Jayme E Locke1, Brittany A Shelton1, Kim M Olthoff2, Elizabeth A Pomfret3, Kimberly A Forde4, Deirdre Sawinski5, Meagan Gray1, Nancy L Ascher6. 1. Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham. 2. Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 3. Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 5. Division of Renal and Electrolytes, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 6. Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, San Francisco.
Abstract
Importance: Differences in local organ supply and demand have introduced geographic inequities in the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based liver allocation system, prompting national debate and patient-initiated lawsuits. No study to our knowledge has quantified the sex disparities in allocation associated with clinical vs geographic characteristics. Objective: To estimate the proportion of sex disparity in wait list mortality and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) associated with clinical and geographic characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used adult (age ≥18 years) liver-only transplant listings reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network from June 18, 2013, through March 1, 2018. Exposure: Liver transplant waiting list. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included wait list mortality and DDLT. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed, and inverse odds ratio weighting was used to estimate the proportion of disparity across geographic location, MELD score, and candidate anthropometric and liver measurements. Results: Among 81 357 adults wait-listed for liver transplant only, 36.1% were women (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [11.3] years; interquartile range, 49.0-63.0 years) and 63.9% were men (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [10.1] years; interquartile range, 51.0-63.0 years). Compared with men, women were 8.6% more likely to die while on the waiting list (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18) and were 14.4% less likely to receive a DDLT (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.88). In the geographic domain, organ procurement organization was the only variable that was significantly associated with increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality (22.1% increase; aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.30); no measure of the geographic domain was associated with DDLT. Laboratory and allocation MELD scores were associated with increases in disparities in wait list mortality: 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.19; 50.1% increase among women) and DDLT: 0.87 (95% CI, 0.86-0.88; 10.3% increase among women). Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements had the strongest association with disparities between men and women in wait list mortality (125.8% increase among women) and DDLT (49.0% increase among women). Conclusions and Relevance: Our findings suggest that addressing geographic disparities alone may not mitigate sex-based disparities, which were associated with the inability of the MELD score to accurately estimate disease severity in women and to account for candidate anthropometric and liver measurements in this study.
Importance: Differences in local organ supply and demand have introduced geographic inequities in the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based liver allocation system, prompting national debate and patient-initiated lawsuits. No study to our knowledge has quantified the sex disparities in allocation associated with clinical vs geographic characteristics. Objective: To estimate the proportion of sex disparity in wait list mortality and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) associated with clinical and geographic characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used adult (age ≥18 years) liver-only transplant listings reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network from June 18, 2013, through March 1, 2018. Exposure: Liver transplant waiting list. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included wait list mortality and DDLT. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed, and inverse odds ratio weighting was used to estimate the proportion of disparity across geographic location, MELD score, and candidate anthropometric and liver measurements. Results: Among 81 357 adults wait-listed for liver transplant only, 36.1% were women (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [11.3] years; interquartile range, 49.0-63.0 years) and 63.9% were men (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [10.1] years; interquartile range, 51.0-63.0 years). Compared with men, women were 8.6% more likely to die while on the waiting list (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18) and were 14.4% less likely to receive a DDLT (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.88). In the geographic domain, organ procurement organization was the only variable that was significantly associated with increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality (22.1% increase; aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.30); no measure of the geographic domain was associated with DDLT. Laboratory and allocation MELD scores were associated with increases in disparities in wait list mortality: 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.19; 50.1% increase among women) and DDLT: 0.87 (95% CI, 0.86-0.88; 10.3% increase among women). Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements had the strongest association with disparities between men and women in wait list mortality (125.8% increase among women) and DDLT (49.0% increase among women). Conclusions and Relevance: Our findings suggest that addressing geographic disparities alone may not mitigate sex-based disparities, which were associated with the inability of the MELD score to accurately estimate disease severity in women and to account for candidate anthropometric and liver measurements in this study.
Authors: Evangelos Cholongitas; Laura Marelli; Andrew Kerry; Marco Senzolo; David W Goodier; Devaki Nair; Michael Thomas; David Patch; Andrew K Burroughs Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Jon J Snyder; Nicholas Salkowski; S Joseph Kim; David Zaun; Hui Xiong; Ajay K Israni; Bertram L Kasiske Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: W Ray Kim; Ajitha Mannalithara; Julie K Heimbach; Patrick S Kamath; Sumeet K Asrani; Scott W Biggins; Nicholas L Wood; Sommer E Gentry; Allison J Kwong Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-09-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Stephan Listabarth; Daniel König; Gabriela Berlakovich; Petra Munda; Peter Ferenci; Dagmar Kollmann; Georg Gyöeri; Thomas Waldhoer; Magdalena Groemer; Arjan van Enckevort; Benjamin Vyssoki Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Julia M Sealock; Ioannis A Ziogas; Zhiguo Zhao; Fei Ye; Sophoclis P Alexopoulos; Lea Matsuoka; Guanhua Chen; Lea K Davis Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Christine Park; Mandisa-Maia Jones; Samantha Kaplan; Felicitas L Koller; Julius M Wilder; L Ebony Boulware; Lisa M McElroy Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2022-02-12
Authors: Dimitri Sneiders; Anne-Baue R M van Dijk; Wojciech G Polak; Darius F Mirza; M Thamara P R Perera; Hermien Hartog Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.842