Liver transplantation in patients with a history of migration-A German single center comparative analysis.

Liver transplant (LT) programs in Germany increasingly face a multiethnic patient population. To date no outcome data for LT in patients with a history of migration is available for Germany. This complicates decision-making before wait-listing such patients. We conducted a single-center cohort analysis of all primary LT between April 2007 and December 2015, stratified for the history of migration to investigate differences in the outcome. We found transplant rates resembling the proportion of persons with a history of migration in the general public in the region of our center. Differences were found concerning age at LT and prevalence of underlying diseases. Re-Transplant rates, Kaplan-Meier Estimates for overall survival, also after stratification for viral hepatitis, sex, ethnicity or presence of a language-barrier showed no statistical differences. The multivariate analysis showed no migration-related covariate associated with a negative outcome. These results stand in contrast to most of the previous evidence from North America and the UK and need to be taken into consideration during the wait-listing process of patients with a history of migration in need of a LT in centers in the Eurotransplant region.

Introduction

Persons with a history of migration are at higher risk of poverty and social exclusion, and there is evidence that they sometimes do not receive the care that best responds to their needs [1, 2]. As the population of central Europe increasingly develops in to a multi ethnic society with a strong influx of immigration, mostly from economically less developed countries, liver-transplant programs increasingly are confronted with immigrants in potential need of a liver transplant (LT) [3].

Besides the medical urgency, the chances for the long-term success of a LT have to be taken into consideration before placing the individual patient on the waiting list. The MELD score is an objective surrogate parameter for the medical urgency [4] whereas the assessment of the chances for long-term success has to be performed individually, based partly on evidence and mostly on the subjective expertise of the transplant specialists responsible for listing.

Evidence from North America shows that social, ethnic and economic factors can influence the outcome after solid organ transplantation [5-7]. In Europe, data on this subject is rather scarce, and the few studies with comparable objectives mostly examined kidney transplantation and came either from the UK, the Netherlands or Hungary [8-13]. Only one study from the UK from 1993 examined a history of migration as an outcome-relevant factor after liver transplantation and found inferior results in non-European immigrants [14].

As demographics and the ethnic composition of immigrant and minority populations in central Europe differ from the UK and North America and health care systems and social welfare programs vary significantly [4], conclusions from the presently available literature cannot be extrapolated for the German situation.

To provide evidence as support for the difficult process of evaluating the chances of long-term success of LT in patients with a history of migration we conducted a comparative analysis of liver transplant recipients with a history of migration at our center. We also searched for factors that could explain differences in outcomes and could be modified to improve care for this possibly disadvantaged population.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the prospective LT database of our center. We only included primary LT performed from April 2007 until December 2015. Patients who received a liver re-transplantation (reLT) for chronic allograft failure of an allograft transplanted before the studied period were excluded from the analysis. Also pediatric LT below the age of 14 years were excluded.

Included patients were assigned with a categorized migration status as defined by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) [15], Germany’s federal institute for disease-control and prevention: Patients with German citizenship who were born in Germany but have migrated parents were assigned to Group One. Patients with German citizenship who were born outside of Germany were assigned to Group Two. Patients who were born with German citizenship outside of Germany and migrated after birth (mostly resettlers of German descent from former enclaves in the former USSR) were assigned to Group Three. Patients with dual citizenship status, who were born in Germany with at least one parent who migrated to the country were assigned to Group Four. Patients with dual citizenship who were born abroad and immigrated after birth were assigned to Group Five. Patients with non-German citizenship and a registered residence in Germany were assigned to Group Six. Patients who immigrated to Germany with a limited residence authorization (including asylum-seekers and refugees) were assigned to Group Seven. Patients without a legal residence authorization were assigned to Group Eight. Patients who received the transplant during a tourist visit were assigned to Group Nine. Patients whose immigration status could not be identified were assigned to Group Ten.

Parameters of interest

We analyzed overall survival as primary outcome parameter. Age at transplantation, indications and MELD scores at time of LT were included in the analysis. ReLT was categorized as re-LT for primary allograft failure if it was performed within the same hospital stay, and as chronic allograft failure if reLT was performed after readmission.

To investigate migration-related factors in pre- and post-transplant patient management, we looked at patient mobility, proficiency in the German language according to the ILR Scale [16] and perceived quality of communication with the medical staff at our transplant clinic. If patients could not be contacted, information was obtained from first degree family-members or primary physicians. All patients gave their informed consent for the use of anonymized medical data for analysis and publication. The study was approved by the institution’s ethics committee (Ethikkommission bei der LMU, Ref.Nr: 519–16).

Continuous data are presented as median and IQR, and differences between two groups were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical data are presented as frequency of occurrence and the two-tailed Fisher’s exact test was used to compare different groups. Patient survival was determined by Kaplan-Meier estimators (Kaplan-Meier curves, KMC) and cumulative incidences of censored events were compared by log-rank tests. For the in depth analysis of the mig-group concerning German citizenship, 8 patients with a history of migration had to be excluded from the analysis for unknown citizenship status at time of transplant. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to adjust survival for potential confounding by known risk factors for mortality. Predictor variables (migration background, German citizenship at transplantation, age, sex, indication for LT, labMELD at transplantation and type of organ allocation (MELD-based- vs. rescue- vs. high-urgency-allocation)) were included in the model using forward-selection based on p-values from likelihood-ratio tests. For all analyses we considered p-values ≤ 0.05 to be statistically significant. Due to the exploratory nature of our analysis we did not adjust the alpha-level for multiple testing. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for Windows release 24 (IBM, Armonk, USA).

Results

Descriptive analysis

From April 2007 until December 2015 a total of 417 LT were performed at our center. 358 (86%) were primary LT, 28 (7%) were early reLT and 31 (7%) were reLT for chronic allograft failure. Of these reLT for chronic allograft failure, 12 patients had received the first transplant before the studied period and were excluded from further analysis.

67 out of 358 patients who received a primary LT (19%) had a history of migration (further referred to as ‘mig-group’; categorized migration status: Group 1: n = 8; Group 2: n = 6; Group 3: n = 6; Group 4: n = 1; Group 5: n = 4; Group 6: n = 30; Group 7: n = 2; Group 8: n = 0: Group 9: n = 2; Group 10: n = 8). In the mig-group 11 patients received a reLT while 31 patients without a history of migration (further referred to as ‘nonmig-group’) were retransplanted (16% vs. 11%; p = 0.206). In the mig-group 8 patients underwent reLT for primary allograft failure vs. 19 patients in the nonmig-group (12% vs. 7%; p = 0.131). ReLT for chronic allograft failure had to be performed in 3 patients of the mig-group and in 12 patients of the nonmig-group (4% vs. 4%; p = 1.000). Median age at LT was 53.3 years (IQR 12.76) with the median age in patients with migration background being significantly lower than in patients without migration background (49.1 (IQR 19.34) vs. 54.2 (IQR 11.44) years; p = 0.001). This age discrepancy was most evident in the subgroup of female patients with migration background who were transplanted at a median age of 41.2 (IQR 15.9) years compared to the median age of females in the nonmig-group of 52.4 (IQR 12.91) years (p = 0.007). In both groups the ratio of female vs. male patients was approximately 1:2 (p = 0.7747). No differences were noted in medians of allocation- and lab-MELD scores at time of LT, standard and non-standard exception MELD scores or relative numbers of granted standard and non-standard exception status in both groups. Also the prevalence of standard- and high-urgency allocations and rescue-allocations was similar (see Table 1).

Table 1

Characteristics of all included liver transplant recipients (overall), recipients without- (nonmig-group), and with migration background (mig-group).

Recipient characteristics	overall (n = 358)	no history of migration (n = 291)	with history of migration (n = 67)	p
median age (IQR)	53.3 (12.76)	54.2 (11.44)	49.1 (19.34)	p = 0.0011
median age female patients (IQR)	50.7 (15.87)	52.4 (12.91)	41.2 (15.9)	p = 0.0069
median age male patients (IQR)	54.3 (11.42)	54.9 (10.25)	50.5 (18.45)	p = 0.0334
sex (F/M)	119/239	98/193	21/46	p = 0.7747
MELD-score at time of transplant
median allocation MELD-score (IQR)	28 (12.25)	28 (13)	27 (10)	p = 0.3954
median labMELD-score (IQR)	20 (21)	21 (20)	18 (17)	p = 0.2162
(N)SE MELD (IQR)	26 (5)	25 (4)	27 (7)	p = 0.5895
standard exception (%)	119 (33%)	93 (32%)	26 (39%)	p = 0.4576
non standard exception [NSE] (%)	11 (3%)	10 (3%)	1 (2%)
type of allocation allocation
No. of standard allocations (%)	186 (52%)	153 (53%)	33 (49%)	p = 0.240
No. of high urgency status allocations (%)	36 (10%)	29 (10%)	7 (11%)
No. of rescue-allocations (%)	136 (38%)	109 (38%)	27 (40%)
indications for liver transplantation
acute liver failure (%)	26 (7%)	19 (7%)	7 (10%)	p = 0.2948
alcoholic cirrhosis (%)	66 (18%)	59 (20%)	7 (10%)	p = 0.0793
NASH / NAFLD (%)	1 (<1%)	1 (<1%)	0 (0%)	p = 1
cryptogenic Cirrhosis (%)	24 (7%)	19 (7%)	5 (7%)	p = 0.7872
viral hepatitis (%)	52 (15%)	38 (13%)	14 (21%)	p = 0.1227
HepB hepatitis (%)	8 (2%)	7 (2%)	1 (1%)	p = 1
HepBD hepatitis (%)	15 (4%)	6 (2%)	9 (13%)	p = 0.0003
HepC hepatitis (%)	29 (8%)	25 (9%)	4 (6%)	p = 0.6227
viral hepatitis [as underlying disease (including HCC)] (%)	110 (31%)	78 (27%)	32 (48%)	p = 0.0012
Hep B hepatitis (%) [as underlying disease (including HCC)] (%)	19 (5%)	11 (4%)	8 (12%)	p = 0.0134
Hep BD hepatitis [as underlying disease (including HCC)] (%)	18 (5%)	6 (2%)	12 (18%)	p = 0.0001
Hep C hepatitis [as underlying disease (including HCC)] (%)	73 (20%)	61 (21%)	12 (18%)	p = 0.6189
alcoholic cirrhosis [as underlying disease (including HCC)] (%)	96 (27%)	87 (30%)	9 (13%)	p = 0.0089
cryptogenic cirrhosis [as underlying disease (including HCC)] (%)	31 (9%)	24 (8%)	7 (10%)	p = 0.6291
HCC (%)	101 (28%)	79 (27%)	22 (33%)	p = 0.3681
HCC in alcoholic cirrhosis (%)	30 (8%)	28 (10%)	2 (3%)	p = 0.0886
HCC in viral hepatitis (%)	58 (16%)	40 (14%)	18 (27%)	p = 0.011
autoimmune Hepatitis (%)	11 (3%)	10 (3%)	1 (1%)	p = 0.4882
Cholestatic liver disease	41 (11%)	35 (12%)	5 (7%)	p = 0.3899
PSC (%)	24 (7%)	20 (7%)	4 (6%)	p = 1
PBC (%)	6 (2%)	5 (2%)	1 (1%)	p = 1
SSC (%)	11 (3%)	10 (3%)	1 (1%)	p = 0.4882
metabolic/genetic disorders	14 (4%)	12 (4%)	2 (3%)	p = 1
M. Wilson (%)	2 (1%)	1 (<1%)	1 (1%)	p = 1
Hemocromatosis (%)	2 (1%)	2 (1%)	0 (0%)	p = 1
other metabolic/genetic disorders (%)	10 (3%)	9 (3%)	1 (1%)	p = 0.6952
Cystic liver diesease (%)	5 (1%)	4 (1%)	1 (1%)	p = 1
Echinococcosis (%)	1 (<1%)	1 (<1%)	0 (0%)	p = 1
other liver tumors (%)	6 (2%)	5 (2%)	1 (1%)	p = 1
CCC (%)	2 (1%)	2 (1%)	0 (0%)	p = 1
Budd-Chiari (%)	5 (1%)	4 (1%)	1 (1%)	p = 1
other liver disease (%)	3 (%)	3 (1%)	0 (0%)	p = 1

Data are median (IQR) or n (%).

The descriptive analysis of the mig-group showed that 25 patients were German citizens at time of primary LT (37%; migration status groups one to five; including dual citizenship), 34 patients were non-German citizens (51%; groups six to nine) and in eight patients the migration-status could not be categorized (12%; group ten). Of 59 patients with known migration status, 20 were born in Western Europe (Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain; 34%), 24 were born in Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Czech Republic, Kosovo and Turkey; 41%) and 15 were born in countries outside of Continental Europe (25%). In 59 patients of the mig-group we could evaluate the proficiency of German language: 42 patients (71%) were excellent, very good or good speakers while 17 patients (29%) spoke fair or poor. In 57 of these 59 patients we were able to obtain information about the subjective quality of communication with the medical staff in our transplant clinic: three patients had difficulties in communication because of a language barrier (5%), of which two patients had difficulties in understanding spoken, therapy relevant information (3%). All other patients stated not to have difficulties in communication with our medical staff.

Indications for LT and underlying disease differed significantly between the two groups: Alcoholic cirrhosis was more prevalent in the nonmig-group with 29.9% compared to 13.4% in the mig-group (p = 0.009). Prevalence of viral hepatitis as underlying disease was higher in the mig-group with 47.8% compared to 26.8% in the nonmig-group (p = 0.001) with the highest difference evident in hepatitis BD co-infection with 17.9% vs. 2.1% in the mig- vs. the nonmig-group (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of HCC in cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis was similar in both groups while viral hepatitis as underlying disease for HCC was more prevalent in the mig-group (50.6% vs. 81.8% nonmig- vs. mig-group; p = 0.012).

Survival analysis by migration status

The one year survival-rate was 74% in the nonmig group and 86% in the mig-group (p = 0.1621). The KMC analysis of overall survival showed no difference in 5-year survival between the mig-group and the nonmig-group (p = 0.54) (see Fig 1). In the subgroup-analyses for patients with viral-hepatitis as underlying disease, and for patients suffering from HCC we also saw no differences in long-term survival between the groups (p = 0.93 and p = 0.577 respectively) (see Fig 2). When we stratified the mig- and nonmig-group for sex, we saw a better long-term survival curve in female patients of the mig-group compared to males of the mig-group and also compared to the nonmig-group, yet without statistical significance (p = 0.49) (see Fig 3). The in-depth descriptive analysis of female patients of the mig- and the nonmig-group showed a younger median age in females of the mig group (41.2 (IQR 15.9) vs. 52.4 (IQR 12.91) years; p = 0.007) and a tendency to lower allocation and labMELD scores at time of LT (median allocation MELD 29 (IQR 12.25) vs. 26.5 (IQR 18.0) (p = 0.091) and median labMELD 27 (IQR 21.0) vs. 17 (IQR 17.5), p = 0.095; female nonmig-group vs. female mig-group respectively). Other outcome relevant parameters at LT were not different (see Table 1).

Fig 1

Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative survival of all included recipients of a liver transplant (all), recipients without- (nonmig-group), and with migration background (mig-group).

Fig 2

Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative survival for the subgroups with viral hepatitis as underlying disease of all included recipients of a liver transplant (all), recipients without- (nonmig-group), and with migration background (mig-group).

Fig 3

Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative survival after stratification for sex in female- (migF) and male recipients (migM) with migration background, and female- (nonmigF) and male recipients (nonmigM) without migration background.

The Cox regression analysis with the mig-group stratified for migration-status according to the RKI-definition into patients that were German citizens (Migration-status Groups One-Five) at time of LT (mig 1) or who were not German citizens (Migration-status Groups Six-Nine) at time of LT (mig2) revealed an association of the labMELD score at LT and overall survival (RR = 1.025, 95% CI 1.006–1.044, p = 0.009). Also we discovered an association of German citizenship at time of transplant in patients with a history of migration with overall survival (RR = 0.117, 95% CI 0.016–0.841, p = 0.033). Patients of the mig 1 group were significantly younger than non-mig patients at transplantation (43.73 years (IQR 22.57) vs. 54.24 (IQR 11.31) p = 0.005), while they were not significantly younger than mig patients without citizenship at time of transplant (49.48 years (IQR 15.82) p = 0.226). Mig 2 patients were significantly younger than non-mig patients (p = 0.034). When we performed a KMC analysis of the mig-group stratified for migration-status (mig 1 vs. mig 2 vs. non mig)we saw a better 5-year survival in the mig1 subgroup (p = 0.04). However, the survival curve of patients of the mig2 subgroup was similar to the survival curve or the nonmig-group without any statistical difference (see Fig 3). We also assessed the effect of language-barrier on survival after LT within the mig-group by comparing KMCs of the patients with excellent, very-good and good proficiency in German (lb1-group) with basic or poor speakers (lb2-group) without any differences in 5-year survival (p = 0.213) (see Fig 4).

Fig 4

Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative survival in recipients with migration background stratified for migration status (mig1—German citizenship at time of transplant vs. mig2—no German citizenship at time of transplant) and recipients without migration background (nonmig).

Discussion

Studies that examined the outcome after solid organ transplantation in European and non-European immigrants have previously been conducted in the UK, in the Netherlands and Hungary [8-13]. Most of these studies investigated kidney transplantation and found an inferior graft- and patient survival in recipients with a history of migration. Just one study from the UK in 1993 compared the outcome of LT in Europeans and non-European immigrants and found an inferior short and long-term survival in migrated patients [14]. To this date, no study with a comparable objective has been conducted in central Europe. Facing the current increase of immigration, and the prevailing situation of an increasing number of immigrants in need of solid organ transplantation [3] we decided to update the data on this matter from a German perspective.

Our Transplant Center is located in the south-east of Germany in an economically prosperous region with an annual gross domestic product of around 81.000 € per capita [17]. A microcensus in 2008 showed that 15.8–23.5% of the population had a history of migration, a proportion slightly higher than the national average of 16.1% [18]. One third of the persons with a history of migration in our region were non-EU immigrants, while 20% were immigrants from EU-member countries. Further 20% were persons who were born in Germany but had at least one parent who had migrated to Germany. The remaining third were resettlers of German descent or persons who became naturalized after the Second World War [18]. We found a similar composition in the cohort with a history of migration at our center (see Fig 5). A differentiated view on the population with a history of migration concerning age-distribution showed that the proportion of immigrants in younger age groups was substantially higher than in older age-groups, producing a pyramid shaped population pyramid [18], while the overall-German population pyramid is mushroom-shaped.

Fig 5

Compositions of the population with migration background in the region of our transplant center according to the microcensus 2008 and the studied cohort of liver transplant recipients with migration background at our center (dotted lines indicate the upper (UL) and lower limit (LL) of the 95% Confidence Interval).

In the cohort of LT recipients at our transplant center, 13.6% were born in Germany (95% CI 6–25%), 17% were resettlers or became naturalized after the Second World War (95% CI 8.4–29%), 25.4% were immigrants from EU-member countries (95% CI 15–38.4) and 44.1% were immigrants from non-EU countries (95% CI 31.2–57.6%).

The descriptive analysis of 358 patients who received a primary LT at our center in the studied period showed that 67 (18.7%) had a history of migration. This proportion is equivalent to the population in the region served by our transplant center where 18.6% of the people have a history of migration [19].

The prevalence of disease leading to the need for LT differed significantly between the groups: While alcoholic cirrhosis was the most prevalent disease in patients without migration background (29.9%) it was viral hepatitis in patients with a history of migration (47.8%). These proportions are most likely attributable to differences in lifestyle, cultural background, and especially to the disease prevalence in the country of origin and to access to preventive measures like e.g. vaccination [20] between the migrant- and non-migrant population in Germany [21-24].

We found a significantly younger median age at transplantation in patients with a history of migration compared with non-migrated patients (49.1 vs. 54.2 years; p ≤ 0.001174). Besides the pyramid-shaped pattern of age distribution in the migrant population in our region, with the majority of persons being younger than 50 years [18] and the predominance of vertical transmission of viral hepatitis [25], this could also be explained by a generally impaired access to healthcare and underutilization of specialist-care in the migrant population leading to an increased disease severity at younger age and at diagnosis [26, 27]. One could further speculate that the significantly younger age at transplantation in the subgroup of female patients with a history of migration is a result of a socio-cultural disadvantage of women in some ethnic groups leading to even later first referral in the course of disease.

The survival analysis showed no significant differences in short- and long-term overall survival between the groups. We even saw a tendency to better long-term survival in the subgroup of female recipients with a history of migration which is most likely attributable to the significantly younger age at transplantation in this group. To exclude confounders from the different epidemiology, we performed a subgroup analysis of patients with viral hepatitis as underlying disease for LT. This analysis did also not show a difference in short- and longterm survival. The multivariate Cox-regression analysis of covariates that could be associated with an inferior outcome did not show an association of migration background with negative outcomes. To further investigate a history of migration as a risk factor for the outcome after LT we performed a subgroup analysis of the mig-group, stratified for migration status. We found that patients with a history of migration who were German citizens at time of transplant had a significantly better survival than patients without a history of migration or without German citizenship at time of transplant. The survival of patients with a history of migration who were not German citizens at time of transplant was however not inferior compared to the survival of patients without a history of migration. The protective effect of German citizenship at time of transplant in patients with a history of migration might be explainable by the significantly younger age at transplantation in this subgroup. It also might resemble a state of better and longer-lasting integration, that could have effects through the better orientation and functionality of these patients in the German healthcare system. These explanations however are not sufficiently backed by the available data and are just speculative.

While a history of migration is an unalterable factor, language barrier is an alterable factor and less-effective communication with migrant patients can cause misunderstandings and non-adherence to treatment [28, 29]. We investigated whether patients with an existing language barrier had an impaired survival after LT. We found no association of language barrier with impaired survival. The evaluation of the perceived quality of communication with the medical professionals at our transplant clinic showed that the vast majority of patients with a history of migration perceived the quality of communication to be excellent or good and only 4% reported to have difficulties in understanding therapy-relevant information. We interpret these data as an indicator for a sufficiently individualized care provided to patients with a history of migration despite an existing language barrier. Access to high-quality post-transplant care is also dependent on an unimpaired access to first hand care at the transplant clinic. In hematopoetic stem cell transplantation, geographical distance to the transplant center is associated with an impaired outcome after transplantation [30]. Similar results have been shown for liver transplant candidates who have impaired access to the waitlist, lower chance of being transplanted and higher mortality if living more than 100 miles from the transplant center [31]. Only one patient of the mig-group reported to have difficulties with transportation from home to our transplant center and we found no association of distance to the transplant center with mortality in this cohort.

Outcomes after LT can be influenced by insurance status. DuBay et al. found an inferior outcome in Medicare and Medicaid dependent LT-recipients compared with privately insured recipients in a large Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients analysis [32]. As health insurance is compulsory in Germany and every registered resident is granted the coverage of state-of-the art medical treatment of life-threatening diseases [33], all patients in the studied cohort had sufficient cost-coverage at time of LT. In the case of liver transplantation every type of German health-insurance also covers costs for stationary and ambulatory medical rehabilitation and transport costs for on-site medical follow-up at the transplant center. In the rare case of unregistered patients presenting in the acute need of a liver transplant, an emergency protocol is sent to the social services department and the patient will receive the care he/she needs. Financial compensation is then sorted out during or after the transplant and as a last resort option, the social service department will compensate for the treatment. However, we haven’t experienced this situation at our unit yet and only are aware of some cases of acute liver failure in unregistered asylum seekers where the course of action mentioned above had to be taken [3]. We therefore conclude that the universal healthcare and social welfare-system in Germany mitigates the problems of migrants undergoing complex medical treatments such as LT.

Conclusion

We found no inferior outcome in liver transplant recipients with a history of migration compared with indigenous recipients at our center. Although the interpretation of our data is limited by its single-centered nature, these results stand in contrast to most of the previous evidence. The presumption that a migration background is a risk factor for the outcome after liver transplantation is not necessarily true for the German situation. This needs to be taken into consideration during the evaluation for waitlisting patients with migration background for liver transplantation in Germany. Prima vista the similar transplant rates and comparable outcomes also imply the absence of inequalities in access to LT and to high-quality post-transplant care. However, the prevalence and severity of liver disease grows incremental to social status. Further, social-, ethnic- and economic factors can influence the access to the transplant-waitlist as well as affect waitlist mortality [34]. Therefor these clues have to be drawn with caution and an intention-to-treat analysis at time of presentation to the transplant clinic, before evaluation for LT is needed.

27 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-18755

Liver transplantation in patients with a history of migration – a German single center comparative analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Bucher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Intesting manuscript which was appreciated by both expert reviewers. They also came with constructive comments to improve the paper, and points that need to be clarified before we can consider publication.

Please address all issues in a point-by-point response.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 10 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank JMF Dor, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why was written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an extremely interesting paper looking at the results of Liver Tx in patients with a history of migration in a German center. This has been found a negative predictor of survival in US and UK cohorts but has not been studied in detail in a continental EU country. Shortlty speaking no difference was found in outcome. The most relevant difference was seen in indication and demographics: more alcoholic cirrhosis in the non migrant population and more viral hepatitis in the migrant group and a younger age at transplant in the migrant group. Authors are to be congratulated to discuss this sometimes controversial subject and for their work and results.

My major comment /question is that the equivalent results in these 2 populations might reflect an adequate patient selection independent of the migratory status. As a corollary question, I was wondering whether the percentage of LTx candidates turned down from transplant (not listed) was the same according to the migratory background? For example the percentage of patients with poor communication capacities was very small in the mig group. Poor communication is a general contraindication for LTx whatever the ethnical background. Was there a higher rate of patients excluded from LTx for poor communication and poor language skills in mig patients?

A note on the juridic aspect of LTx in migrants could be added. I suppose that by law, all registred migrants have access to Transplant and health care in general. The true difficulty is in patients who very recently arrived and are not resident yet or not registred yet. Were the authors confronted with this situation? Could they highlight this problematic? I remember that a few cases of LTx for ALF (I think for mushroom intoxication) in Germany were reported at a transplant meeting in Belgium (BTS) a few years ago with good outcome. Are the authors aware of these cases? Have they been published/reported/publicized (in literature and/or media)? If yes could it be possible to refer to them?

Another difficulty is the access to medications and follow up in case of planned return to a home land without German/European health care. Have the authors been confronted with this scenario and would this play a role in decision-making?

One might argue that german mig born in Germany might represent a lower risk population compared to recently arrived non german citizens? Can authors comment on that?

Within the mig group, german citizens mig did better than non german. However non german mig did equally well compared to non mig patients. What about german citizens mig versus non mig control?

The MV analysis showed no impact of mig status. Did the authors stratify this analysis depending upon the various mig types? German citizens vs non citizens mig etc?

Again congratulations to this team for this study and the results

Best Regards

Jacques Pirenne

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript Bucher et al. investigates the role of recipient history migration on the outcome of liver transplantation in a single center, descriptive cohort study. They did not find differences in outcome between recipient with and without the history of migration.

I read with interest this manuscript and I have few comments and questions to the authors:

The authors perform extensive statistical analysis on this rather small group of patients as 67 patients out of 358 patients had a history of migration. The authors divided them into 10 groups according to the RKI, however they did not give any number of patients assigned to each group. Could you provide this data? Later in their KM analysis they stratified these patients later into two groups.

7 patients from mig-group received liver transplantation for acute liver failure. Were in this group also patients who stayed in Germany temporary and moved to their countries after transplantation?

Did you analyse also graft survival in both groups? If so did you find any differences? It would be also good to know if the compliance after liver transplantation did not differ between two groups.

From your KM analysis (patients at risks) it seems that majority of mig-group has been transplanted in the later period of your study period. Do you have any explanation for this?

I would be very careful in extrapolating the result of this study on the German situation as the authors did in their conclusions. The retrospective and single-center nature of this study is a serious limitation, so it would be very interesting a have a national data on this topic, before drawing a conclusion that migration background is not a risk factor for the outcome in liver transplantation.

General comment:

As you perform extensive analysis of your relatively small data, the manuscript is not easy to read and its message is somehow lost in the text. I would shorten this manuscript and focus on the most important issues.

Additional comment:

In my opinion inclusion of Turkey in the Eastern Europe is not correct.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Sep 2019

Answers to Reviewers questions point by point:

Reviewer #1: This is an extremely interesting paper looking at the results of Liver Tx in patients with a history of migration in a German center. This has been found a negative predictor of survival in US and UK cohorts but has not been studied in detail in a continental EU country. Shortlty speaking no difference was found in outcome. The most relevant difference was seen in indication and demographics: more alcoholic cirrhosis in the non migrant population and more viral hepatitis in the migrant group and a younger age at transplant in the migrant group. Authors are to be congratulated to discuss this sometimes controversial subject and for their work and results.

My major comment /question is that the equivalent results in these 2 populations might reflect an adequate patient selection independent of the migratory status. As a corollary question, I was wondering whether the percentage of LTx candidates turned down from transplant (not listed) was the same according to the migratory background? For example the percentage of patients with poor communication capacities was very small in the mig group. Poor communication is a general contraindication for LTx whatever the ethnical background. Was there a higher rate of patients excluded from LTx for poor communication and poor language skills in mig patients?

Answer: We share your view on the topic of patient selection as a confounder of our analysis. We therefore reviewed the available protocols of our interdisciplinary transplant board during the studied period. Only beginning in 2014 the reasons for the decline from the waiting list was documented centrally at our institution and available to us. Of 48 declines from wait-listing through our board, 16 patients had a history of migration (33%). Reasons for the decline from listing were strictly medical (2 for continued alcohol abuse, 4 for tumors not eligible for transplant, 6 without need for transplant, 2 deaths before listing and 2 too sick from comorbidities). Of note, in 2017 one patient from Syria was not listed because his permanent residency was still Syria without the perspective of a long term stay in Germany. Therefor the patient was not listed because of questionable pots-transplant care. Although communication and other factors with potential influence on the compliance and adherence are frequently discussed in our transplant board, we generally believe that adherence and non- adherence are not inalterable conditions and most problems in this respect can be managed with adequate patients support.

A note on the juridic aspect of LTx in migrants could be added. I suppose that by law, all registred migrants have access to Transplant and health care in general. The true difficulty is in patients who very recently arrived and are not resident yet or not registred yet. Were the authors confronted with this situation? Could they highlight this problematic? I remember that a few cases of LTx for ALF (I think for mushroom intoxication) in Germany were reported at a transplant meeting in Belgium (BTS) a few years ago with good outcome. Are the authors aware of these cases? Have they been published/reported/publicized (in literature and/or media)? If yes could it be possible to refer to them?

Answer: In contrast to e.g. Belgium, Germany doesn’t have a ministerial order to transplant unregistered patients in emergency-situations. In the case of unregistered patients presenting in the acute need of a liver transplant, an emergency protocol is sent to the social services department and the patient will receive the care he/she needs. Financial compensation is sorted out during or after the transplant and as a last resort, the social service department will compensate for the treatment. However, we haven’t experienced this situation at our unit yet and only know some cases of acute liver failure in unregistered asylum seekers, where the course of action mentioned above had to be taken { Lehner F. Refugees - new challenge in transplantation. Eurotransplant Annual Meeting 2016}. The manuscript was amended accordingly.

Another difficulty is the access to medications and follow up in case of planned return to a home land without German/European health care. Have the authors been confronted with this scenario and would this play a role in decision-making?

Answer: We have been confronted with this scenario following the transplantation of one tourist who returned to his/her homeland and did not receive adequate post transplant care, although high-level transplant care would have been available and funding was checked and found to be available by our social services team. The negative turn of this case was rather an adherence failure than a systematic problem. In general, patients who receive an organ transplant in Germany and are expected not to receive adequate post-transplant care in the countries or regions they originate from will receive a permanent residency status based on medical necessity.

One might argue that german mig born in Germany might represent a lower risk population compared to recently arrived non german citizens? Can authors comment on that?

Answer: please see the answer to the next question.

Within the mig group, german citizens mig did better than non german. However non german mig did equally well compared to non mig patients. What about german citizens mig versus non mig control?

Answer: German citizens mig did significantly better than non mig patients (p = 0,01) and better than mig patients without german citizenship at time of transplant (p = 0.021). Please see the answer to the next question for our interpretation.

The MV analysis showed no impact of mig status. Did the authors stratify this analysis depending upon the various mig types? German citizens vs non citizens mig etc?

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We calculated the Cox regression including the mig status and found a significant protective effect of german citizenship a time of transplant. Investigating this interesting finding, we compared the median ages of all three groups and found a significant younger age in the mig 1 group which might explain the significantly better survival in this group. The new analysis was included in the manuscript and discussed accordingly.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript Bucher et al. investigates the role of recipient history migration on the outcome of liver transplantation in a single center, descriptive cohort study. They did not find differences in outcome between recipient with and without the history of migration.

I read with interest this manuscript and I have few comments and questions to the authors:

The authors perform extensive statistical analysis on this rather small group of patients as 67 patients out of 358 patients had a history of migration. The authors divided them into 10 groups according to the RKI, however they did not give any number of patients assigned to each group. Could you provide this data? Later in their KM analysis they stratified these patients later into two groups.

Answer: The division into 10 groups was in accordance with the official definition of a history of migration through the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) {Robert-Koch-Institut 2008 #1}, Germany’s federal institute for disease-control and prevention. We felt that we needed a well-established and official definition like this as a basis for our analysis. We have included the numbers of assignments to these groups in the results section of the revised manuscript. For the KMC-analysis of the migration status as a factor for the outcome necessitated an aggregation of the groups to reach a sufficient number of patients. Therefor we decided to compare patients who were German citizens at the time of transplant. We feel that the German citizenship best resembled a state of integration in the social system, much better than e.g. the ethnicity, that should have effects on the orientation and functionality of such patients in the healthcare system.

7 patients from mig-group received liver transplantation for acute liver failure. Were in this group also patients who stayed in Germany temporary and moved to their countries after transplantation?

Answer: One patient of this group returned to the home country after transplant.

Did you analyse also graft survival in both groups? If so did you find any differences? It would be also good to know if the compliance after liver transplantation did not differ between two groups.

Answer: Graft survival is defined as the loss of the graft and the need for re-transplantation. We found a low re-transplant rate in both, the mig and the non-mig groups (11 vs. 31 Patients – 16% vs. 11%, non significant). Most of the re-transplants were for acute allograft failure, only 4 % in each group were for chronic allograft failure. Because of these small numbers and since we expect the effects of a history of migration to influence mostly the post discharge phase after LTx, we did not perform a KMC-analysis of graft survival.

From your KM analysis (patients at risks) it seems that majority of mig-group has been transplanted in the later period of your study period. Do you have any explanation for this?

Answer: We have checked the transplant rates during the studied period and do not see any such dynamic (year and transplanted patients with history of migration: 2015:10; 2014:11; 2013:6; 2012:8; 2011:8; 2010:10; 2009:2; 2008:9; 2007:3)

I would be very careful in extrapolating the result of this study on the German situation as the authors did in their conclusions. The retrospective and single-center nature of this study is a serious limitation, so it would be very interesting a have a national data on this topic, before drawing a conclusion that migration background is not a risk factor for the outcome in liver transplantation.

Answer: We also feel that the retrospective and single-center nature of this study is a limitation. However, most of the previous studies on this topic also were single-center retrospective studies. Also, we emphasize in our conclusion, that we mainly present our data because it stands in contrast to the previous literature. We want to express, that the notion, that patients with a history of migration have a worse outcome after LTx might not be true in the German context and that it therefore needs further exploration. Certainly, a nation-wide analysis would be very interesting. Unfortunately, the implementation of a national transplant registry has just begun and data won’t be available until several years in the future. Furthermore, data on a history of migration to our knowledge is not part of the data that is transmitted to this register.

General comment:

As you perform extensive analysis of your relatively small data, the manuscript is not easy to read and its message is somehow lost in the text. I would shorten this manuscript and focus on the most important issues.

Answer: We have reduced data and interpretation of the topic of distance from the transplant center and survival. Manuscript was changed accordingly.

Additional comment:

In my opinion inclusion of Turkey in the Eastern Europe is not correct.

Answer: Certainly the inclusion of Turkey to the Eastern European Region is rather based on the geographic position than on a political or ethnic basis. However, since the social and medical standards (at least of middle and eastern Turkey) are similar to other countries in the Eastern European Region, compared with the other Mediterranean countries that are members of the EU, we felt that for our analysis it was appropriate to include Turkey in the Eastern European Region.

We hope our revised manuscript and these answers are sufficient to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Julian Bucher and Markus Guba

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PLOS ONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Oct 2019

Liver transplantation in patients with a history of migration – a German single center comparative analysis

PONE-D-19-18755R1

Dear Dr. Bucher,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Frank JMF Dor, M.D., Ph.D., FEBS, FRCS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors improved their manuscript substantially according to the reviewers’ comments. I am also satisfied with their answer to my questions. I do not have any further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jacques Pirenne

Reviewer #2: No

11 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-18755R1

Liver transplantation in patients with a history of migration – a German single center comparative analysis

Dear Dr. Bucher:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frank JMF Dor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE