4.6 Article

A New UK 2006 National Kidney Allocation Scheme for Deceased Heart-Beating Donor Kidneys

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 89, Issue 4, Pages 387-394

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181c9029d

Keywords

Kidney transplant; Allocation scheme; Deceased donor; Equity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. In 2004, it was agreed that a new allocation scheme for kidneys from deceased heart-beating donors was required in the United Kingdom to address observed inequities in access to transplant. The 2006 National Kidney Allocation Scheme (2006 NKAS) was developed to meet agreed objectives and preparatory work included a review of the criteria for human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and simulation evidence about the effectiveness of alternative schemes. Algorithm for 2006 NKAS. The 2006 NKAS gives absolute priority to all 000 HLA-A, -B, -DR-mismatched patients and well-matched pediatric patients (< 18 years), and then a points score defines priorities for allocation with waiting time being most influential. Points for age and HLA mismatch are linked in a novel approach to ensure well-matched transplants for younger patients while recognizing that HLA matching is less important for older patients as retransplantation is less likely to be required. To improve equity for difficult to match patients, rare HLA specificities were defaulted to more common, related specificities. Impact of 2006 NKAS. After 3 years, the scheme is already making good progress in achieving its objectives, with overall results similar to those observed in the simulations. There has been a significant benefit for patients waiting more than 5 years for transplant. A number of other advantages of the scheme are also apparent with equity of access improving in many respects, including the achievement of equity of access to transplant for HLA-DR homozygous patients, but geographical inequity of access will take a number of years to address fully.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available