Presentation on theme: "Public Health Reports Webinar on New PHS Organ Transplantation Guideline June 25 th, 2013 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EDT."— Presentation transcript:
Public Health Reports Webinar on New PHS Organ Transplantation Guideline June 25 th, :00 PM - 2:00 PM EDT
Mary Beth Bigley, Dr.P.H., M.S.N., A.N.P. Acting Editor, Public Health Reports Office of the Surgeon General Office Cell Public Health Reports Webinar on New PHS Organ Transplantation Guideline
PHS Guideline for Reducing HIV, HBV, and HCV Transmission through Organ Transplantation - Overview - Ronald O. Valdiserri, MD, MPH Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Infectious Diseases Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Public Health Reports
Prior PHS Transplant Safety Guidelines Testing Donors of Organs, Tissues, and Semen for Antibody to Human T-lymphotropic Virus Type III/ Lymphadenopathy-associated Virus. MMWR;34(20):294 Public Health Service Inter-Agency Guidelines for Screening Donors of Blood, Plasma, Organs, Tissues and Semen for Evidence of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. MMWR; 40(RR-4): 1-17 Guidelines for Preventing Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus through Transplantation of Human Tissue and Organs. MMWR; 43(RR-8): 1-17
Balancing Organ Safety and Availability The number of people waiting for a transplant exceeds the number of organs available – Approx. 118,000 transplant candidates on the U.S. wait list – Approx. 28,500 transplants each year (living and deceased donors) – Approx. 6,500 deaths on wait list each year Transmission of HIV, HBV or HCV through transplanted organs – Can cause serious illness and death in recipients – Can occur despite risk assessment and laboratory testing But early diagnosis and treatment can improve recipient outcomes
Objective of New PHS Guideline Formulate recommendations based on a systematic review of the best available evidence Improve organ transplant recipient outcomes by reducing the risk of unexpected HIV, HBV, and HCV transmission Allow for informed decision-making process for transplant teams and their patients Guideline is not regulatory, but contains recommendations from PHS
Developing the PHS Guideline (1) Literature review to identify most relevant studies and reports on which to base PHS guideline recommendations U.S. Public Health Service entities actively involved in guideline development – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Food and Drug Administration – Health Resources and Services Administration – National Institutes for Health – Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health
Developing the PHS Guideline (2) Multidisciplinary group, representing organ recovery, transplantation, public health, patients, laboratory testing, and consent issues served as technical advisors for expert input – Approximately 100 written comments were received in response to a draft guideline posted in September 2011 – U.S. PHS considered all written comments and input from the technical advisory group before reaching final decision about guideline content HHS Secretary approved guideline on March 8, 2013
Accessing the Guideline and Evidence Report PHS Guideline for Reducing HIV, HBV, and HCV Transmission through Organ Transplantation – Published in the July/August issue of Public Health Reports – Includes commentaries by Howard Koh, MD, MPH, HHS Assistant Secretary for Health and Kenneth Moritsugu, MD, MPH, former HHS Acting Surgeon General – Open-access copy now on-line by the Association of Schools of Public Health at Solid Organ Transplantation and the Probability of Transmitting HIV, HBV, or HCV: A Systematic Review to Support an Evidence-Based Guideline – Comprises the primary evidence underlying the recommendations in the PHS guideline – Open-access copy now on-line at
PHS Guideline for Reducing HIV, HBV and HCV Transmission through Organ Transplantation Recommendations and Evidence-based Process Matthew J. Kuehnert, M.D. Director, Office of Blood, Organ and Other Tissue Safety Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion National Center for Zoonotic and Emerging Infectious Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Reports
Public Health Service Guideline Need and Intent of Development 1994 PHS Guidelines for Preventing Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Through Transplantation of Human Tissue and Organs has been a transplant policy reference 1994 PHS guideline revision needed – Update risk factors in donor and recipient evaluation – Integrate technological advances for better laboratory screening – Optimize decisions for risk assessment, and not exclude organs Intent of revised PHS guideline – Reduce risk of infectious transmission, while preserving availability of high quality organs – Provide best available information for transplant teams and their patients to make informed decisions – Change terminology, e.g., from CDC high risk to PHS increased risk
What are the Important Differences Between the 1994 and 2013 PHS Guideline? 1994: PHS Guidelines for Preventing Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus through Transplantation of Human Tissue and Organs – Organs and tissues; banked breast milk and semen – Transmission of HIV only – Developed via ad hoc expert input 2013: PHS Guideline for Reducing HIV, HBV and HCV Transmission through Organ Transplantation – Organs and blood vessel conduits used for transplantation – Transmission of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) – Developed via evidence-based process and expert input
Evidence-based Process for Revision On behalf of PHS, CDC led development of draft HHS agencies and external experts from transplant community provided input Recommendations based on systematic review of the best available evidence Evidence review conducted by: – Center for Evidence-based Practice at University of Pennsylvania – ECRI Institute/Evidence-based Practice Center
PHS Guideline Development Methodology: Five Phases in a Five Year Process Phase 1: Organize Technical Advisors for Guideline Development Phase 2: Preliminary Literature Search in Support of Questions for Systematic Review Phase 3: Development of Questions for Systematic Review and Analytic Framework Phase 4: Production of Evidence Report Phase 5: Guideline Development
Technical Advisors for Guideline Development Expert Panel – Experts in informed consent, hepatitis and HIV content, and laboratory medicine; – Individuals with expertise in organ recovery, transplantation, and infectious disease issues Review Committee – Representatives from organ recovery, transplantation, and public health professional organizations Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Association of Organ Procurement Organizations American Society for Transplantation American Society of Transplant Surgeons United Network for Organ Sharing NATCO (Organization for Transplant Professionals) – laboratory test manufacturers – patient advocate – ad hoc members PHS representatives from CDC, FDA, HHS/OPHS, HRSA, and NIH
Preliminary Literature Search to Support Questions for Systematic Review Review of 1994 PHS guideline as basis for revision Literature search with the following assumptions – Focus on solid organ transplantation – Focus on HIV, HBV, and HCV transmission – Retain current guideline structure, focusing on behavior/medical history interview, clinical data, and laboratory testing for risk assessment – Recognize the potential risks of new recommendations, as well as potential benefits
5 Key Topics for PHS Guideline Development Process Resulting in 10 Key Questions Risk of disease transmission through solid organ transplantation Potential risks and benefits of transplantation of solid organs from infected donors Methods to mitigate the potential risks of transplantation of solid organs from infected donors Potential risks and benefits of interventions to mitigate transmission of transmissible diseases Approaches as to how recipients can be informed about the risk of disease transmission and be evaluated for possible exposure post-transplantation
Analytical Framework Depicting the Relationship Between Donor Characteristics, Organ Availability, Patient Interventions, and Subsequent Outcomes Key Question 1: What are the prevalence and incidence rates of HIV, HBV, and HCV among potential organ donors?
Analytical Framework Depicting the Relationship Between Donor Characteristics, Organ Availability, Patient Interventions, and Subsequent Outcomes Key Question 2: What are the rates of transmission to recipients from donors infected with HIV, HBV, or HCV? Do the rates vary by the organ transplanted or when the donor was infected?
Analytical Framework Depicting the Relationship Between Donor Characteristics, Organ Availability, Patient Interventions, and Subsequent Outcomes Key Question 3: What behavioral risk factors are associated with an increased probability of infection with HIV, HBV, or HCV? What is the prevalence of these characteristics among potential organ donors?
Study Selection Process to Identify Articles Meeting Inclusion Criteria for the 10 Key Questions
Categories of PHS Guideline Recommendations Summary of Recommendations – Risk Factors for Recent HIV, HBV or HCV Infection – Risk Assessment (Screening) of Living and Deceased Donors – Testing of Living and Deceased Donors – Informed Consent Discussion with Transplant Candidates – Testing of Recipients Pre- and Post-transplant – Collection and/or Storage of Donor and Recipient Specimens – Tracking and Reporting of HIV, HBV and HCV Recommendations for Further Study
What is the need for these recommendations? High profile transmission of HIV and HCV from a donor to 4 recipients, 2007 From 2008 through 2011, there were more than 200 investigations of suspected disease transmission – 104 recipients were confirmed (i.e., proven or probable) to have recognized and unexpected donor-derived infectious disease transmission, including HIV, HBV, and HCV HCV in 10 recipients involving 6 donors HBV in 4 recipients involved 2 donors HIV in 1 recipient (transmission from a living donor)
Reduction in Undetected HCV Viremia from Use of Nucleic Acid Testing in Addition to Serology Alone p(Viremia in WP) per 100,000 py One in How Many? Normal Risk Potential Donor Anti-HCV205,000 HCV-NAT250,000 High Risk Potential Donor Anti-HCV1051,000 HCV-NAT1010,000 Ellingson K et al, AJT, 2011
Other Issues Raised During Guideline Development Revised risk factors identified for HIV, HBV or HCV infection may result in more donors defined as at increased risk, raising fears of reduced acceptance of organs New recommendations for nucleic acid testing (NAT) may result in more false positive tests, raising fears of decreased organ availability New recommendations for pre- and post-transplant testing of transplant recipients may increase costs – for all recipients with organs transplanted from donors with identified risk factors, risk factors unknown, or known to be infected with HCV or HBV New recommendation to limit blood vessel conduits from HBV/HCV infected donors only for use at transplant, raising the argument that they may be needed later for recipients
Major Changes to the PHS Guideline in Response to Public Comment and External Input Number of recommendations decreased from 54 to 34 Sections on HBV- and HCV-infected Donors and Transplantation were deleted Donor testing for HIV changed from NAT for all donors to NAT or Ag/Ab for increased risk donors Donor testing for HBV changed from NAT for increased risk donors to no recommendation Living Donor testing changed from within 7 to within 28 days of organ recovery Recipient testing (based on increased donor risk) reduced and changed to broader timeframes after transplant
Overview of PHS Guideline after Public Comment and External Input 12 criteria for donor risk factor assessment – 11 criteria apply in aggregate for HIV, HBV, and HCV – One criterion specific for HCV 34 recommendations* – 6 recommendations with 2 subparts each 20 recommendations for further study – Systematic evidence review – Expert review – Public comment *Guideline contains recommendations, which are not regulatory or required by policy
Examples of PHS Guideline recommendations – Donor Risk Assessment 12 criteria – 11 for aggregate risk for HIV/HBV/HCV, and one for HCV only – 6 for sexual history, 6 for nonsexual history Sexual history in last 12 months – Men who have had sex with another man (MSM) – Women who have had sex with MSM – Anyone with history of sex in exchange for money or drugs – Anyone with history of sex with a person with history of sex in exchange for money or drugs – Anyone with history of sex with a person who injected drugs (i.e., IV, IM, SQ routes) for nonmedical reasons – Anyone with history of sex with a person known or suspected to have HIV/HBV/HCV
Examples of HS Guideline Recommendations – Donor Risk Assessment Other history in last 12 months – Anyone who has injected drugs (i.e., IV, IM, SQ routes) for nonmedical reasons – Anyone who has been in lockup, jail, prison, or a juvenile correctional facility for more than 72 consecutive hours – Anyone newly diagnosed with, or treated for, syphilis, gonorrhea, Chlamydia, or genital ulcers – Any child who has been breastfed from mother known to be infected with, or is at risk for, HIV Other history – Any child < 18 months of age and born to a mother known to be infected with, or is at risk for, HIV – To assess risk of HCV only, anyone who has been on hemodialysis in the preceding 12 months
Examples of HS Guideline Recommendations – Donor Screening Donor should be considered increased risk if known to be infected, behavioral history risk factors present or unknown, or if specimen hemodiluted Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) for donor screening – HIV: If no risk factor identified, serology only If risk factor identified, serology + (NAT or antigen assay*) – HBV: anti-HBc, HBsAg, but no NAT regardless of risk factor – HCV: anti-HCV + NAT regardless of risk factor Living donors should be tested as close as possible to the date of the donor operation, but at least within 28 days prior to surgery *Includes 4 th generation HIV antigen/antibody assay
Examples of HS Guideline Recommendations – Recipient Testing If donor is increased risk, transplant candidate testing should occur just before transplant (during hospital admission) Nucleic acid testing (NAT) for recipient – HIV: NAT or Ag/Ab combo assay between 1 and 3 months – HBV: NAT and HBsAg between 1 and 3 months Anti-HBs, anti-HBc, and either NAT or HBsAg at 12 months – HCV: NAT between 1 and 3 months
Summary The 2013 PHS Guideline is now published in Public Health Reports, with new recommendations on donor screening, recipient testing, informed consent, and disease reporting for US organ procurement organizations and transplant centers The Guideline provides a set of evidence-based recommendations, but are not regulatory and not to be construed as policy Recommendations for further study summarize major gaps in the knowledge base that will be important in order to improve recommendations in the future
Recommendations for Further Study Jay A. Fishman, M.D. Director, Transplant Infectious Disease and Compromised Host Program, Massachusetts General Hospital Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA, USA Public Health Reports Meet the Author! Live Webcast
Background: The Systematic Review There are few studies that directly address the issue of transmission of infection with solid organ transplantation Data were intentionally limited to HIV, HCV, and HBV, but there are many other issues surrounding disease transmission in solid organ transplantation Testing is limited by the specific assays (targets) performed and the performance characteristics of those assays in the specific laboratory under consideration. The risk of donor infection (screening) is not the same as the risk of transmission to the recipient (infection) or the development of disease in the recipient – these require separate, but related, studies. There can never be absolute certainty about the degree of risk.
Potential Gaps in New Guidelines There are few data that define the characteristics of donors who will provide increased risk of HIV, HBV or HCV transmission. – Incidence and prevalence in donor population – Few data on actual transmission of HIV, HBV and HCV from infected donors following organ donation. – Need more detail/data to validate individual risk factors (microbiological and behavioral) that increase risk for transmission – e.g., viral load? viral strains? Sexual contacts? – How useful are behavioral criteria for exclusion? vs. non- transplantation? – Need data on the potential recipients perception and tolerance of risk
Addressing Knowledge Gaps Easier to design studies for biological questions than for psychosocial issues. Both are important. Potential study populations (organ donors and recipients) need to be engaged in multicenter studies Goal should be dissemination of data via peer reviewed publications. May require the development of new technologies (e.g., for assays or for communication of data). Can draw on experience of CTOT (NIH- Clinical trials in Organ Transplantation) for harmonization of assays in transplantation across multiple sites.
Potential Gaps in New Guidelines: Assays Assays for HIV, HBV and HCV: – Availability of FDA-approved, licensed or cleared screening assays vs. home brew – Availability at live donor transplant centers and/or regional laboratories – Optimal timing of assays compared with donation event – Use of screening vs. diagnostic assays, qualitative vs. quantitative assays – Performance in living vs. deceased donors Assay-specific studies: Prospectively evaluate the performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity) of various assays (platforms) – NAT vs. serologic testing (discordant data) – For screening (donors) and diagnosis (recipients) – Impact of storage of specimens for specific assays (e.g., -70), extraction for NAT, shipping, archiving costs – Impact of donor characteristics (brain death, transfusion, colloid resuscitation, timing) relative to procurement. – Rate of False + assays (and false negative) and impact on organ supply – Confirmatory testing: Standardized algorithms for real time discrimination of true and false-positive assays (re-testing). – Optimal laboratory proficiency testing; Minimum number of assays performed?
Potential Gaps in PHS Guidelines: Live Donors, Consent Screening of Live vs. Deceased donors – Yield of testing for live donors: True positive vs. false positive assays – Costs of various screening paradigms – Impact of false positive assays on potential donor (psychological) and on organ pool availability – Optimal approach to informed consent for testing of live donors – Optimal approach to providing screening data to living donors Consent process: – Which data are useful to potential recipients and their physicians? – How to best quantify risk and convey information regarding transmission risk to potential recipients? How is this best measured? How much information does the recipient want? – How to factor in individual values of the patients? – How much responsibility does the physician carry vs. the recipient? Does the patient want this responsibility? – Does this affect the utilization of organs? – Develop and validate uniform donor infection risk questionnaire and mechanism to translate such data in usable information for physicians and patients regarding informed consent
Potential Gaps in New Guidelines: Changing Epidemiology Epidemiology of transmission: Changing epidemiology of HIV, HCV, HBV – Ability to detect infection if/when it occurs? – Asymptomatic carriers – HCV+ Baby boomers – Efficacy of protection with HBV vaccination – Changing patterns of disease and risk with antiviral agents – Consideration (future) of use of HIV+ donors for HIV+ recipients – need for study in vivo – Potential value of large, prospective study of transplant donors and recipients (with stored sera) to assess actual rate if transmission and impact of disease vs. failure to transplant. Efficacy and cost of prevention strategies (donor treatment, recipient treatments) for infected donors using anti-viral agents (HIV, HBV, HCV). – Outcomes with use of infected donor organs vs. non-transplantation or delayed transplantation.
Potential Gaps in New Guidelines Validation of models to predict risk based on patient and donor characteristics – Compare with risk of non-transplantation (waiting) Optimal systems for tracking and sharing of screening data and reporting of transmission events – Syndromes in recipients Future Directions: – Use of donors with unknown meningoencephalitis or sepsis (treated or untreated) – Use of donors from endemic regions – Impact of donor cultures – Role of immunosuppression on transmission – Studies of mitigation of risk Is disease preventable or treatable?
Closing For more information about the PHR, visit at: