Search

The clinical practice guideline Management of Obesity in Kidney Transplant Candidates and Recipients was developed to guide decision-making in caring for people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) living with obesity. The document considers the challenges in defining obesity, weighs interventions for treating obesity in kidney transplant candidates as well as recipients and reflects on the impact of obesity on the likelihood of wait-listing as well as its effect on transplant outcomes. It was designed to inform management decisions related to this topic and provide the backdrop for shared decision-making. This guideline was developed by the European Renal Association's Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States working group. The group was supplemented with selected methodologists to supervise the project and provide methodological expertise in guideline development throughout the process. The guideline targets any healthcare professional treating or caring for people with ESKD being considered for kidney transplantation or having received a donor kidney. This includes nephrologists, transplant physicians, transplant surgeons, general practitioners, dialysis and transplant nurses. Development of this guideline followed an explicit process of evidence review. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and areas of future research are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Living donation challenges the ethical principle of non-maleficence in that it exposes healthy persons to risks for the benefit of someone else. This makes safety, informed consent (IC) and education a priority. Living kidney donation has multiple benefits for the potential donor, but there are also several known short- and long-term risks. Although complete standardization of IC is likely to be unattainable, studies have emphasized the need for a standardized IC process to enable equitable educational and decision-making prospects for the prevention of inequities across transplant centers. Based on the Three-Talk Model of shared decision-making by Elwyn et al. we propose a model, named 3-Step (S) Model, where each step coincides with the three ideal timings of the process leading the living donor to the decision to pursue living donation: prior to the need for kidney replacement therapy (team talk); at the local nephrology unit or transplant center, with transplant clinicians and surgeons prior to evaluations start (option talk); and throughout evaluation, after having learned about the different aspects of donation, especially if there are second thoughts or doubts (decision talk). Based on the 3-S Model, to deliver conceptual and practical guidance to nephrologists and transplant clinicians, we provide recommendations for standardization of the timing, content, modalities for communicating risks and assessment of understanding prior to donation. The 3-S Model successfully allows an integration between standardization and individualization of IC, enabling a person-centered approach to potential donors. Studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-S Model in kidney transplant clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Omicron variant, which has become the dominant strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, brings new challenges to preventing and controlling the infection. Moreover, the widespread implementation of vaccination policies before and after transplantation, and the development of new prophylactic and treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) over the past 12–18 months, has raised several new issues concerning kidney transplant recipients. In this special report, the ERA DESCARTES (Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States) Working Group addresses several questions related to everyday clinical practice concerning kidney transplant recipients and to the assessment of deceased and live kidney donors: what is the current risk of severe disease and of breakthrough infection, the optimal management of immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19, the role of passive immunization and the efficacy of antiviral drugs in ambulatory patients, the management of drug-to-drug interactions, safety criteria for the use of SARS-CoV-2-positive donors, issues related to the use of T cell depleting agents as induction treatment, and current recommendations for shielding practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2017 version of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines is the most recent international framework for the evaluation and care of living kidneys donors. Along with the call for an integrative approach evaluating the long-term end-stage kidney disease risk for the future potential donor, several recommendations are formulated regarding the pre-donation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) adequacy with no or little consideration for the donor candidate's age or for the importance of using reference methods of GFR measurements. Herein, we question the position of the KDIGO guidelines and discuss the rationale and modalities for a more basic, but no less demanding GFR evaluation enabling a more efficient selection of potential kidney donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Existing guidelines on the evaluation and preparation of recipients for kidney transplantation target the entire spectrum of patients with end-stage renal disease. Within the ERA-EDTA Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States (DESCARTES) Working Group, it was proposed that in a subset of relatively young patients (<40 years) without significant comorbidities (such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease), the work-up for transplantation could be restricted to a small set of tests. Methods Aiming for agreement between transplant centres across Europe, we surveyed the opinion of 80 transplant professionals from 11 European states on the composition of a minimal work-up. Results We show that there is a wide agreement among European experts that the work-up for kidney transplantation of the low-risk candidate, as opposed to the standard risk candidate, could include a limited number of investigations. However, there is some disagreement regarding the small number of diagnostic procedures, which is related to geographical location within Europe and the professional background of respondents. Conclusions Based on the results of the survey, published guidelines and expert meetings by the DESCARTES Working Group, we have formulated a proposal for the work-up of low-risk kidney transplant candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current proposals for waiting times for a renal transplant after malignant disease may not be appropriate. New data on malignancies in end-stage renal disease and recent diagnostic and therapeutic options should lead us to reconsider our current practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transplantation medicine is a rapidly evolving field. Keeping afloat of the published literature to offer the best clinical care to our patients is a daunting task. As part of its educational mission, the Descartes advisory board identified seven topics in kidney transplantation where there has been substantial progresses over the last years: kidney allocation within Eurotransplant; kidney exchange strategies; kidney machine perfusion strategies; the changing landscape of anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies; the new immunosuppressive drugs in the pipeline; strategies for immunosuppression minimization; and the continuous enigma of focal segmental glomerular sclerosis recurrence after transplantation. Here, we have summarized the main knowledge and the main challenges of these seven topics with the aim to provide transplant professionals at large with key bullet points to successfully understand these new concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Limited health literacy affects 25% of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and may reduce self-management skills resulting in poorer clinical outcomes. By disproportionately affecting people with low socio-economic status and non-white ethnicity, limited health literacy may promote health inequity. Methods We performed a systematic review of quantitative studies of health literacy and clinical outcomes among adults with CKD. Results A total of 29 studies (13 articles; 16 conference abstracts) were included. One included non-USA patients. Of the 29 studies, 5 were cohort studies and 24 were cross-sectional. In all, 18 300 patients were studied: 4367 non-dialysis CKD; 13 202 dialysis; 390 transplant; 341 unspecified. Median study size was 127 [interquartile range (IQR) 92–238)], but 480 (IQR 260–2392) for cohort studies. Median proportion of non-white participants was 48% (IQR 17–70%). Six health literacy measures were used. Outcomes included patient attributes, care processes, clinical/laboratory parameters and ‘hard’ clinical outcomes. Limited health literacy was significantly, independently associated with hospitalizations, emergency department use, missed dialysis sessions, cardiovascular events and mortality (in cohort studies). Study quality was high (1 study), moderate (3 studies) and poor (25 studies), limited by sampling methods, variable adjustment for confounders and reduced methodological detail given in conference abstracts. Conclusions There is limited robust evidence of the causal effects of health literacy on patient outcomes in CKD. Available evidence suggests associations with adverse clinical events, increased healthcare use and mortality. Prospective studies are required to determine the causal effects of health literacy on outcomes in CKD patients, and examine the relationships between socio-economic status, comorbidity, health literacy and CKD outcomes. Intervention development and evaluation will determine whether health literacy is a modifiable determinant of poor outcomes in CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) provides more timely access to transplantation and better clinical outcomes than deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). This study investigated disparities in the utilization of LDKT in the UK. Methods. A total of 2055 adults undergoing kidney transplantation between November 2011 and March 2013 were prospectively recruited from all 23 UK transplant centres as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) study. Recipient variables independently associated with receipt of LDKT versus DDKT were identified. Results. Of the 2055 patients, 807 (39.3%) received LDKT and 1248 (60.7%) received DDKT. Multivariable modelling demonstrated a significant reduction in the likelihood of LDKT for older age {odds ratio [OR] 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.17], P<0.0001 for 65-75 years versus 18-34 years}; Asian ethnicity [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.39-0.77), P=0.0006 versus White]; Black ethnicity [OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.42-0.99), P=0.047 versus White]; divorced, separated or widowed [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.46-0.88), P=0.030 versus married]; no qualifications [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.74), P<0.0001 versus higher education qualifications]; no car ownership [OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.37-0.72), P=0.0001] and no home ownership [OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.85-0.79), P=0.002]. The odds of LDKT varied significantly between countries in the UK. Conclusions. Among patients undergoing kidney transplantation in the UK, there are significant age, ethnic, socio-economic and geographic disparities in the utilization of LDKT. Further work is needed to explore the potential for targeted interventions to improve equity in living donor transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two recent matched cohort studies from the USA and Norway published in 2014 have raised some concerns related to the long-term safety of kidney living donation. Further studies on the long-term risks of living donation have since been published. In this position paper, Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States (DESCARTES) board members critically review the literature in an effort to summarize the current knowledge concerning longterm risks of kidney living donation to help physicians for decision-making purposes and for providing information to the prospective live donors. Long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) can be partially foreseen by trying to identify donors at risk of developing 'de novo' kidney diseases during life post-donation and by predicting lifetime ESRD risk. However, lifetime risk may be difficult to assess in young donors, especially in those having first-degree relatives with ESRD. The study from Norway also found an increased risk of death after living donor nephrectomy, which became visible only after >15 years of post-donation follow-up. However, these findings are likely to be largely the result of an overestimation due to the confounding effect related to a family history of renal disease. DESCARTES board members emphasize the importance of optimal risk-benefit assessment and proper information to the prospective donor, which should also include recommendations on health-promoting behaviour post-donation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. In a number of countries, reimbursement to hospitals providing renal dialysis services is set according to a fixed tariff. While the cost of maintenance dialysis and transplant surgery are amenable to a system of fixed tariffs, patients with established renal failure commonly present with comorbid conditions that can lead to variations in the need for hospitalization beyond the provision of renal replacement therapy. Methods. Patient-level cost data for incident renal replacement therapy patients in England were obtained as a result of linkage of the Hospital Episodes Statistics dataset to UK Renal Registry data. Regression models were developed to explore variations in hospital costs in relation to treatment modality, number of years on treatment and factors such as age and comorbidities. The final models were then used to predict annual costs for patients with different sets of characteristics. Results. Excluding the cost of renal replacement therapy itself, inpatient costs generally decreased with number of years on treatment for haemodialysis and transplant patients, whereas costs for patients receiving peritoneal dialysis remained constant. Diabetes was associated with higher mean annual costs for all patients irrespective of treatment modality and hospital setting. Age did not have a consistent effect on costs. Conclusions. Combining predicted hospital costs with the fixed costs of renal replacement therapy showed that the total cost differential for a patient continuing on dialysis rather than receiving a transplant is considerable following the first year of renal replacement therapy, thus reinforcing the longer- term economic advantage of transplantation over dialysis for the health service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is variation in time to listing and rates of listing for transplantation between renal units in the UK. While research has mainly focused on healthcare organization, little is known about patient perspectives of entry onto the transplant waiting list. This qualitative study aimed to explore patients' views and experiences of kidney transplant listing. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients aged under 75, who were on dialysis and on the transplant waiting list, not on the waiting list, undergoing assessment for listing or who had received a transplant. Patients were recruited from a purposive sample of nine UK renal units, which included transplanting and non-transplanting units and units with high and low wait-listing patterns. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Fifty-three patients (5–7 per renal unit) were interviewed. Patients reported that they had received little information about the listing process. Some patients did not know if they were listed or had found they were not listed when they had thought they were on the list. Others expressed distress when they felt they had been excluded from potential listing based on age and/or comorbidity and felt the process was unfair. Many patients were not aware of pre-emptive transplantation and believed they had to be on dialysis before being able to be listed. There was some indication that pre-emptive transplantation was discussed more often in transplant than non-transplant units. Lastly, some patients were reluctant to consider family members as potential donors as they reported they would feel ‘guilty’ if the donor suffered subsequent negative effects. Conclusions Findings suggest a need to review current practice to further understand individual and organizational reasons for the renal unit variation identified in patient understanding of transplant listing. The communication of information warrants attention to ensure patients are fully informed about the listing process and opportunity for pre-emptive transplantation in a way that is meaningful and understandable to them. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]