United Network for Organ Sharing rules and organ availability for children: Current policies and future directions

S. McDiarmid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3046.2001.00029.x

2001-10-01

Pediatric Transplantation

Abstract:The .widening discrepancy between the supply and demand for solid organs has forced the medical community to develop policies that prioritize who is transplanted first. From an ethical perspective, the concept of rationing a life-saving resource is inherently abhorrent, both for physicians advocating for their patients and for patients awaiting transplantation. When demand is high and supply is short, it is only to be expected that advocacy groups will emerge, claiming unique characteristics that require consideration and perhaps prioritization. The validity of such claims can only be properly established after careful scrutiny of the evidence that supports the position. Only then can just decisions be made to prioritize the request of an advocacy group. The pediatric transplant community has long seen itself as representing a sub-group of transplant candidates with special needs, and has diligently collected and presented evidence to support this position. In the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has the responsibility for developing the policies which govern organ allocation. A comprehensive committee structure within UNOS examines all allocation policies, reviews evidence for proposed changes, publishes proposals for public comment, and finally submits policies for approval to a Board comprising a cross-section of professional and public representatives of the transplant community. The UNOS pediatric committee, first convened in 1988, has taken a particularly active role in advocating the needs of children awaiting transplantation. As a result, several policies are now in place giving children some priority in the allocation of heart, liver, and kidney donors. Given the on-going controversies and scrutiny of how such allocation policies are established, it seems timely and appropriate to review current UNOS allocation policies in regard to pediatric kidney, liver, and heart transplant candidates, the evidence that justified the changes, and the potential impact of the proposed new allocation policies. The single variable ‘age’ in any transplant procedure is double-faceted: age of the recipient and age of the donor. Both must be considered in outcomes in which age is a factor. Age ,18 yr is the UNOS definition of pediatric in both patients and donors., an age actually lower than the American Academy of Pediatrics definition of ,21 yr. However, outside the pediatric community this definition is controversial and questions have been raised about the validity of the definition. Some have suggested that weight should substitute for age, and others that an age before adolescence (e.g. ,12 yr) is more relevant. Strong arguments against both these positions can be raised. First, if weight is used as a surrogate for age, the normal physiologic and maturational processes which occur not only early in childhood, but also in adolescence, are ignored. A 40-kg 50-yr-old, whether a recipient or a donor, is physiologically very different from a 40-kg 15-yrold. Recent advances in understanding the role of senescence at the cellular level of organ function, underscore this essential concept (1. ). If, on the other hand, a pediatric patient is defined as age ,12 yr, the unique physiologic process occurring during puberty are not considered. The profound physical and neuropsychologic changes that characterize adolescence cannot be equated with any other developmental period in human life, and must occur within a limited time frame for a child’s successful physiologic and psychological transition to adulthood. Growth is a characteristic unique to normal children; its counterpoint, growth retardation, is likewise a distinguishing measure of the global impact of chronic disease severity in childhood. Pediatr Transplantation 2001: 5: 311–316