Fairness, severe intellectual disability, and the special case of transplantation

Long-Term Outcomes After Lung Transplantation in Children With Intellectual Disabilities

BACKGROUND

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) started recording data on intellectual disability status in 2008. This study aimed to characterize the long-term outcomes for children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) undergoing lung transplantation.

METHODS

All pediatric patients (under 18 years old) undergoing bilateral lung transplantation were identified using the UNOS database. The patients were grouped into the following categories: no cognitive delay, possible cognitive delay, and definite cognitive delay. The primary endpoint was graft survival at 3-year posttransplantation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the independent effect of cognitive disability on graft survival.

RESULTS

Five hundred four pediatric patients who underwent lung transplantation between March 2008 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. 59 had a definite cognitive delay (12%), 23 had a possible delay (5%), and 421 had no delay (83%). When comparing these three groups, there was no significant difference in 60-day graft survival (p = 0.4), 3-year graft survival (p = 0.6), 3-year graft survival for patients who survived at least 60-day posttransplantation (p = 0.9), distribution of causes of death (p = 0.24), nor distribution treatment of rejection within 1-year posttransplantation (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Intellectual disability does not impact long-term outcomes after bilateral lung transplantation. Intellectual disability should not be a contraindication to bilateral lung transplantation on the basis of inferior graft survival.

Temporal trends and regional variation of heart transplantation in children with intellectual and developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND

Historically, intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) has been considered an important factor in choosing potential recipients of organ transplants among many transplant centers. This study evaluated the temporal changes at the national and regional levels in the proportion of heart transplantation in children with IDD.

METHODS

Children younger than 19 years in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database who received heart transplants from 2010 to 2021 were included in this study. The patients were grouped into only definitive intellectual disability, both definitive intellectual and motor disability, only definitive motor disability, and no developmental disability. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine the proportion of heart transplants in each category for the whole cohort and each geographic transplant region.

RESULTS

There were 4273 pediatric heart transplant recipients included in the study. From 2010 to 2021, the percentages of pediatric heart transplants increased from 3.8% (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) to 5.8% (95% CI, 0.03-0.08) in children with only definitive intellectual disability (OR 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.1, ptrend  < .002), from 3.4% (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) to 6.6% (95% CI, 0.04-0.09) in children with both definitive intellectual disability and motor disability (OR 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.13, ptrend  < .001), and from 5.2% (95% CI, 0.02-0.07) to 8.3% (95% CI, 0.05-0.1) in children with only definitive motor disability (OR 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.09, ptrend  < .002). There were several regional differences in the proportion of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities who received heart transplants.

CONCLUSION

There is increasing inclusion of children diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities in heart transplantation. A review of the current allocation policies may address the marked geographic variations found in this study.

Ethics of Organ Transplantation in Persons with Intellectual Disability

Historically, individuals with intellectual disability and end-stage organ disease were discriminated against by transplant professionals and often excluded from transplantation waitlists. Despite antidiscrimination legislation, some transplant programs continue to include intellectual disability as a relative, if not an absolute, contraindication to listing for an organ; this is true for both pediatric and adult individuals in end-stage organ disease. This commentary opposes the absolute exclusion of patients with intellectual disability and end-stage organ disease from transplantation waitlists provided that the candidates are expected to gain a predefined minimum benefit threshold of life-years and quality-adjusted-life years. Intellectual disability is one of many factors that should be considered in determining transplant eligibility and each candidate should have an individualized interdisciplinary assessment.

Prevalence and Long-Term Outcomes of Solid Organ Transplant in Children with Intellectual Disability

OBJECTIVES

To describe the prevalence and long-term outcomes of kidney, liver, and heart transplant for children with an intellectual disability.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of children receiving a first kidney, liver, or heart-alone transplant in the United Network for Organ Sharing dataset from 2008 to 2017. Recipients with definite intellectual disability were compared with those possible/no intellectual disability. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated for graft and patient survival. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between intellectual disability and graft and patient survival.

RESULTS

Over the study period, children with definite intellectual disability accounted for 594 of 6747 (9%) first pediatric kidney-alone, 318 of 4566 (7%) first pediatric liver-alone, and 324 of 3722 (9%) first pediatric heart-alone transplant recipients. Intellectual disability was not significantly associated with patient or graft survival among liver and heart transplant recipients. Among kidney transplant recipients, definite intellectual disability was significantly associated with higher graft survival and lower patient survival, but the absolute differences were small.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with intellectual disability account for 7%-9% of pediatric transplant recipients with comparable long-term outcomes to other pediatric recipients. These findings provide important empirical support for policies that include children with intellectual disability as transplant candidates.

Pediatric kidney transplant in undocumented immigrants: An American perspectives

Kidney transplant in undocumented immigrants remains controversial. While in the United States the National Organ Transplant Act does not prohibit inclusion of these patients as transplant candidates, legislative and financial barriers and ethical concerns remain. The purpose of this article was to review the legal and financial barriers to kidney transplant for children with ESKD who are undocumented immigrants and consider arguments for and against inclusion of these children as kidney transplant candidates. While this discussion is largely restricted to the experience in the United States and its unique healthcare system, the themes and ideas may be more generalizable to the experience in many high-income countries. We conclude that access to kidney transplant is legal, ethically justifiable, and clearly in the best interest of these children. Transplant professionals should continue to advocate for changes in policy and greater resources to support these patients.

Access to transplantation for persons with intellectual disability: Strategies for nondiscrimination

Disqualifying patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) from transplantation has received growing attention from the media, state legislatures, the Office of Civil Rights, and recently the National Council on Disability, as well as internationally. Compared with evidence-based criteria used to determine transplant eligibility, the ID criterion remains controversial because of its potential to be discriminatory, subjective, and because its relationship to outcomes is uncertain. Use of ID in determining transplant candidacy may stem partly from perceived worse adherence and outcomes for patients with ID, fear of penalties to transplant centers for poor outcomes, and stigma surrounding the quality of life for people with ID. However, using ID as a contraindication to solid organ transplantation is not evidence-based and reduces equitable access to transplantation, disadvantaging an already vulnerable population. Variability and lack of transparency in referral and evaluation allows for gatekeeping, threatens patient autonomy, limits access to lifesaving treatment, and may be seen as unfair. We examine the benefits and harms of using ID as a transplant eligibility criterion, review current clinical evidence and ethical considerations, and make recommendations for transplant teams and regulatory agencies to ensure fair access to transplant for individuals with ID.

Renal Replacement Therapy in children with severe developmental disability: guiding questions for decision-making

Whether to initiate or to withhold Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) in children with severe developmental disability (DD) remains a topic of intense debate. The present study investigated the opinion of professionals on this difficult issue and proposed a checklist with guiding questions for decision-making. Clinicians affiliated to different organizations involved in pediatric nephrology worldwide were invited to respond to a web-based survey. This survey focused on the collection of demographic data of the respondents together with their opinion concerning the decision-making regarding RRT in a particular case and for children with severe DD in general. A total of 286 professionals responded to the survey. Sixty-six percent supported initiating RRT in the child of the case report, with pre-emptive transplantation being the preferred modality. Important arguments pro RRT initiation in children with severe DD in general were parental preference, decrease of suffering, and improvement of survival and quality of life. Important contraindications included low IQ, severe comorbidities, and inability of the patient to take medication or for the family to provide sufficient care.Conclusion: The present study presents an inventory on the opinions of health care professionals involved in RRT in children regarding the treatment of children with DD and assists in the decision-making process by identifying important medical and psychosocial arguments for initiating or withholding RRT in severe DD patients. What is Known: •Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) in children with severe developmental disability (DD) is a topic of intense debate. •Previous studies on the opinion of professionals mainly focused on the use of IQ as an argument in the decision-making whether or not starting RRT. What is New: •The present study investigated the opinion of professionals with regard to considering initiation or withholding RRT in children with severe DD and identified medical and psychosocial arguments playing a role in the decision-making process. •Based on these arguments, a checklist with guiding questions for decision-making is proposed.