Table 2 Recommendations and distribution of participant votes
Recommendation | Y | N | A |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Epitope compatibility should be added as an additional criterion (added to the matrix) for transplant candidate selection | 30 | 0 | 1 |
2. Safeguards/flexibility need to be part of epitope compatibility to promote fairness | 28 | 0 | 3 |
3. When epitope compatibility is being considered, we should also allow people with seriously declining health to receive less- or non-epitope matched kidneys.a | 23 | 3 | 1 |
4. Quality of life should be considered as a priority | 11 | 12 | 7 |
5. Deteriorating health should be considered as a priority | 20 | 5 | 5 |
6. Epitope matching should be given high, but not absolute priority in the allocation of kidneys | 29 | 0 | 1 |
7. There needs to be an ongoing comprehensive education program for the public, beginning with the transition to epitope matching | 27 | 1 | 2 |
8. There needs to be a transition period and plan before starting the epitope matching system.b | 25 | 0 | 2 |
9. Assessing epitope compatibility outcomes at least every 5Â years and communicate results widely to patients, healthcare professionals, and public, whether successful or not | 29 | 0 | 0 |