Search

Desensitization therapies have been used with modest success in kidney transplantation. Some candidates, however, have such great breadth and depth of anti-HLA antibodies that they remain incompatible with potential donors. Bortezomib has been used without much success in desensitization regimens, but we hypothesized that its use during induction may be helpful in targeting antibody production by long-lived plasma cells. This report describes a high-risk positive crossmatch son-to-mother transplant that was performed after desensitization. The induction immunosuppression was supplemented with bortezomib. Pre- and post-transplant immunosuppression, antibody monitoring, biopsy data, and the clinical course are described in detail. Following transplant, the patient had excellent early graft function. Serial biopsies did not reveal acute antibody mediated rejection. Despite excellent graft function, the patient underwent withdrawal of care and died due to complications of calciphylaxis and deconditioning. This case details the first report of bortezomib used as part of induction therapy in solid organ transplant. Donor specific antibody production remained stable after transplant, with near complete abrogation of class I specificities. There were no bortezomib-related complications.

To investigate the impact of donor age on the outcome of renal transplants, a retrospective analysis of 440 consecutive cadaver donor kidney transplants were performed by dividing the transplants into six groups, according to the decade of donor age. These groups were comparable with regard to recipient age, sex, race, and HLA matching grade, while the pediatric group received kidneys preferentially from the first and second decade donors. Although cadaver donor age, between 11 and 50 years, did not appear to influence the result of kidney transplants, the kidneys retrieved from the first and sixth or higher decades of donors fared significantly worse. Improved criteria for the evaluation, selection, and management of cadaver donors of extreme ages is needed to achieve a satisfactory result.

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease as a public health problem. Chronic kidney disease is a worldwide public health problem. In the United States, there is a rising incidence and prevalence of kidney failure, with poor outcomes and high cost. There is an even higher prevalence of earlier stages of chronic kidney disease. Increasing evidence, accrued in the past decades, indicates that the adverse outcomes of chronic kidney disease, such as kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, and premature death, can be prevented or delayed. Earlier stages of chronic kidney disease can be detected through laboratory testing. Treatment of earlier stages of chronic kidney disease is effective in slowing the progression toward kidney failure. Initiation of treatment for cardiovascular risk factors at earlier stages of chronic kidney disease should be effective in reducing cardiovascular disease events both before and after the onset of kidney failure. Unfortunately, chronic kidney disease is "under-diagnosed" and "under-treated" in the United States, resulting in lost opportunities for prevention. One reason is the lack of agreement on a definition and classification of stages in the progression of chronic kidney disease. A clinically applicable classification would be based on laboratory evaluation of the severity of kidney disease, association of level of kidney function with complications, and stratification of risks for loss of kidney function and development of cardiovascular disease. Charge to the K/DOQI work group on chronic kidney disease. In 2000, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) Advisory Board approved development of clinical practice guidelines to define chronic kidney disease and to classify stages in the progression of chronic kidney disease. The Work Group charged with developing the guidelines consisted of experts in nephrology, pediatric nephrology, epidemiology, laboratory medicine, nutrition, social work, gerontology, and family medicine. An Evidence Review Team, consisting of nephrologists and methodologists, was responsible for assembling the evidence. Defining chronic kidney disease and classifying the stages of severity would provide a common language for communication among providers, patients and their families, investigators, and policy-makers and a framework for developing a public health approach to affect care and improve outcomes of chronic kidney disease. A uniform terminology would permit: 1. More reliable estimates of the prevalence of earlier stages of disease and of the population at increased risk for development of chronic kidney disease 2. Recommendations for laboratory testing to detect earlier stages and progression to later stages 3. Associations of stages with clinical manifestations of disease 4. Evaluation of factors associated with a high risk of progression from one stage to the next or of development of other adverse outcomes 5. Evaluation of treatments to slow progression or prevent other adverse outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines, clinical performance measures, and continuous quality improvement efforts could then be directed to stages of chronic kidney disease. The Work Group did not specifically address evaluation and treatment for chronic kidney disease. However, this guideline contains brief reference to diagnosis and clinical interventions and can serve as a "road map" linking other clinical practice guidelines and pointing out where other guidelines need to be developed. Eventually, K/DOQI will include interventional guidelines. The first three of these, on bone disease, dyslipidemia, and blood pressure management are currently under development. Other guidelines on cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients and kidney biopsy will be initiated in the Winter of 2001. This report contains a summary of background information available at the time the Work Group began its deliberations, the 15 guidelines and the accompanying rationale, suggestions for clinical performance measures, a clinical approach to chronic kidney disease using these guidelines, and appendices to describe methods for the review of evidence. The guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature and the consensus of the Work Group. The guidelines have been reviewed by the K/DOQI Advisory Board, a large number of professional organizations and societies, selected experts, and interested members of the public and have been approved by the Board of Directors of the NKF. Framework. The Work Group defined "chronic kidney disease" to include conditions that affect the kidney, with the potential to cause either progressive loss of kidney function or complications resulting from decreased kidney function. Chronic kidney disease was thus defined as the presence of kidney damage or decreased level of kidney function for three months or more, irrespective of diagnosis. The target population includes individuals with chronic kidney disease or at increased risk of developing chronic kidney disease. The majority of topics focus on adults (age ≥18 years). Many of the same principles apply to children as well. In particular, the classification of stages of disease and principles of diagnostic testing are similar. A subcommittee of the Work Group examined issues related to children and participated in development of the first six guidelines of the present document. However, there are sufficient differences between adults and children in the association of GFR with signs and symptoms of uremia and in stratification of risk for adverse outcomes that these latter issues are addressed only for adults. A separate set of guidelines for children will have to be developed by a later Work Group. The target audience includes a wide range of individuals: those who have or are at increased risk of developing chronic kidney disease (the target population) and their families; health care professionals caring for the target population; manufacturers of instruments and diagnostic laboratories performing measurements of kidney function; agencies and institutions planning, providing or paying for the health care needs of the target population; and investigators studying chronic kidney disease. There will be only brief reference to clinical interventions, sufficient to provide a basis for other clinical practice guidelines relevant to the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Subsequent K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines will be based on the framework developed here. Definition of chronic kidney disease. Why "Kidney"? The word "kidney" is of Middle English origin and is immediately understood by patients, their families, providers, health care professionals, and the lay public of native English speakers. On the other hand, "renal" and "nephrology," derived from Latin and Greek roots, respectively, commonly require interpretation and explanation. The Work Group and the NKF are committed to communicating in language that can be widely understood, hence the preferential use of "kidney" throughout these guidelines. The term "End-Stage Renal Disease" (ESRD) has been retained because of its administrative usage in the United States referring to patients treated by dialysis or transplantation, irrespective of their level of kidney function. Why Develop a New Classification? Currently, there is no uniform classification of the stages of chronic kidney disease. A review of textbooks and journal articles clearly demonstrates ambiguity and overlap in the meaning of current terms. The Work Group concluded that uniform definitions of terms and stages would improve communication between patients and providers, enhance public education, and promote dissemination of research results. In addition, it was believed that uniform definitions would enhance conduct of clinical research. Why Base a New Classification System on Severity of Disease? Adverse outcomes of kidney disease are based on the level of kidney function and risk of loss of function in the future. Chronic kidney disease tends to worsen over time. Therefore, the risk of adverse outcomes increases over time with disease severity. Many disciplines in medicine, including related specialties of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and transplantation, have adopted classification systems based on severity to guide clinical interventions, research, and professional and public education. Such a model is essential for any public health approach to disease. Why Classify Severity as the Level of GFR? The level of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is widely accepted as the best overall measure of kidney function in health and disease. Providers and patients are familiar with the concept that "the kidney is like a filter." GFR is the best measure of the kidneys' ability to filter blood. In addition, expressing the level of kidney function on a continuous scale allows development of patient and public education programs that encourage individuals to "Know your number!" The term "GFR" is not intuitively evident to anyone. Rather, it is a learned term, which allows the ultimate expression of the complex functions of the kidney in one single numerical expression. Conversely, numbers are an intuitive concept and easily understandable by everyone.