Utilization of Public Health Service Increased Risk Donors Yields Equivalent Outcomes in Liver Transplantation

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.

Implications of drug intoxication on donor utilization and outcomes in liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the implications of drug intoxication (DI) on donor utilization and outcomes in liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

The UNOS STAR database was evaluated for all potential donors and adult, first-time, whole LT between 2005 and 2019. Logistic regression analyses evaluated liver utilization; proportional hazards modeling assessed risk of 1-year graft loss.

RESULTS

A total of 132 783 potential donors (10 205, 7.7% from DI), and 90 612 adult LT were identified (7490, 8.3% from DI). DI donors had median age 32 years (IQR 26-40 years, p < .001), were 42.6% female (n = 4346), and 15.5% were DCD donors (n = 1583). Utilization of DI donors changed over time, such that by 2015-2019 they were the most likely donor cause of death (COD) to be utilized. Among LT recipients, there were insignificant differences (<2% variance) in age, gender, ethnicity, and etiology of liver disease according to donor COD. Recipients with MELD scores >30 more frequently received grafts from donors with trauma (23.8%) and DI (21.8%) versus cardiovascular (20.0%) and CVA/stroke (19.9%, p < .001). Among DBD donors, DI-COD was associated with superior 1-year graft survival compared to donors from trauma (HR 1.172, 95% CI 1.057-1.300) and CVA/stroke (HR 1.404, 95% CI 1.264-1.561, p < .001). Donor COD was not significantly associated with 1-year graft loss among DCD donors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increased likelihood of donor utilization when COD is drug overdose and an increased likelihood of 1-year graft survival compared to donors from trauma, CVA/stroke, and other COD.

Liver transplantation from active COVID-19 donors: is it ethically justifiable?

The debate on the opportunity to use organs from donors testing positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) in recipients with naïve resolved or active COVID‐19 is ongoing. We aim to present the ethical analyses underlying the decision to perform liver transplantation (LT) in selected patients with resolved or active COVID‐19 in Italy. We used Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade's Four‐Boxes casuistic method, addressing the four topics considered as constitutive of the essential structure of single clinical cases for their ethical analysis (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, and contextual features) to enable decision‐making on a case‐by‐case basis. Based on these topics, we elucidate the meaning and balance among the principles of biomedical ethics. Clinical ethics judgment based on the relation between the risk of acquiring SARS‐CoV‐2 along with its potentially negative effects and the expected benefits of transplant lead to consider LT as clinically appropriate. Shared decision‐making allows the integration of clinical options with the patient's subjective preferences and considerations, enabling a valid informed consent specifically tailored to the patients’ individual circumstances. The inclusion of carefully selected SARS‐CoV‐2 positive donors represents an opportunity to offer lifesaving LT to patients who might otherwise have limited opportunities to receive one. COVID‐19 positive donor livers are fairly allocated among equals, and respect for fundamental rights of the individual and the broader community in a context of healthcare rationing is guaranteed.The ethical analysis of the decision to perform LT in selected patients shows that the decision is ethically justifiable.

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.

Utilization of HCV viremic donors in kidney transplantation: a chance or a threat?

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in end-stage renal disease. The main issue which does not allow to utilize it fully is the number of organs available for transplant. Introduction of highly effective oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) to the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) enabled transplantation of HCV viremic organs to naive recipients. Despite an increasing number of reports on the satisfying effects of using HCV viremic organs, including kidneys, they are more often rejected than those from HCV negative donors. The main reason is the presence of HCV viremia and not the quality of the organ. The current state of knowledge points to the fact that a kidney transplant from an HCV nucleic acid testing positive (NAT+) donor to naive recipients is an effective and safe solution to the problem of the insufficient number of organs available for transplantation. It does not, however, allow to draw conclusions as to the long-term consequence of such an approach. This review analyzes the possibilities and limitations of the usage of HCV NAT + donor organs. Abbreviations: DAA: direct-acting antivirals; HCV: hepatitis C virus; NAT: nucleic acid testing; OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network; KDIGO: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes; Ab: antigen; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; D: donor; R: recipient; CMV: cytomegalovirus; HBV: hepatitis B virus; UNOS: United Network for Organ Sharing; PHS: Public Health Service; EBR/GZR: elbasvir/grazoprevir; SVR: sustained virologic response; RAS: resistance-associated substitutions; SOF: soforbuvir; GLE/PIB: glecaprevir/pibrentasvir; ACR: acute cellular rejection; AR: acute rejection; DSA: donor-specific antibodies; KTR: kidney transplant recipients; AASLD: American Association for the Study of Liver Disease; IDSA: Infectious Diseases Society of America; PPI: proton pump inhibitors; CKD: chronic kidney disease; GN: glomerulonephritis; KAS: The Kidney Allocation system.

The 3-T Model of Informed Consent for Nonstandard Risk Donors: A Proposal for Transplant Clinical Practice

Background

The risk of disease transmission from nonstandard risk donors (NSRDs) is low, and outcomes are similar or better relative to transplants performed with standard criteria donors. However, NSRDs have posed new ethical challenges to the informed consent (IC) process. Based on the shared decision-making model, coinciding with the 3 main timings of the IC process ([1] pretransplant assessments and waiting list registration, [2] time on the waiting list, and [3] time of the organ offer), we put forward a model (3-T Model) to summarize the knowledge on IC for NSRDs and to deliver conceptual and practical support to transplant providers on this emergent issue.

Methods

We searched PubMed and analyzed data from our area to provide evidence and ethical arguments to promote standardization of the timing of patient information, degree of patient participation, and disclosure of donor risk factors throughout the 3 stages of the time continuum leading to the potential acceptance of NSRDs.

Results

Each of the 3 timings carries special ethical significance and entails well-defined duties for transplant providers relative to patient involvement and information of the benefits and risks associated with NSRDs. Based on our framework, experience, and interpretation of the literature, we put forward a list of recommendations to combine standardization (ie, timing, content, and degree of patient participation) and individualization of IC.

Conclusions

The 3-T Model may enable the prevention of physicians' arbitrariness and the promotion of patient-centered care. Future studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-T Model in transplant clinical practice.

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.

The impact of public health service increased risk donors in pediatric liver transplantation

Many transplant programs are reluctant to use organs from deceased donors designated as "PHS increased risk" due to misconceptions regarding the quality of those organs. This study evaluated the impact of PHS increased risk donors on patient and allograft survival in pediatric patients undergoing liver transplantation. Retrospective analysis of the UNOS database from January 2005 through September 2017 revealed 5615 pediatric patients who underwent isolated liver transplantation; of these, 5057 patients received primary isolated liver transplants and 558 patients received isolated liver retransplants. PHS increased risk organs were used in 6.7% and 5.4% of the children receiving primary isolated and retransplant livers, respectively. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for donor and recipient characteristics determined the relative risk of PHS status on allograft and patient survival. Sicker children (those in ICU [P < .001] and on life support [P = .04]) were more likely to receive PHS increased risk donor organs. There were no differences in overall patient (P = .61) or allograft (P = .68) survival between pediatric patients receiving PHS positive vs PHS negative deceased donor organs; adjusted models also demonstrated no statistically significant differences in patient or allograft survival. Excellent patient and allograft survival can be accomplished with PHS increased risk organs.

Using machine learning to estimate survival curves for patients receiving an increased risk for disease transmission heart, liver, or lung versus waiting for a standard organ

Introduction

Over 19% of deceased organ donors are labeled increased risk for disease transmission (IRD) for viral blood‐borne disease transmission. Many potential organ recipients need to decide between accepting an IRD organ offer and waiting for a non–IRD organ.

Methods

Using machine learning and simulation, we built transplant and waitlist survival models and compared the survival for patients accepting IRD organ offers or waiting for non–IRD organs for the heart, liver, and lung. The simulation consisted of generating 20 000 different scenarios of a recipient either receiving an IRD organ or waiting and receiving a non–IRD organ.

Results

In the simulations, the 5‐year survival probabilities of heart, liver, and lung recipients who accepted IRD organ offers increased on average by 10.2%, 12.7%, and 7.2%, respectively, compared with receiving a non–IRD organ after average wait times (190, 228, and 223 days, respectively). When the estimated waitlist time was at least 5 days for the liver, and 1 day for the heart and lung, 50% or more of the simulations resulted in a higher chance of 5‐year survival when the patient received an IRD organ versus when the patient remained on the waitlist. We also developed a simple equation to estimate the benefits, in terms of 5‐year survival probabilities, of receiving an IRD organ versus waiting for a non–IRD organ, for a particular set of recipient/donor characteristics.

Conclusion

For all three organs, the majority of patients are predicted to have higher 5‐year survival accepting an IRD organ offer compared with waiting for a non–IRD organ.

Hepatitis B and C virus infections transmitted through organ transplantation investigated by CDC, United States, 2014-2017

We evaluated clinical outcomes among organ recipients with donor-derived hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections investigated by CDC from 2014 to 2017 in the United States. We characterized new HBV infections in organ recipients if donors tested negative for total anti-HBc, HBsAg and HBV DNA, and new recipient HCV infections if donors tested negative for anti-HCV and HCV RNA. Donor risk behaviors were abstracted from next-of-kin interviews and medical records. During 2014-2017, seven new recipient HBV infections associated with seven donors were identified; six (86%) recipients survived. At last follow-up, all survivors had functioning grafts and five (83%) had started antiviral therapy. Twenty new recipient HCV infections associated with nine donors were identified; 19 (95%) recipients survived. At last follow-up, 18 (95%) survivors had functioning grafts and 14 (74%) had started antiviral treatment. Combining donor next-of kin interviews and medical records, 11/16 (69%) donors had evidence of injection drug use and all met Public Health Service increased risk donor (IRD) criteria. IRD designation led to early diagnosis of recipient infection, and prompt implementation of therapy, likely reducing the risk of graft failure, liver disease, and death.

Attitudes of Liver Transplant Candidates Toward Organs From Increased-Risk Donors

Increased-risk donor (IRD) organs make up a significant proportion of the deceased organ donor pool but may be declined by patients on the waiting list for various reasons. We conducted a survey of patients awaiting a liver transplant to determine the factors leading to the acceptance of an IRD organ as well as what strategies could increase the rate of acceptance. Adult liver transplant candidates who were outpatients completed a survey of 51 questions on a 5-point Likert scale with categories related to demographics, knowledge of IRDs, and likelihood of acceptance. A total of 150 transplant candidates completed the survey (age 19-80 years). Male patients constituted 67.3%. Many patients (58.7%) had postsecondary education. Only 23.3% of patients had a potential living donor, and 58/144 (40.3%) were not optimistic about receiving an organ in the next 3 months. The overall IRD organ acceptance rate was 41.1%, whereas 26.2% said they would decline an IRD organ. Women were more likely to accept an IRD organ (54.3% versus 34.7%; P = 0.02). Those who had a college education or higher tended to have lower IRD organ acceptability (28.3% versus 47.4%; P = 0.07). Acceptability also increased as the specified transmission risk of human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C virus decreased (P < 0.001). Patients were also more likely to accept an IRD organ if they were educated on the benefits of IRD organs (eg, knowledge that an IRD organ was of better quality increased overall acceptance from 41.1% to 63.3%; P < 0.001). Our survey provides insight into liver transplant candidates who would benefit from greater education on IRD organs. Strategies targeting specific educational points are likely to increase acceptability.

Variability in acceptance of organ offers by pediatric transplant centers and its impact on wait-list mortality

Recent data have suggested that pediatric patients wait-listed for a liver transplantation frequently have liver offers declined. However, factors associated with liver offer decisions and center-level variability in practice patterns have not been explored. We evaluated United Network for Organ Sharing data on all match runs from May 1, 2007 to December 31, 2015 in which the liver was offered to ≥1 pediatric patient; the transplant recipient was ranked in the first 40 positions for the organ offer; and the donor was brain-dead and <50 years of age. We used multilevel mixed effects models to evaluate factors associated with organ offer acceptance, among-center variability, and the association between center-level acceptance and wait-list mortality. There were 4088 unique pediatric patients during the study period, comprising 27,094 match runs. Initial Model for End-Stage Liver Disease or Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease score, history of exception points, recipient region, rank on match run, and geographic share type were all associated with probability of offer acceptance. There was significant among-center variation (P < 0.001) in adjusted liver offer acceptance rates, accounting for donor, recipient, and match-related factors (adjusted acceptance rates: median, 8.9%; range, 5.1%-14.6%). Center-level acceptance rates were associated with wait-list mortality, with a >10% increase in the risk of wait-list mortality for every 1% decrease in a center's adjusted liver offer acceptance rate (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19). In conclusion, there is significant among-center variability in liver offer acceptance rates for pediatric patients that is not explained by donor and recipient factors. A center's liver acceptance behavior significantly impacts whether a pediatric patient will be transplanted or die on the waiting list. Liver Transplantation 24 803-809 2018 AASLD.

What are the outcomes of declining a public health service increased risk liver donor for patients on the liver transplant waiting list?

The tragedy of the national opioid epidemic has resulted in a significant increase in the number of opioid-related deaths and accordingly an increase in the number of potential donors designated Public Health Service (PHS) increased risk. Previous studies have demonstrated reluctance to use these PHS organs, and as a result, higher discard rates for these organs have been observed. All patients listed for liver transplantation in the United States from January 2005 to December 2016 were investigated. Patients on the waiting list were divided into 2 groups: those in which a PHS liver was used for transplantation (accepted PHS group) and those in which a PHS liver was declined and transplanted into a recipient lower on the match run (declined PHS group). Intention-to-treat patient survival from the time of PHS offer was significantly higher in the accepted PHS compared with the declined PHS group (P < 0.001). On Cox multivariate regression, declining a PHS donor liver was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.36 (95% confidence interval, 2.23-2.49; P < 0.001). For patients in which a PHS organ offer was declined, 11.6% died or were delisted for being too sick within the subsequent year. Donor liver allografts implanted in the accepted PHS group were of a lower donor risk index (1.28 versus 1.44) compared with the non-PHS organs that patients in the declined PHS group ultimately received if they underwent transplantation. In conclusion, there is a significantly higher survival for patients in which a PHS liver is accepted and used compared with those patients in which a PHS organ is declined. These data will help inform decisions about whether or not to accept a PHS donor liver for both patients and transplant professionals. Liver Transplantation 24 497-504 2018 AASLD.