Skip to main content
Log in

The MELD System for Liver Allocation

Implications for Patients and Payors

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Disease Management & Health Outcomes

Abstract

The recent implementation of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)/Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease (PELD) system for the allocation of cadaveric liver organs in the US represents a dramatic change in organ allocation policy. Previous allocation algorithms used a categorical stratification system, in which candidates were ranked by the length of time waiting within these strata. This resulted in the ranking of patients by time waiting on the list, not by their need for a transplant. Moreover, these previous systems had not been validated for their accuracy in predicting the severity of liver disease and did not meet the needs of the enlarging population of appropriate candidates with end-stage liver disease. The MELD was identified as a potentially more accurate measure of liver disease, and a new plan for liver allocation incorporating the MELD score and virtually eliminating waiting time was devised. Several diagnoses for which liver transplantation is indicated were identified as not being served by the MELD system, so alternative mechanisms were developed for these cases. The new allocation system went into effect on February 27, 2002. One year after implementation, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of cadaveric transplants and a slight reduction in the number of waiting list deaths compared with the previous system in the year prior to MELD.

As the system evolves and improvements are made, patients have a much more objective measure of the severity of their liver disease, which is comparable regardless of the geographic location or physician. This change to a mathematically-based system that defines the risk of death represents a change in the way patients and caregivers will think about the liver transplant list. In addition, payors now have a much more objective measure of the severity of illness and can more accurately risk-adjust their comparisons of centers and patients. The new system directs organs to sicker patients, and waiting candidates are likely to experience significant declines in their quality of life while waiting. In addition, because this new policy will result in more severely ill patients receiving transplants, the costs of care are likely to increase, although preliminary results suggest that survival rates have not changed. The change to this new, more evidence-based system is a significant paradigm shift in organ allocation policy. Patients, caregivers, and payors should also be prepared for continuous evolution of the system as more data become available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Components of the CTP score employed in the previous liver allocation policy can be found on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) web site (http://www.unos.org).

  2. A separate risk model, called the Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease (PELD) score, was developed for pediatric liver transplant candidates. Because pediatric candidates represent less than 10% of the US liver transplant waiting list, the PELD score will not be discussed in this paper.

  3. A full description of the liver allocation policy can be found at http://www.unos.org.

  4. A ‘MELD Calculator’ is available at http://www.unos.org.

References

  1. United Network for Organ Sharing website. Available from URL: http://www.u-nos.org. [Accessed 2002 Jul 31]

  2. Freeman RB, Edwards EB. Liver transplant waiting time does not correlate with waiting list mortality: implications for liver allocation policy. Liver Transpl 2000; 6: 543–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman RB, Rohrer RJ, Katz E, et al. Preliminary results of a liver allocation plan using a continuous medical severity score that de-emphasizes waiting time. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 173–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Malinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, et al. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology 2000; 31: 864–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiesner RH, McDiarmid SV, Kamath PS, et al. MELD and PELD: application of survival models to liver allocation. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 567–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wong LL. Current status of liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer. Am J Surg 2002; 183: 309–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hemming AW, Cattral MS, Reed AI, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg 2001; 23: 652–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lovelet JM, Foster J, Briux J. Intention to treat analysis of surgical treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma: resection versus transplantation. Hepatology 1999; 30: 1434–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hemming J, Angelis MA, Mithoefer A, et al. Direct costs for one year of liver transplant care are not independently associated with pre-transplant MELD score [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2002; 2 Suppl. 3: 299

    Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman RB, Harper AM, Edwards EB. Redrawing organ distribution boundaries: results of a computer simulated analysis for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2002; 8: 659–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge Ann Harper and Erick Edwards at the United Network for Organ Sharing in Virginia, USA, for their tremendous help in preparing the statistical results for this manuscript.

The authors have provided no information on sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Freeman, R.B. The MELD System for Liver Allocation. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 11, 551–556 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200311090-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200311090-00002

Keywords

Navigation