NOA method - three dimensions in the governance of kidney transplantation: Need-Opportunity-Accessibility, how to engage them?

BACKGROUND: Despite all efforts, the demand for organs increases. New and better strategies are still needed, critical in a crisis like pandemics. METHODOLOGY: A mathematical approach that integrates need, Opportunity, and Accessibility to kidney transplantation, was created. NOA method, corresponds to the lateral surface area of a trigonal pyramid with the need, Opportunity, and Accessibility as axis, resulting in an intuitional chart output (NOA chart) and a percentage score (NOA score). Higher NOA scores are associated with larger NOA chart areas. METHOD APPLICATION: We found some natural variability among the European Member States regarding Need, Opportunity, and Accessibility to kidney transplantation, concomitant with NOA scores. In 2019, in the European Union, 129 patients pmp on the waiting list for a kidney transplant were registered, 47 kidneys pmp were procured, and 36 kidneys pmp were transplanted, corresponding to 25% of kidney transplantation's response capacity. CONCLUSION: Transplantation is frequently the better treatment for end-stage kidney failure. NOA method may be, in the future, an indicator for evaluating the overall transplantation performance regarding the need for it and a tool for policy definition. With NOA method we seek to contribute for: •A transplantation overall performance normalizing score;•Transplantation response capacity evaluation.

Data and optimisation requirements for Kidney Exchange Programs.

Kidney Exchange Programs (KEP) are valuable tools to increase the options of living donor kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease with an immunologically incompatible live donor. Maximising the benefits of a KEP requires an information system to manage data and to optimise transplants. The data input specifications of the systems that relate to key information on blood group and Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) types and HLA antibodies are crucial in order to maximise the number of identified matched pairs while minimising the risk of match failures due to unanticipated positive crossmatches. Based on a survey of eight national and one transnational kidney exchange program, we discuss data requirements for running a KEP. We note large variations in the data recorded by different KEPs, reflecting varying medical practices. Furthermore, we describe how the information system supports decision making throughout these kidney exchange programs.

Improving HLA matching in living donor kidney transplantation using kidney paired exchange program.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of compatible pairs within kidney paired exchange programs has been described as a way to enhance these programs. Improved immunological matching for the recipient in compatible pair has been described to be a possible benefit. METHODS: The main purpose of our study was to determine if the introduction of compatible pairs in the Portuguese kidney paired exchange program would result in a better match for these patients, but also to assess if this strategy would increase the number of incompatible pairs with a possible match. We included 17 compatible pairs in kidney paired exchange pool of 35 pairs and performed an in-silico simulation determining HLA eplet mismatch load between the co-registered and matched pairs using HLA MatchMaker, version 3.0. RESULTS: Our study showed that the inclusion of fully HLA-A, -B, -DR mismatched compatible pairs within the national Portuguese KEP increased matched rate within ICP (0.71%) and improved HLA eplet matching within compatible pairs. 16 of 17 (94.12%) of the CP obtained one or more transplants possibilities and 13 (81.25%) would have been transplanted with significantly lower HLA class I and class II total and antibody-verified eplet mismatch load (83.9 ± 16.9 vs. 59.8 ± 12.2, P = .002 and 30.1 ± 5.5 vs. 21.2 ± 3.0, P = .003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This strategy is a viable alternative for compatible pairs seeking a better matched kidney and Portuguese KEP program should allow them this possibility.

Donation after circulatory death today: an updated overview of the European landscape.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has become an accepted practice in many countries and remains a focus of intense interest in the transplant community. The present study is aimed at providing a description of the current situation of DCD in European countries. Specific questionnaires were developed to compile information on DCD practices, activities and post-transplant outcomes. Thirty-five countries completed the survey. DCD is practiced in 18 countries: eight have both controlled DCD (cDCD) and uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs, 4 only cDCD and 6 only uDCD. All these countries have legally binding and/or nonbinding texts to regulate the practice of DCD. The no-touch period ranges from 5 to 30 min. There are variations in ante and post mortem interventions used for the practice of cDCD. During 2008-2016, the highest DCD activity was described in the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Data on post-transplant outcomes of patients who receive DCD donor kidneys show better results with grafts obtained from cDCD versus uDCD donors. In conclusion, DCD is becoming increasingly accepted and performed in Europe, importantly contributing to the number of organs available and providing acceptable post-transplantation outcomes.

Building Kidney Exchange Programmes in Europe-An Overview of Exchange Practice and Activities.

BACKGROUND: Considerable differences exist among the living donor Kidney Exchange Programmes (KEPs) that are in use and being built in Europe, contributing to a variation in the number of living donor transplants (Newsletter Transplant; International figures on donation and transplantation 2016). Efforts of European KEPs to exchange (best) practices and share approaches to address challenges have, however, been limited. METHODS: Experts from 23 European countries, collaborating on the European Network for Collaboration on Kidney Exchange Programmes Cooperation on Science and Technology Action, developed a questionnaire to collect detailed information on the functioning of all existing KEPs in Europe, as well as their opportunities and challenges. Following a comparative analysis, results were synthesized and interpreted by the same experts. RESULTS: The practices, opportunities and challenges reported by 17 European countries reveal that some of the 10 operating programs are mature, whereas others are in earlier stages of development. Over 1300 transplants were performed through existing KEPs up to the end of 2016, providing approximately 8% of their countries' living kidney donations in 2015. All countries report challenges to either initiating KEPs or increasing volumes. Some challenges are shared, whereas others differ because of differences in context (eg, country size, effectiveness of deceased donor program) and ethical and legal considerations (eg, regarding living donation as such, nonrelated donors, and altruistic donation). Transnational initiatives have started in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and Southern Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Exchange of best practices and shared advancement of national programs to address existing challenges, aided by transnational exchanges, may substantially improve access to the most (cost) effective treatment for the increasing number of patients suffering from kidney disease.