BMJ  2006;332:1105-1106 (13 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.38833.785984.47 (published 27 April 2006)

Editorial

Kidneys for transplant

Radical changes should mean we get more of them, better allocated

At the end of 2004, 5299 patients in the United Kingdom were waiting for kidneys from deceased donors, and during that year 1427 transplants from dead donors and 463 from living donors were performed.¹ The gap between supply and demand for kidney transplants continues to increase, but several important initiatives are under way to attempt to increase the total number of kidneys available and also to change the way donated organs are allocated.

Several centres are now retrieving organs from non-heart beating donors as well as conventional brain dead donors. These organs come from patients who have a cardiac arrest and cannot be resuscitated, whose kidneys are flushed with a cold preserving solution so that the kidneys can then be removed before irreversible damage occurs. With careful selection of donors and appropriate infrastructure these kidneys have been shown to perform as well as kidneys from brain dead donors.²

The drive to increase the number of kidney transplants from living donors has also been successful: the total number of living donor kidney transplants in the UK has increased by 33%, from 347 in 2000 to 463 in 2004.³ However, many potential living donor transplants cannot proceed because of incompatible donor and recipient blood groups or preformed anti-HLA antibodies with donor specificity in the recipient. A change in the law may help ease this problem.

Later this year the new Human Tissue Act (www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2004/2004en30.htm) and the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act will allow the donor kidneys from two such immunologically incompatible potential living donor and recipient pairs to be interchanged to create two compatible pairs. The acts will also allow non-directed donations from so called altruistic donors—that is, a kidney donated by a healthy person without them being told who the recipient will be. UK Transplant, which coordinates the matching of donated organs and recipients, is exploring how best to facilitate these new types of donation, but experiences from other countries are encouraging.⁴

The shortage of organs has highlighted inequities in access to deceased donor kidneys, and after prolonged controversy the national kidney allocation scheme administered by UK Transplant has changed from this April. The main changes, hammered out by representatives of patients and professional groups, are radical but represent a fairer deal for patients in that they take more account of waiting time and less of tissue type matching. The scheme continues to take into account many factors relating to the donated kidney and potential recipients using complex computerised simulations designed to balance equity of access and utility of transplanted kidneys.

The background to the changes includes evidence of variation in access to kidneys and recent improvements in immunosuppression.⁵ UK Transplant data reveal considerable variation in the proportion of dialysis patients put on waiting lists for transplantation in different parts of the country.⁶ Time from starting dialysis to going on the waiting list also varies between centres.⁷ Finally, the old UK Transplant allocation system, with its emphasis on tissue type matching, resulted in huge variations in waiting times for those patients listed, such that patients not yet on dialysis were often given a transplant in preference to those who had been on dialysis for 10 years or more.⁸ In all these situations patients from ethnic minorities were particularly disadvantaged,⁹ partly because of their increased prevalence of rare blood groups and tissue types.

Recent data also show that, probably because of more potent immunosuppressant drugs, tissue type matching has a much smaller effect on the long term outcome of kidney transplantation.⁵ While still important for large groups of patients, the effect for an individual is much less important than it used to be.¹⁰ At the same time renal transplantation has been recognised to improve survival as well as quality of life compared with remaining on dialysis: patients on waiting lists are 2-3 times more likely to die than those allocated kidneys.¹¹

In the past, when the allocation system was debated some parties argued that patients favoured the status quo to optimise the use of available donor organs. Yet this seemed contrary to the impression held by many clinicians looking after patients with established renal failure. Indeed a recent study showed clearly that patients on dialysis and undergoing transplants consider waiting time to be very important.¹²

The debate surrounding organ allocation is a good example of how patients may be involved in decisions about rationing in health care. Although the organ allocation organisation in America (OPTN/UNOS) has patient representation, it is cautious about the role patients should have in deciding allocation policy,¹³ and the need to consider patients' opinion is not included in the summary mission statement of the European transplant kidney allocation organisation (EKTAS), published this year.¹⁴ The discussions following the death of the footballer George Best (who underwent a liver transplant) show that organ allocation is of interest not only to specialists but also to doctors generally and the general public. Resolving the conflicting demands of equity and making best use of a scarce resource is indeed complex but must include obtaining the wishes of patients.

Renal Unit, Western Infirmary, Glasgow G11 6NT
(colin.geddes.wg{at}northglasgow.scot.nhs.uk)

Renal Unit, Western Infirmary, Glasgow G11 6NT

---

Competing interests: None declared.

This article was posted on bmj.com on 27 April 2006: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi=10.1136/bmj.38833.785984.47

See also p 1124

References

1. UK Transplant. Transplant Update 2004. www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/statistics/latest_statistics/pdf/yearly_stats_for_2004.pdf (accessed 12 Feb 2006).
2. Cho YW, Terasaki PI, Cecka JM, Gjertson DW. Transplantation of kidneys from donors whose hearts have stopped beating. N Engl J Med 1998;338: 221-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. UK Transplant. Activity Reports 2001 and 2005. www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/statistics/ (accessed 12 Feb 2006).
4. De Klerk M, Keizer KM, Claas FHJ, Witvliet M, Haase-Kromwijk BJJM, Weimar W. The Dutch national living donor kidney exchange program. Am. J Transplant 2005;5: 2302-5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. Su X, Zenios SA, Chakkera H, Milford EL, Chertow GM. Diminishing significance of HLA matching in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005;4: 1501-8.
6. UK Transplant. Centre specific reports 2005. www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/statistics/centre-specific_reports/centre-specific_reports.jsp (accessed 12 Feb 2006).
7. Oniscu GC, Schalkwijk AAH, Johnson RJ, Brown H, Forsythe JLR. Equity of access to renal transplant waiting list and renal transplantation in Scotland: cohort study. BMJ 2003;327: 1261.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Sibanda N, Johnson RJ, Powis SH on behalf of the UK Trasnplant Kidney and Pancreas Advisory Group Access to Transplantation Task Force. Multifactorial modeling of waiting time to kidney transplant. www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/statistics/presentations/pdfs/april_05/waiting_time_analyisis.pdf (accessed 12 Feb 2006).
9. Rudge CJ, Johnson RJ, O'Neill J, Fuggle SV, Forsythe JLR. Renal transplantation for patients from ethnic minorities [abstract] www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/statistics/presentations/pdfs/ethnicity.pdf (accessed 12 Feb 2006).
10. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Kidney Kaplan-Meier graft survival rates for transplants performed 1995-2002. www.optn.org/latestData/rptStrat.asp (Accessed 12 Feb 2006).
11. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999;341: 1725-30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Geddes CC, Rodger RSC, Smith C, Ganai A. Allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation: opinions of patients with CKD. Am J Kid Dis 2005;46: 949-56.[Medline]
13. Seagall MD. The development of kidney allocation policy. Am J Kid Dis 2005;46: 974-5.[Medline]
14. Mayer G, Persijn GG. Eurotransplant kidney allocation system (ETKAS): rationale and implementation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006.21: 2-3.[Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Potential for organ donation in the United Kingdom: audit of intensive care records

Kerri Barber, Sue Falvey, Claire Hamilton, Dave Collett, and Chris Rudge
BMJ 2006 332: 1124-1127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Equity of access to renal transplant waiting list and renal transplantation in Scotland: cohort study

Gabriel C Oniscu, Annemarie A H Schalkwijk, Rachel J Johnson, Helen Brown, and John L R Forsythe
BMJ 2003 327: 1261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Kidneys for transplant : NOT from the "brain dead", please

David W Evans
bmj.com, 1 May 2006 [Full text]

Kidneys for transplant: More but not all.

Christopher S Hourigan
bmj.com, 5 May 2006 [Full text]

Kidney Donation and Harm to the Donor

Michael Potts
bmj.com, 13 May 2006 [Full text]

Donation of Organs by Ethnic Minorities

Maqsood A Noorani
bmj.com, 27 Jun 2006 [Full text]

Bad Drafting Makes Bone Marrow Donations unlawful

Alasdair R Maclean
bmj.com, 29 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>