Search

On November 24, 2017, US lung transplant policy replaced donor service area with 250-nautical-mile radius as the first unit of allocation. Understanding this policy's economic impact is important, because the United States is poised to adopt the broadest feasible geographic organ distribution. All lung transplant recipients from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, were included. Recipients before and after November 24, 2017 were in the donor service area-first and 250-nautical-mile donor service area-free periods, respectively. Travel time was estimated using a Google application; mode was assigned as flying when driving time was longer than 60 min. Travel costs were estimated by mode and distance. Travel distance and time for organ procurement increased under the policy change. The estimated proportion of organs traveling by air increased from 61% to 76%. Estimated average costs increased by $14 051 if travel mode changed to flying, resulting in an average increase of $1264 for all transplants. Travel costs were highest for candidates

Tens of thousands of patients with advanced lung diseases may be eligible to be considered as potential candidates for lung transplant around the world each year. The timing of referral, evaluation, determination of candidacy, and listing of candidates continues to pose challenges and even ethical dilemmas. To address these challenges, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation appointed an international group of members to review the literature, to consider recent advances in the management of advanced lung diseases, and to update prior consensus documents on the selection of lung transplant candidates. The purpose of this updated consensus document is to assist providers throughout the world who are caring for patients with pulmonary disease to identify potential candidates for lung transplant, to optimize the timing of the referral of these patients to lung transplant centers, and to provide transplant centers with a framework for evaluating and selecting candidates. In addition to addressing general considerations and providing disease specific recommendations for referral and listing, this updated consensus document includes an ethical framework, a recognition of the variability in acceptance of risk between transplant centers, and establishes a system to account for how a combination of risk factors may be taken into consideration in candidate selection for lung transplantation.

Efforts are underway to transition the current lung allocation system to a continuous distribution framework whereby multiple factors are simultaneously combined into a Composite Allocation Score (CAS) to prioritize candidates for lung transplant. The purpose of this study was to compare discrete CAS scenarios with the current concentric circle-based allocation system to assess their potential effects on the US lung transplantation system using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients' thoracic simulated allocation model. Six alternative CAS scenarios were compared over 10 simulation runs using data from individuals on the lung transplant waiting list from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019. Outcome measures were transplant rate, count, waitlist deaths, posttransplant deaths within 2 years, donor-to-recipient distance, and percentage of organs predicted to have flown. Across scenarios, waitlist deaths decreased by 36% to 47%, with larger decreases in deaths at lower placement efficiency weight and higher weighting of the waitlist outcomes. When waitlist outcomes were equally weighted to posttransplant outcomes, more transplants occurred in individuals with the highest expected posttransplant survival. All CAS scenarios led to improved overall measures of equity compared with the current Lung Allocation Score system, including reduced waitlist deaths, and resulted in similar posttransplant survival.

As broader geographic sharing is implemented in lung transplant allocation through the Composite Allocation Score (CAS) system, models predicting waitlist and posttransplantation survival will become more important in determining access to organs.How well do CAS survival models perform, and can discrimination performance be improved with alternative statistical models or machine learning approaches?Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data from 2015-2020 were used to build seven waitlist (WL) and data from 2010-2020 to build similar posttransplantation (PT) models. These included the (I) current lung allocation score (LAS)/CAS model; (II) re-estimated WL-LAS/CAS model; (III) model II incorporating nonlinear relationships; (IV) random survival forests model; (V) logistic model; (VI) linear discriminant analysis; and (VII) gradient-boosted tree model. Discrimination performance was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months on the WL and 1, 3, and 5 years posttransplantation. Area under the curve (AUC) values were estimated across subgroups.WL model performance was similar across models with the greatest discrimination in the baseline cohort (AUC 0.93) and declined to 0.87-0.89 for 3-month and 0.84-0.85 for 6-month predictions and further diminished for residual cohorts. Discrimination performance for PT models ranged from AUC 0.58-0.61 and remained stable with increasing forecasting times but was slightly worse for residual cohorts. WL and PT variability in AUC was greatest for individuals on Medicaid.Use of alternative modeling strategies and contemporary cohorts did not improve performance of models determining access to lung transplant.

ImportanceA recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study found that transplant outcomes varied greatly based on multiple factors, including race, ethnicity, and geographic location. They proposed a number of recommendations including studying opportunities to improve equity in organ allocation.ObjectiveTo evaluate the role of donor and recipient socioeconomic position and region as a mediator of observed racial and ethnic differences in posttransplant survival.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study included lung transplant donors and recipients with race and ethnicity information and a zip code tabulation area–defined area deprivation index (ADI) from September 1, 2011, to September 1, 2021, whose data were in the US transplant registry. Data were analyzed from June to December 2022.ExposuresRace, neighborhood disadvantage, and region of donors and recipients.Main Outcomes and MeasuresUnivariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression were used to study the association of donor and recipient race with ADI on posttransplant survival. Kaplan-Meier method estimation was performed by donor and recipient ADI. Generalized linear models by race were fit, and mediation analysis was performed. Bayesian conditional autoregressive Poisson rate models (1, state-level spatial random effects; 2, model 1 with fixed effects for race and ethnicity, 3; model 2 excluding region; and 4: model 1 with fixed effects for US region) were used to characterize variation in posttransplant mortality and compared using ratios of mortality rates to the national average.ResultsOverall, 19 504 lung transplant donors (median [IQR] age, 33 [23-46] years; 3117 [16.0%] Hispanic individuals, 3667 [18.8%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 11 935 [61.2%] non-Hispanic White individuals) and recipients (median [IQR] age, 60 [51-66] years; 1716 [8.8%] Hispanic individuals, 1861 [9.5%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 15 375 [78.8%] non-Hispanic White individuals) were included. ADI did not mediate the difference in posttransplant survival between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White recipients; it mediated only 4.1% of the survival difference between non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic recipients. Spatial analysis revealed the increased risk of posttransplant death among non-Hispanic Black recipients may be associated with region of residence.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of lung transplant donors and recipients, socioeconomic position and region of residence did not explain most of the difference in posttransplant outcomes among racial and ethnic groups, which may be due to the highly selected nature of the pretransplant population. Further research should evaluate other potentially mediating effects contributing to inequity in posttransplant survival.

More patients are waitlisted for solid organs than transplants are performed each year. The COVID-19 pandemic immediately increased waitlist mortality and decreased transplants and listings.To calculate the number of candidate listings after the pandemic began and short-term changes that may affect waiting time, we conducted a Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients surveillance study from January 1, 2012 to February 28, 2021.The number of candidates on the liver waitlist continued a steady decline that began before the pandemic. Numbers of candidates on the kidney, heart, and lung waitlists decreased dramatically. More than 3000 fewer candidates were awaiting a kidney transplant on March 7, 2021, than on March 8, 2020. Listings and removals decreased for each solid organ beginning in March 2020. The number of heart and lung listings returned to equal or above that of removals. Listings for kidney transplant, which is often less urgent than heart and lung transplant, remain below numbers of removals. Removals due to transplant decreased for all organs, while removals due to death increased for only kidneys.We found no evidence of the predicted surge in listings for solid organ transplant with a plateau or control of the pandemic.

The lung allocation score prioritizes candidates for a lung transplant in the United States. As the country adopts the continuous distribution framework for organ allocation, we must reevaluate lung allocation score assumptions to maximize transplant benefit.We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to study the impact of these changes: (1) updating cohorts; (2) transitioning from 1- to 5-year posttransplant survival; (3) using time-varying effects for non-proportional hazards; and (4) weighting waitlist and posttransplant area under the curve differently. Models were compared using Spearman correlations and C-statistics. The thoracic simulation allocation model characterized transplant rates and proportions of recipient subgroups under the current and new systems.Posttransplant areas under the curve models were estimated with recipients aged ≥12 from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. All models had similar C-statistics and Spearman correlations, indicating similar predictive performance and posttransplant area under the curve rankings. Five-year posttransplant area under the curve across age and diagnosis groups varied more than 1-year groups. Using the thoracic simulation allocation model, 1- and 5-year posttransplant model under the curve models showed similar transplant rates and recipient characteristics under the current system, but under continuous distribution, 5-year posttransplant area under the curve resulted in increased transplant rates with more recipients younger and in diagnosis groups B and C.Incorporating equally weighted waitlist and posttransplant models using 5-year posttransplant survival detected the largest variability in survival under the continuous distribution system, which could improve long-term survival in the United States.