimize any adverse psychosocial and financial impacts of living donation.

The unjustified classification of kidney donors as patients with CKD: critique and recommendations

Unilateral nephrectomy for kidney donation results in loss of about 30% of baseline GFR, leaving some donors with GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), the threshold for the diagnosis CKD. This has resulted in insurability problems for some donors. This article reviews the definition of CKD, risks associated with CKD, and large follow-up studies on the vital status and risk of ESRD in kidney donors. It also provides evidence that kidney donors, despite having reduced GFR, are not at increased risk for CKD-associated morbidity and mortality. Epidemiologic studies, most with follow-up <10 years, have shown an association between GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) and higher mortality and progression to ESRD. Low GFR in the absence of any other markers for kidney disease, however, conveys attenuated or minimal risk. Of note, studies of long-term kidney donor outcomes (6-45 years) have not shown excess mortality or ESRD. The limitation of the collective evidence is that the increased risks associated with GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) were demonstrated in much larger cohorts than those reported for kidney donor outcomes, but donor outcome studies have substantially longer follow-up. On the basis of current findings, kidney donors with low GFR and no other signs of kidney disease should not be classified as having CKD. This is definitely not the reward they deserve, and, more important, the implications of reduced GFR in donors are not associated with unfavorable outcomes.

Understanding and overcoming barriers to living kidney donation among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States

In the United States, racial-ethnic minorities experience disproportionately high rates of ESRD, but they are substantially less likely to receive living donor kidney transplants (LDKT) compared with their majority counterparts. Minorities may encounter barriers to LDKT at several steps along the path to receiving it, including consideration, pursuit, completion of LDKT, and the post-LDKT experience. These barriers operate at different levels related to potential recipients and donors, health care providers, health system structures, and communities. In this review, we present a conceptual framework describing various barriers that minorities face along the path to receiving LDKT. We also highlight promising recent and current initiatives to address these barriers, as well as gaps in initiatives, which may guide future interventions to reduce racial-ethnic disparities in LDKT.

Psychosocial and socioeconomic issues facing the living kidney donor

At the 2010 Conference on Living Kidney Donor follow-up, a workgroup was convened to comment on the state of the evidence in 4 broad areas: (a) health-related quality of life postdonation; (b) donors' financial and economic concerns; (c) outcomes issues specific to newer areas of donation, namely, kidney exchange and anonymous (directed and nondirected) donation; and (d) the role of informed consent in relation to postdonation psychosocial outcomes. The workgroup sought to offer recommendations regarding research priorities for the next decade and data collection strategies to accomplish the needed research. The workgroup concluded that there has been little consideration of the nature or predictors of any long-term psychosocial outcomes in living donors. In some areas (eg, kidney exchange and anonymous donation), there is limited information on outcomes even in the early aftermath of donation. Across all 4 psychosocial areas, prospective studies are needed that follow donors to examine the course of development and/or resolution of any donation-related difficulties. The formation of a national registry to routinely collect psychosocial follow-up data may be an efficient strategy to monitor donor outcomes in both the short- and long-term years after donation.

Living kidney donor follow-up: state-of-the-art and future directions, conference summary and recommendations

In light of continued uncertainty regarding postkidney donation medical, psychosocial and socioeconomic outcomes for traditional living donors and especially for donors meeting more relaxed acceptance criteria, a meeting was held in September 2010 to (1) review limitations of existing data on outcomes of living kidney donors; (2) assess and define the need for long-term follow-up of living kidney donors; (3) identify the potential system requirements, infrastructure and costs of long-term follow-up for living kidney donor outcomes in the United States and (4) explore practical options for future development and funding of United States living kidney donor data collection, metrics and endpoints. Conference participants included prior kidney donors, physicians, surgeons, medical ethicists, social scientists, donor coordinators, social workers, independent donor advocates and representatives of payer organizations and the federal government. The findings and recommendations generated at this meeting are presented.

Transplantation and the primary care physician

Increasing appreciation of the survival benefits of kidney transplantation, compared with chronic dialysis, has resulted in more patients with kidney disease being referred and receiving organs. The evolving disparity between a rapidly increasing pool of candidates and a smaller pool of available donors has created new issues for the physicians who care for kidney patients and their potential living donors. This article outlines current efforts to address the growing number of patients who await transplantation, including relaxation of traditional donation criteria, maximization of living donation, and donation schemas that permit incompatible donor-recipient pairs to participate through paired donation and transplantation chains. New ethical issues faced by donors and recipients are discussed. Surgical advances that reduce the morbidity of donors are also described, as is the role of the primary physician in medical issues of both donors and recipients.

The long-term quality of life of living kidney donors: a multicenter cohort study

Previous studies that described the long-term quality of life of living kidney donors were conducted in single centers, and lacked data on a healthy nondonor comparison group. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the quality of life of 203 kidney donors with 104 healthy nondonor controls using validated scales (including the SF36, 15D and feeling thermometer) and author-developed questions. Participants were recruited from nine transplant centers in Canada, Scotland and Australia. Outcomes were assessed a median of 5.5 years after the time of transplantation (lower and upper quartiles of 3.8 and 8.4 years, respectively). 15D scores (scale of 0 to 1) were high and similar between donors and nondonors (mean 0.93 (standard deviation (SD) 0.09) and 0.94 (SD 0.06), p = 0.55), and were not different when results were adjusted for several prognostic characteristics (p = 0.55). On other scales and author-developed questions, groups performed similarly. Donors to recipients who had an adverse outcome (death, graft failure) had similar quality of life scores as those donors where the recipient did well. Our findings are reassuring for the practice of living transplantation. Those who donate a kidney in centers that use routine pretransplant donor evaluation have good long-term quality of life.

Too Poor for Transplant: Finance and Insurance Issues in Transplant Ethics

Context

Donor organs are a scarce gift. Additionally, transplantation is very expensive and the United States lacks universal health insurance for all citizens. These facts combine to make personal finance and insurance some of the criteria for wait listing at US transplant centers. Previous research has shown that the poor and the uninsured (as well as women and nonwhites) are less likely to receive a transplant. Living donor candidates are also limited by the US insurance system.

Objective

To determine the effect of finance and insurance variables on access to transplant and living donation.

Design

A qualitative descriptive study of ethics consultation data contained in a research registry approved by the institutional review board at California Pacific Medical Center.

Setting and Participants

This study analyzes research registry data from a large community hospital in Northern California that serves patients from California, Oregon, and Nevada. The registry data are derived from transplant ethics consultations occurring between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2009.

Main Outcome Measure

This study explores the restriction of access to transplantation and of participation in living donation.

Results

More than a quarter of all transplant ethics consultation reports described the restriction of transplant-related treatment for reasons rooted in finance or insurance. Individuals on the recipient side and on the donor side were hindered with regard to access. Insurance status and personal ability to pay significantly affect access to transplantation in the United States, and this theme is a frequent feature of ethics consultations at California Pacific Medical Center.

The system of health insurance for living donors is a disincentive for live donation

The health insurance system for living donors is derived from insurance policies designed to cover accidental death or dismemberment. The system covers only the direct consequences of organ removal, and recoups the costs of related medical services from the transplant recipient's health insurance provider. The system forces transplant programs to differentiate between health services that are, or are not directly attributable to donation and may compromise the pretransplant evaluation, postoperative care and long-term care of living donors. The system is particularly problematic in the United States, where a significant proportion of donors do not have medical insurance. The requirement to assign donor costs to a particular recipient is poorly suited to facilitate advances in living donation such as the use of nondirected donors and living-donor paired exchange programs. We argue that given the current understanding regarding the long-term risks of living donation, the provision of basic medical insurance is a necessity for living donation and that the system of attributing donor costs to the recipient's insurance is inefficient, has the potential to undermine the care of living donors and is a disincentive to the expansion of living donation.

Life insurance for living kidney donors: a Canadian undercover investigation

Some living kidney donors encounter difficulties obtaining life insurance, despite previous surveys of insurance companies reporting otherwise. To better understand the effect of donation on insurability, we contacted offices of life insurance companies in five major cities in Canada to obtain $100 000 of life insurance (20-year term) for 40 fictitious living kidney donors and 40 paired controls. These profiles were matched on age, gender, family history of kidney disease and presence of hypertension. The companies were blinded to data collection. The study protocol was reviewed by the Office of Research Ethics. The main study outcomes were the annual premium quoted and total time spent on the phone with the insurance agent. All donor and control profiles received a quote, with no significant difference in the premium quoted (medians $190 vs. $209, p = 0.89). More time was spent on the phone for donor compared to control profiles, but the absolute difference was small (medians 9.5 vs. 7.0 min, p = 0.046). Age, gender, family history of kidney disease and new-onset hypertension had no further effect on donor insurability in regression analysis. We found no evidence that kidney donors were disadvantaged in the first step of applying for life insurance. The effect donation has on subsequent phases of insurance underwriting remains to be studied.

Primum non Nocere: is chronic kidney disease staging appropriate in living kidney transplant donors?

The aphorism of Primum non Nocere ('first do no harm') was introduced to guide physicians in making difficult and potentially hazardous decisions. The application of estimating equations for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and classification schema for chronic kidney disease (CKD) has inadvertently led to 'labeling' of many living donors as having CKD postdonation. This review examines this issue and its possible consequences. Although complete long-term studies are lacking, it appears that the 'labeling' of such donors as having CKD postdonation is common but not associated with a major effect on morbidity or mortality.

Short- and long-term donor outcomes after kidney donation: analysis of 601 cases over a 35-year period at Japanese single center

BACKGROUND

The lack of deceased donors in Japan means that living-donor kidney transplantation is necessary in as many as 80% of cases. However, there are few data on perioperative complications and long-term outcome for live kidney donors.

METHODS

To determine associated perioperative morbidity and long-term mortality among live kidney donors, we reviewed 601 donor nephrectomies performed at our institution between 1970 and 2006 and attempted to contact all of the donors (or their families) to ascertain their present physical status. The survival rate and causes of death were compared with an age- and gender-matched cohort from the general population.

RESULTS

Although three donors (0.5%) experienced major perioperative complications, that is, femoral nerve compression, pulmonary thrombosis, and acute renal failure, all of the donors recovered and left hospital without complications. Among 481 donors (80%) for whom details were available at the time of inspection, 426 (88.5%) were still surviving. Donor survival rates at 5, 10, 20, and 30 years were 98.3%, 94.7%, 86.4%, and 66.2%, respectively. The mean interval between kidney donation and death was 183+/-102 (7-375) months, and the mean age at death was 70+/-11 years. The survival rate of kidney donors was better than the age- and gender-matched cohort from the general population, and the patterns and causes of death were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that continuation of living-donor kidney transplantation programs is justified in short- and long-term donor safety.

Current Canadian initiatives to reimburse live organ donors for their non-medical expenses

Living organ donors frequently incur non-medical expenses for travel, accommodation, prescription drugs, loss of income, and child care in conjunction with organ donation. Despite international precedent and widespread public support, Canada currently lacks a unified strategy to reimburse donors for these expenses. In 2005, we communicated with 78 individuals within the field of Canadian transplantation to identify which initiatives for reimbursement of living donors existed in each province. Saskatchewan was the only province in which public employees were granted paid leave for organ donation. Six provincial governments partially reimbursed travel and accommodation. At the federal level, other expenses could be partially reimbursed through an income tax credit, while the Employment Insurance program and the Canada Pension Plan provided funding for donors who become unemployed or develop long-term disability as a result of donation. Charities helped a limited number of patients in financial need through grants and no-interest loans, but funding was generally limited by contributions received. While reimbursing living donors for their non-medical expenses is considered just, existing programs only partially reimburse expenses and are not available in all provinces. Developing future reimbursement policies will remove a disincentive faced by some potential donors, and may increase rates of transplantation in Canada.

Cardiovascular disease and hypertension risk in living kidney donors: an analysis of health administrative data in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of any harm associated with living kidney donation guides informed consent and living donor follow-up. Risk estimates in the literature are variable, and most studies did not use a healthy control group to assess outcomes attributable to donation.

METHODS

We observed a retrospective cohort using health administrative data for donations which occurred in Ontario, Canada between the years 1993 and 2005. There were a total of 1278 living donors and 6359 healthy adults who acted as a control group. Individuals were followed for a mean of 6.2 years (range, 1-13 years) after donation. The primary outcome was a composite of time to death or first cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, stroke, angioplasty, and bypass surgery). The secondary outcome was time to a diagnosis of hypertension.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in death or cardiovascular events between donors and controls (1.3% vs. 1.7%; hazard ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.4-1.2). Donors were more frequently diagnosed with hypertension than controls (16.3% vs. 11.9%, hazard ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.2-1.7) but were also seen more often by their primary care physicians (median [interquartile range] 3.6 [1.9-6.1] vs. 2.6 [1.4-4.3] visits per person year, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on administrative data, the risk of cardiovascular disease was unchanged in the first decade after kidney donation. The observed increase in diagnosed hypertension may be due to nephrectomy or more blood pressure measurements received by donors in follow-up and requires prospective study.

Living kidney donor informed consent practices vary between US and non-US centers

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donation rates are increasing in the United States and internationally. Major consensus statements on the care of living kidney donors recommend communicating all potential health and psychosocial risks to donors. We evaluated the degree of international variation in the process of informed consent of potential donors during their evaluation.

METHODS

Transplant professionals attending the 2006 World Transplant Congress responded to a survey assessing their process of informed consent, evaluation and communication of living donor risk. US-based respondents were compared to non-US respondents.

RESULTS

There were 221 respondents from 177 transplant centers and 40 countries (48% US respondents). Across US and non-US transplant centers, potential donors were most likely to receive written material about living donor risk by mail prior to evaluation, receive risk information in person during evaluation, have a psychosocial evaluation, which usually lasted longer than 30 min and sign an official donation consent form presented to them by a surgeon or nephrologist. Although over 75% of respondents stated that donors received information about medical risks such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease and potential need for dialysis, there was less consistency regarding whether or not respondents conveyed an increased risk of these medical complications to donors. Additionally, the financial and psychosocial costs associated with being a living donor were inconsistently communicated to donors during the informed consent process. Compared to non-US respondents, US respondents were more likely to use written material and visual aids to convey risks to donors, have mandatory psychosocial evaluations and provide access to donor support groups. US transplant centers were also more likely to discuss the possibility of the donors needing dialysis or a transplant if their remaining kidney fails in the future, possible travel expenses and loss of work income due to donation recovery. Conversely, the US respondents were less likely to offer long-term follow-up and to utilize nephrologists to obtain written donor consent for donation.

CONCLUSIONS

As dependence on living organ donation increases best practices for informed consent, donor evaluation and uniform risk conveyance need to be established. This may be accomplished by using a model informed consent template to ensure that informed consent from donors is consistently obtained.

Improving institutional fairness to live kidney donors: donor needs must be addressed by safeguarding donation risks and compensating donation costs

The number of kidney transplants from live donors is increasing worldwide, yet donor needs have not been satisfactorily addressed in either developed or developing countries. This paper argues that unmet donor needs are unfair to live kidney donors in two ways. First, when safeguards against the risks of donation are insufficient, live donation can impair the donor's health and thus his or her fair opportunities to access jobs and offices and to function as a free and equal citizen more generally. Secondly, when the financial costs of donation are not fully compensated, operational fairness (associated with the nephrectomy event) is compromised for the donor. The donor assumes the risks of a nontherapeutic intervention--for the good of the recipient and society--and should not have to incur costs for donating. Based on a systematic analysis of unmet donor needs in developed and developing countries, context-relative measures to improve institutional fairness to live kidney donors are delineated in this paper. The identified ways of safeguarding donation risks and compensating donation costs are not merely means to removing disincentives for donation and increasing donation rates. They are essential for preserving institutional fairness in the health care of the live kidney donor.