Friday, November 9, 2007
We Need a Registry of Living Kidney Donors
From the pages of the Hastings Center Report.
BY LAINIE FRIEDMAN ROSS, MARK SIEGLER, AND J. RICHARD THISTLETHWAITE, JR.

On September 19, 2007, the board of the United Network for Organ Sharing deferred a decision to adopt uniform medical guidelines to protect the safety of living kidney donors. There is disagreement about what the guidelines should say, primarily because there is a lack of definitive data about the long-term health outcomes for living organ donors.

The UNOS decision came the same week that the journal Transplantation published a study by E.M. Gibney and colleagues documenting that, between 1993 and 2005, at least 102 (0.2%) of the 63,000 living kidney donors in the United States developed kidney failure and were listed for transplant themselves. Given the prevalence of kidney disease in the United States, this data might be taken to mean that living kidney donation is safe. After all, the risk of kidney disease increases with age for all of us. But the data are incomplete. The number of individuals on the transplant waiting list represents only a fraction of the total who have end stage renal disease (ESRD), and we have no reason to suspect that all former donors with ESRD are on the list. Some are excluded from transplantation because of comorbidities; others have seriously impaired kidney function or other health conditions but do not yet qualify for dialysis or transplant. Possibly the risk is better illuminated by data from Sweden (published in Transplantation in 2006), where researchers found that six (0.5%) of 1,112 living kidney donors had developed ESRD – a rate 2.5 times what Gibney and colleagues found.

The risk of developing ESRD after living kidney donation is apparently not evenly distributed. The Gibney article shows that of the 102 U.S. living kidney donors who were listed for transplant postdonation, most were male (64%) and the average age was fifty. (In Sweden, 83% were male and the average age was fifty-three.) Many in the United States were ethnic minorities: 44% were African Americans, and 12% were Hispanic. Since only 14% of all living donors are African Americans, African American donors appear to run an increased risk of ESRD, which mirrors the increased frequency of ESRD in the African American community at large. What is disconcerting, however, is that though the average length of time between donation and kidney failure was over fifteen years, ten U.S. donors – nine of them African American – were listed for transplant less than five years after donating. This is troubling because the screening process has been thought to ensure that donors are healthier than the average citizen.

Does this mean that African Americans should be excluded as living donors on grounds that we do not know how to identify those at increased risk of developing kidney disease themselves? Our answer is emphatically no. Most African American living donors do very well. What all prospective donors need is an accurate estimate of the risks of donation in order to make an informed decision.

The Gibney data underscore the need for a national registry that prospectively follows living kidney donors. Long-term data are needed about all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, blood pressure changes, the development of proteinuria or reduced creatinine clearance, and ESRD. The epidemic levels of obesity, with its risks for diabetes and kidney failure, and the growing acceptance in some transplant programs of less than ideal living donors (for example, individuals with some degree of hypertension), amplify both the risks of ESRD to donors and the need for better data.

Recent UNOS regulations require a transplant center to follow living donors for two years, but there is no funding for transplant centers to systematically follow these individuals. Instead, donors are referred back to their own physicians and lost to follow-up by the transplant community. Unfortunately, some are lost only until they return needing their own transplant. Living donors deserve better. The lack of support for a prospective large-scale living donor registry is morally inexcusable.

Lainie Friedman Ross is Carolyn and Matthew Bucksbaum Professor of Clinical Ethics, Mark Siegler is Lindy Bergman Distinguished Service Professor, and J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr., is professor of surgery at the University of Chicago.

Comment on this essay.

Comments are sent to the forum moderator. Select responses may be posted.

A Phony 'War on Science'
Michael Gerson, Washington Post
“In their talk of a Republican war on science, liberals may be blinding themselves to a very different kind of modern war in which their own ideals are deeply implicated: a war on equality.”

It’s Not Immoral to Want to be Immortal
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“Despite a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, it is not obvious that wanting to live a lot longer is evil or immoral.”

Science Is Leading Us to More Answers, but It's Also Misleading Us
David A. Shaywitz, Washington Post
“Consumers of scientific information must balance the hope we place in global biology with the skepticism this field has surely earned.”

Taking the Scary out of Breast Cancer Stats
Carol Tavris and Avrum Bluming, LA Times
“The media understand how deeply women fear breast cancer, and the result is that every study that seems to find a link between some new risk factor and the disease makes headlines everywhere.”

Dollars to Doughnuts Diagnosis
Albert Fuchs, LA Times
“Insurance doesn't make routine care affordable; it makes it more expensive by adding a middleman.”

Tainted Medicine
Jerome P. Kassirer, LA Times
“Disclosure of financial ties may give a scientist or researcher a clean conscience, but that doesn't erase the possibility of a conflict.”

Children's health can't be left to faith alone
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“Parents do not have the right to watch a child wither away while they pray.”

Transplant List Numbers Raise Doubts
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“The American people have a right to expect absolute honesty about the number of people waiting for a transplant at any time.”

An Epidemic No One Wants to Talk About
Robert E. Fullilove et al., Washington Post
“Simply put, we will never rid the United States of HIV and other STDs if our only weapon is medical treatment.”

Making Cells Like Computers
Erik Parens, Boston Globe
“Conceivably, we are on the verge of installing synthetic genomes in bacterial cells to create products we want. But we are still a long, long way from doing what most people mean by ‘synthesizing life.’”

Miracle Workers?
David Rieff, New York Times Magazine
“Even today, the oldest of all relations between patient and physician — that of supplicant to shaman — continues to exert its authority.”

Overselling Overmedication
Judith Warner, NYTimes.com
“Most of the critics decrying the over-medicalization of the American mind rest their arguments upon the bedrock assumption that people who have nothing wrong with them are being medicated for largely fictitious concerns.”

Ads Spur Urge for Drugs
David Lazarus, LA Times
“DTC advertising has turned prescription drugs into just another gotta-have-it consumer product.”

Food Politics, Half-Baked
James E. McWilliams, New York Times
“Lost in this rhetorical battle was a quiet middle ground where the benefits and drawbacks of genetically engineered crops were responsibly considered.”

Perpetrating the Autism Myth
Benjamin Kruskal and Carole Allen, Boston Globe
“The scientific evidence is clear: neither the MMR vaccine nor thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines has any relationship to autism.”

Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
Verlyn Klinkenborg, New York Times
“The real beneficiaries are the nation’s large meatpacking companies — the kind that would like it best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets.”

Human Embryos Cloned: What Does It Mean?
Art Caplan, MSNBC
“Let's not be frightened by scare tactics into not funding research that may be the key to curing what is currently incurable.”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Is Bad Policy for Cloned Food
Art Caplan, MSNBC
“All of this fear-mongering about clones has made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins.”