The state of kidney replacement therapy in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: A call to action

Background. South Africa (SA) is one of the most financially unequal countries in the world. This situation is highlighted by disparate access to healthcare, particularly provision of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Unlike the private sector, public sector access to KRT is highly rationed, and patient selection is based on suitability for transplantation and capacity. Objectives. To investigate the state of the KRT service in Eastern Cape Province, SA, by analysing access to and provision of KRT in the province for individuals with end-stage kidney disease, as well as disparities between the private and public healthcare systems. Methods. This was a retrospective descriptive study to examine KRT provision and temporal trends in the Eastern Cape. Data were obtained from the South African Renal Registry and the National Transplant Waiting List. KRT provision was compared between the three main referral centres, in Gqeberha (formerly Port Elizabeth), East London and Mthatha, and between the private and public healthcare systems. Results. There were 978 patients receiving KRT in the Eastern Cape, with an overall treatment rate of 146 per million population (pmp). The treatment rate for the private sector was 1 435 pmp, compared with 49 pmp in the public sector. Patients treated in the private sector were older at initiation of KRT (52 v. 34 years), and more likely to be male, to be HIV positive, and to receive haemodialysis as their KRT modality. Peritoneal dialysis was more commonly used in Gqeberha and East London as the first and subsequent KRT modality, compared with Mthatha. There were no patients from Mthatha on the transplant waiting list. There were no waitlisted HIV-positive patients in the public sector in East London, compared with 16% of the public sector patients in Gqeberha. The kidney transplant prevalence rate was 58 pmp in the private sector and 19 pmp in the public sector, with a combined prevalence of 22 pmp, constituting 14.9% of all patients on KRT. We estimated the shortfall of KRT provision in the public sector to be ~8 606 patients. Conclusion. Patients in the private sector were 29 times more likely to access KRT than their public sector counterparts, who were on average 18 years younger at initiation of KRT, probably reflecting selection bias in an overburdened public health system. Transplantation rates were low in both sectors, and lowest in Mthatha. A large public sector KRT provision gap exists in the Eastern Cape and needs to be addressed urgently

A roadmap for kidney health for South Africa in the context of universal health coverage

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) in South Africa (SA) is a growing public health crisis, driven by the intersecting burdens of HIV, tuberculosis, hypertension, diabetes and obesity. In Black African populations, high-risk apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) variants add a genetic predisposition to non-diabetic kidney diseases, compounding risk. Global recognition of CKD has recently advanced, marked by the 2025 World Health Organization (WHO) non-communicable disease resolution, which urges the integration of kidney care into national health strategies. This resolution emphasises prevention, early detection and treatment, while strengthening primary healthcare and addressing social determinants of health, particularly in low-income countries. However, in SA, domestic capacity has not kept pace. Public-sector dialysis slots have remained static since 1994, while the private sector has expanded rapidly, deepening inequities by province and income. In the public sector, dialysis is rationed to patients eligible for transplantation, yet transplant access is limited by organ shortages, logistical barriers and variable provincial resources. Expanding deceased donation and implementing kidney paired donation (KPD) programmes are essential to increase transplant opportunities, particularly for incompatible donor- recipient pairs, and to improve equity in access. Children and adolescents face additional barriers, including limited age-specific pathways and the absence of structured transition to adult care. Workforce shortages, inadequate regulatory oversight, inconsistent procurement processes and incomplete registry reporting undermine service quality, limit expansion and perpetuate inequities in access. Without urgent reform, CKD will continue to drive preventable morbidity, premature mortality and escalating costs. Scaling equitable dialysis and transplantation services, integrating KPD and investing in prevention, workforce and infrastructure are critical to reversing current trends and fulfilling the WHO’s call for action

APOL1 genotype and patient outcomes in US and South African transplant recipients with HIV who received kidneys from donors with HIV

Lower kidney allograft survival has been demonstrated in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) without HIV whose donors have two apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) renal risk variants (RRV). The effects of APOL1 RRV on kidney transplant outcomes in people with HIV (PWH) have not been fully assessed. To determine whether APOL1 renal risk variants (G1/G2) in donors or recipients are associated with outcomes of kidney transplantation in people with HIV (PWH)? Comparative analysis of kidney allograft outcomes in two of the largest longitudinal clinical studies examining transplantation outcomes in PWH. Two cohorts of HIV-positive KTR (R+) and their respective HIV-negative (D-) or HIV-positive (D+) kidney donors from the South African (SA) HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation clinical study and the United States of America (US) HOPE in Action Kidney transplantation clinical trial. All patients with genomic DNA available for APOL1 genotyping were included. APOL1 Genotype was determined using a probe-based assay. Time to first rejection, HIV-associated nephropathy, graft failure or death were compared by both donor and recipient APOL1 RRV status. Genomic DNA was available for 21 donors with HIV and 38 HIV D+/R+ recipients in the SA cohort, and 57 donors (40 D+ and 17 D-) and 119 recipients (49 HIV D+/R+ and 70 D-/R+) in the US cohort. Recipient outcomes were not associated with recipient APOL1 genotype. However, recipients whose donor carried one versus zero APOL1 RRV were significantly more likely to experience a negative composite outcome (p<0.02 for both cohorts independently), which led to an adjusted hazard ratio of a poor composite outcome of 2.9 (95% CI 1.1–7.4) and 10.1 (95% CI 2.4–42.7) in the SA and US cohorts, respectively. In two independent studies, the presence of one APOL1 RRV in a donor kidney led to significantly worse post-transplant outcomes while recipient APOL1 genotype was not associated with outcomes. Further research into the interaction between the allograft environment and donor APOL1 genotype in PWH is required. Do APOL1 renal risk variants (G1/G2) influence the outcomes of kidney transplantation in people with HIV (PWH)? In two of the largest cohorts of PWH who are also kidney transplant recipients, the presence of even one donor APOL1 renal risk variant was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of a poor composite outcome of 10.1 (95%CI=2.4-42.7) and 2.9 (95%CI=1.1-7.4) in the US and SA cohorts, respectively. Recipient APOL1 genotype was not associated with graft outcomes. This may have implications for allocation of allograft kidneys in PWH, as well as informing the need for therapies targeting APOL1 gene expression in kidney transplant recipients