Navigating the Ethical Landscape of Xenotransplantation: A Metadata Analysis for Informed Decision-Making Ethical and Clinical Insights into Xenotransplantation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Xenotransplantation, the transfer of animal organs into humans, has gained attention as a solution to the global shortage of human organs for transplantation. Genetic advancements in donor animals, particularly pigs, offer potential to reduce immune rejection and improve compatibility.
Objective: This review aimed to examine the scientific advancements, ethical concerns, and clinical outcomes of xenotransplantation, focusing on the use of genetically modified pigs.
Methods: A review based on metadata analysis was conducted, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The research question focused on the efficacy, safety, and ethical considerations of xenotransplantation. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched using keywords such as "xenotransplantation," "genetic modification," "pig organ transplantation," and "immune rejection." Studies were screened based on eligibility criteria, including clinical trials and ethical analyses. Quality was assessed using the CASP tool, and data were synthesized from 27 studies.
Results: Xenotransplantation from genetically modified pigs showed a reduction in immune rejection rates by 60% and decreased waiting times for organ transplants by up to 50%. Long-term graft survival remains uncertain, with a success rate of 70% in short-term trials.
Conclusion: Xenotransplantation offers a promising solution to organ shortages, but further long-term studies and ethical evaluations are needed to ensure safety and acceptance.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Sykes M, D’Apice A, Sandrin M. Position paper of the ethics committee of the international xenotransplantation association. Transplantation. 2004;78(8):1101-7.
Ekser B, Cooper DK, Tector AJ. The need for xenotransplantation as a source of organs and cells for clinical transplantation. Int J Surg. 2015;23:199-204.
Cooper DK, Ekser B, Ramsoondar J, Phelps C, Ayares D. The role of genetically engineered pigs in xenotransplantation research. J Pathol. 2016;238(2):288-99.
George AJ. Ethics, virtues and xenotransplantation. Perfusion. 2022;37(8):620-4.
Hughes J. Xenografting: Ethical issues. J Med Ethics. 1998;24(1):18-24.
Fishman JA, Patience C. Xenotransplantation: Infectious risk revisited. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(9):1383-90.
Boneva RS, Folks TM, Chapman LE. Infectious disease issues in xenotransplantation. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001;14(1):1-14.
Boneva RS, Folks TM. Xenotransplantation and risks of zoonotic infections. Ann Med. 2004;36(7):504-17.
Azofra MJ, Casabona CR. Some ethical, social, and legal considerations of xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation: Methods and Protocols. 2012;12(2):458-74.
Francis P. The Joy of the Gospel: Evangelii Gaudium. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; 2014.
Melo H, Brandao C, Rego G, Nunes R. Ethical and legal issues in xenotransplantation. Bioethics. 2001;15(5-6):427-42.
Deschamps JY, Roux FA, Saï P, Gouin E. History of xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation. 2005;12(2):91-109.
Martinez-Alarcon L, Rios A, Conesa C, Alcaraz J, Gonzalez MJ, Montoya M, et al. Attitude towards xenotransplantation in kidney and liver patients on the transplant waiting list. Transplant Proc. 2005;37(9):4107-11.
NYU Langone Health News. First Successful Transplantation of Genetically Modified Pig Kidney into Human. [Internet]. Available from: https://nyulangone.org/
Massachusetts General Hospital Press Release. Successful Genetically Edited Pig Kidney Transplant. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.massgeneral.org/
Sykes M, d’Apice A, Sandrin M. Position paper of the ethics committee of the international xenotransplantation association. Xenotransplantation. 2003;10(3):194-203.
Barker JH, Polcrack L. Respect for persons, informed consent and the assessment of infectious disease risks in xenotransplantation. Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4:53-70.