Analyzing outcomes following pancreas transplantation: Definition of a failure or failure of a definition

Pancreas transplantation has an identity crisis and is at a crossroads. Although outcomes continue to improve in each successive era, the number of pancreas transplants performed annually in the United States has been static for several years in spite of increasing numbers of deceased donors. For most practitioners who manage diabetes, pancreas transplantation is considered an extreme measure to control diabetes. With expanded recipient selection (primarily simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplantation) in patients who are older, have a higher BMI, are minorities, or who have a type 2 diabetes phenotype, the controversy regarding type of diabetes detracts from the success of intervention. The absence of a clear and precise definition of pancreas graft failure, particularly one that lacks a measure of glycemic control, inhibits wider application of pancreas transplantation with respect to reporting long‐term outcomes, comparing this treatment to alternative therapies, developing listing and allocation policy, and having a better understanding of the patient perspective. It has been suggested that the definition of pancreas graft failure should differ depending on the type of pretransplant diabetes. In this commentary, we discuss current challenges regarding the development of a uniform definition of pancreas graft failure and propose a potential solution to this vexing problem.

[1]  R. Stratta,et al.  C‐peptide levels do not correlate with pancreas allograft failure: Multicenter retrospective analysis and discussion of the new OPT definition of pancreas allograft failure , 2018, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[2]  M. Rickels,et al.  Defining outcomes for β‐cell replacement therapy in the treatment of diabetes: a consensus report on the Igls criteria from the IPITA/EPITA opinion leaders workshop , 2018, Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation.

[3]  A. Israni,et al.  OPTN/SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report: Pancreas , 2018, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[4]  Roy W Beck,et al.  The Fallacy of Average: How Using HbA1c Alone to Assess Glycemic Control Can Be Misleading , 2017, Diabetes Care.

[5]  Howard C. Zisser,et al.  Outcome Measures for Artificial Pancreas Clinical Trials: A Consensus Report , 2016, Diabetes Care.

[6]  M. Rickels,et al.  Consistency of quantitative scores of hypoglycemia severity and glycemic lability and comparison with continuous glucose monitoring system measures in long-standing type 1 diabetes. , 2015, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[7]  A. Israni,et al.  OPTN/SRTR 2012 Annual Data Report: Pancreas , 2014, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[8]  Y. Becker,et al.  Long‐Term Pancreatic Allograft Survival After Renal Retransplantation in Prior Simultaneous Pancreas–Kidney Recipients , 2012, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[9]  P. Choudhary,et al.  Evaluating rate of change as an index of glycemic variability, using continuous glucose monitoring data. , 2011, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[10]  A. Shapiro,et al.  Assessment of the severity of hypoglycemia and glycemic lability in type 1 diabetic subjects undergoing islet transplantation. , 2004, Diabetes.