Caregiver COVID-19 vaccination for solid organ transplant candidates.

An increasing proportion of transplant centers have implemented a mandate for vaccination against COVID-19 for solid organ transplant candidates. There has been comparatively little exploration of the ethical considerations of mandating vaccination of a candidate's primary caregiver, despite a high risk of transmission given the close nature of contact between the candidate and caregiver. We examine how a caregiver mandate can improve overall utility in organ allocation, particularly in circumstances where vaccine effectiveness at preventing transmission and serious disease is low among recipients but high in caregivers. Our analysis reveals how sensitive such mandates must be to the evolving circumstances of disease severity, transmissibility, and vaccine effectiveness: as the facts change, the degree of benefit gained and therefore the degree of infringement on access to transplant and caregiver choice that is tolerated will likewise change.

COVID-19 and transplantation-Data censoring.

During the early wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) designated a "black out" period between March 12, 2020, and June 12, 2020, for transplant outcomes reporting. We discuss the implications and potential bias it has introduced as it may selectively favor the outcomes for certain regions and harm other regions due to varied effects of different waves of COVID-19 infections across the United States.

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

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

Mandating COVID-19 vaccination prior to kidney transplantation in the United States: No solutions, only decisions.

The question of whether transplant clinicians should mandate COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of transplant candidacy is complex. A vaccine mandate may be defensible on the grounds that transplant clinicians are obligated to ensure transplantation is conducted safely, and in a manner that entails the best use of a scarce public good. However, mandate proponents will inexorably predicate their arguments on contingent clinical judgments that meliorate rather than resolve core value disagreements. Vaccine mandates are conceivably defensible on narrow grounds, but may prove to be purchased at the expense of an attenuation of shared decision-making, proffering claims of risk reduction from a vaccine mandate beyond what the current evidence base supports, and unintentionally exacerbating durable inequities in access to transplantation.

Ethical review of COVID-19 vaccination requirements for transplant center staff and patients.

Transplant centers seeking to increase coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine coverage may consider requiring vaccination for healthcare workers or for candidates. The authors summarize current data to inform an ethical analysis of the harms, benefits, and individual and societal impact of mandatory vaccination, concluding that vaccine requirements for healthcare workers and transplant candidates are ethically justified by beneficence, net utility, and fiduciary duty to patients and public health. Implementation strategies should mitigate concerns about respect for autonomy and transparency for both groups. We clarify how the same arguments might be applied to related questions of caregiver vaccination, allocation of other healthcare resources, and mandates for non-COVID-19 vaccines. Finally, we call for effort to achieve global equity in vaccination as soon as possible.

Liver transplantation from active COVID-19 donors: A lifesaving opportunity worth grasping?

COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted transplantation landscape. Scientific societies recommend against the use of donors with active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Italian Transplant Authority recommended to test recipients/donors for SARS-CoV-2-RNA immediately before liver transplant (LT) and, starting from November 2020, grafts from deceased donors with active SARS-CoV-2 infection were allowed to be considered for urgent-need transplant candidates with active/resolved COVID-19. We present the results of the first 10 LTs with active COVID-19 donors within an Italian multicenter series. Only two recipients had a positive molecular test at LT and one of them remained positive up to 21 days post-LT. None of the other eight recipients was found to be SARS-CoV-2 positive during follow-up. IgG against SARS-CoV-2 at LT were positive in 80% (8/10) of recipients, and 71% (5/7) showed neutralizing antibodies, expression of protective immunity related to recent COVID-19. In addition, testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on donors' liver biopsy at transplantation was negative in 100% (9/9), suggesting a very low risk of transmission with LT. Immunosuppression regimen remained unchanged, according to standard protocol. Despite the small number of cases, these data suggest that transplanting livers from donors with active COVID-19 in informed candidates with SARS-CoV-2 immunity, might contribute to safely increase the donor pool.

Transplant trends in Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic: Disparities within healthcare sectors.

Healthcare systems worldwide were challenged during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Mexico, the public hospitals that perform most transplants were adapted to provide care for COVID-19 patients. Using a nationwide database, we describe the first report of the impact of COVID-19 and related transplantation healthcare policies in a middle-income country by comparing statistics before and during the pandemic (pre-COVID: March 2019-February 2020 vs. COVID era: March 2020-February 2021) and by type of institution (public vs. private). The global reduction in transplantation was higher in public institutions compared with private institutions, 89% versus 62%, respectively, p < .001. When analyzing by organ, kidney transplantation decreased by 89% at public versus 57% at private, p < .001; cornea by 88% at public versus 64% at private, p < .001; liver by 88% at public versus 35% at private, p < .001; and heart by 88% in public versus 67% at private institutions, p = .4. The COVID-19 pandemic along with the implemented health policies were associated with a decrease in donations, waiting list additions, and a decrease in transplantation, particularly at public institutions, which care for the most vulnerable.

Navigating the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial impacts and responses of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States.

COVID-19 has been sweeping the globe, hitting the United States particularly hard with a state of emergency declared on March 13, 2020. Transplant hospitals have taken various precautions to protect patients from potential exposure. OPTN donor, candidate, and transplant data were analyzed from January 5, 2020 to September 5, 2020. The number of new waiting list registrations decreased, with the Northeast seeing over a 50% decrease from the week of 3/8 versus the week of 4/5. The national transplant system saw near cessation of living donor transplantation (-90%) from the week of 3/8 to the week of 4/5. Similarly, deceased donor kidney transplant volume dropped from 367 to 202 (-45%), and other organs saw similar decreases: lung (-70%), heart (-43%), and liver (-37%). Deceased donors recovered dropped from 260 to 163 (-45%) from 3/8 compared to 4/5, including a 67% decrease for lungs recovered. The magnitude of this decrease varied by geographic area, with the largest percent change (-67%) in the Northeast. Despite the pandemic, discard rates across organ has remained stable. Although the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, OPTN data show recent evidence of stabilization, an indication that an early recovery of the number of living and deceased donors and transplants has ensued.

Coronavirus disease 2019: Utilizing an ethical framework for rationing absolutely scarce health-care resources in transplant allocation decisions.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is impacting transplant programs around the world, and, as the center of the pandemic shifts to the United States, we have to prepare to make decisions about which patients to transplant during times of constrained resources. In this paper, we discuss how to transition from the traditional justice versus utility consideration in organ allocation to a more nuanced allocation scheme based on ethical values that drive decisions in times of absolute scarcity. We recognize that many decisions are made based on the practical limitations that transplant programs face, especially at the extremes. As programs make the transition from a standard approach to a resource-constrained approach to transplantation, we utilize a framework for ethical decisions in settings of absolutely scarce resources to help guide programs in deciding which patients to transplant, which donors to accept, how to minimize risk, and how to ensure the best utilization of transplant team members.

Use of SARS-CoV-2-infected deceased organ donors: Should we always "just say no?"

In the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, multiple organizations have released guidelines stating that all organs from potential deceased donors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection should be deferred, including from otherwise medically eligible donors found to have mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 discovered on routine donor screening. In this article, we critically examine the available data on the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through organ transplantation. The isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from nonlung clinical specimens, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in autopsy specimens, previous experience with the related coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and the vast experience with other common RNA respiratory viruses are all addressed. Taken together, these data provide little evidence to suggest the presence of intact transmissible SARS-CoV in organs that can potentially be transplanted, specifically liver and heart. Other considerations including ethical, financial, societal, and logistical concerns are also addressed. We conclude that, for selected patients with high waitlist mortality, transplant programs should consider accepting heart or liver transplants from deceased donors with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Utilization of deceased donors during a pandemic: argument against using SARS-CoV-2-positive donors.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly become an unprecedented pandemic that has impacted society, disrupted hospital functions, strained health care resources, and impacted the lives of transplant professionals. Despite this, organ failure and the need for transplant continues throughout the United States. Considering the perpetual scarcity of deceased donor organs, Kates et al present a viewpoint that advocates for the utilization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive donors in selected cases. We present a review of the current literature that details the potential negative consequences of COVID-19-positive donors. The factors we consider include (1) the risk of blood transmission of SARS-CoV-2, (2) involvement of donor organs, (3) lack of effective therapies, (4) exposure of health care and recovery teams, (5) disease transmission and propagation, and (6) hospital resource utilization. While we acknowledge that transplant fulfills the mission of saving lives, it is imperative to consider the consequences not only to our recipients but also to the community and to health care workers, particularly in the absence of effective preventative or curative therapies. For these reasons, we believe the evidence and risks show that COVID-19 infection should continue to remain a contraindication for donation, as has been the initial response of donation and transplant societies.