Kidney transplant in diabetic patients: modalities, indications and results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diabetes is a disease of increasing worldwide prevalence and is the main cause of chronic renal failure. Type 1 diabetic patients with chronic renal failure have the following therapy options: kidney transplant from a living donor, pancreas after kidney transplant, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant, or awaiting a deceased donor kidney transplant. For type 2 diabetic patients, only kidney transplant from deceased or living donors are recommended. Patient survival after kidney transplant has been improving for all age ranges in comparison to the dialysis therapy. The main causes of mortality after transplant are cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, infections and neoplasias. Five-year patient survival for type 2 diabetic patients is lower than the non-diabetics' because they are older and have higher body mass index on the occasion of the transplant and both pre- and posttransplant cardiovascular diseases prevalences. The increased postransplant cardiovascular mortality in these patients is attributed to the presence of well-known risk factors, such as insulin resistance, higher triglycerides values, lower HDL-cholesterol values, abnormalities in fibrinolysis and coagulation and endothelial dysfunction. In type 1 diabetic patients, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant is associated with lower prevalence of vascular diseases, including acute myocardial infarction, stroke and amputation in comparison to isolated kidney transplant and dialysis therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Type 1 and 2 diabetic patients present higher survival rates after transplant in comparison to the dialysis therapy, although the prevalence of cardiovascular events and infectious complications remain higher than in the general population.</p

Effect of primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate on the timing of their subspecialty referral decisions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary care providers' suboptimal recognition of the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) may contribute to untimely referrals of patients with CKD to subspecialty care. It is unknown whether U.S. primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) rather than serum creatinine to estimate CKD severity could improve the timeliness of their subspecialty referral decisions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study of 154 United States primary care physicians to assess the effect of use of eGFR (versus creatinine) on the timing of their subspecialty referrals. Primary care physicians completed a questionnaire featuring questions regarding a hypothetical White or African American patient with progressing CKD. We asked primary care physicians to identify the serum creatinine and eGFR levels at which they would recommend patients like the hypothetical patient be referred for subspecialty evaluation. We assessed significant improvement in the timing [from eGFR < 30 to ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73m²) of their recommended referrals based on their use of creatinine versus eGFR.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals later (CKD more advanced) when using creatinine versus eGFR to assess kidney function [median eGFR 32 versus 55 mL/min/1.73m², p < 0.001]. Forty percent of primary care physicians significantly improved the timing of their referrals when basing their recommendations on eGFR. Improved timing occurred more frequently among primary care physicians practicing in academic (versus non-academic) practices or presented with White (versus African American) hypothetical patients [adjusted percentage(95% CI): 70% (45-87) versus 37% (reference) and 57% (39-73) versus 25% (reference), respectively, both p ≤ 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals earlier when using eGFR (versus creatinine) to assess kidney function. Enhanced use of eGFR by primary care physicians' could lead to more timely subspecialty care and improved clinical outcomes for patients with CKD.</p

Predicting patient survival after deceased donor kidney transplantation using flexible parametric modelling

BACKGROUND: The influence of donor and recipient factors on outcomes following kidney transplantation is commonly analysed using Cox regression models, but this approach is not useful for predicting long-term survival beyond observed data. We demonstrate the application of a flexible parametric approach to fit a model that can be extrapolated for the purpose of predicting mean patient survival. The primary motivation for this analysis is to develop a predictive model to estimate post-transplant survival based on individual patient characteristics to inform the design of alternative approaches to allocating deceased donor kidneys to those on the transplant waiting list in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We analysed data from over 12,000 recipients of deceased donor kidney or combined kidney and pancreas transplants between 2003 and 2012. We fitted a flexible parametric model incorporating restricted cubic splines to characterise the baseline hazard function and explored a range of covariates including recipient, donor and transplant-related factors. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis showed the risk of death increased with recipient and donor age, diabetic nephropathy as the recipient's primary renal diagnosis and donor hypertension. The risk of death was lower in female recipients, patients with polycystic kidney disease and recipients of pre-emptive transplants. The final model was used to extrapolate survival curves in order to calculate mean survival times for patients with specific characteristics. CONCLUSION: The use of flexible parametric modelling techniques allowed us to address some of the limitations of both the Cox regression approach and of standard parametric models when the goal is to predict long-term survival

Early chronic kidney disease: diagnosis, management and models of care

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is prevalent in many countries, and the costs associated with the care of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are estimated to exceed US$1 trillion globally. The clinical and economic rationale for the design of timely and appropriate health system responses to limit the progression of CKD to ESRD is clear. Clinical care might improve if early-stage CKD with risk of progression to ESRD is differentiated from early-stage CKD that is unlikely to advance. The diagnostic tests that are currently used for CKD exhibit key limitations; therefore, additional research is required to increase awareness of the risk factors for CKD progression. Systems modelling can be used to evaluate the impact of different care models on CKD outcomes and costs. The US Indian Health Service has demonstrated that an integrated, system-wide approach can produce notable benefits on cardiovascular and renal health outcomes. Economic and clinical improvements might, therefore, be possible if CKD is reconceptualized as a part of primary care. This Review discusses which early CKD interventions are appropriate, the optimum time to provide clinical care, and the most suitable model of care to adopt

Doctor can I buy a new kidney? I've heard it isn't forbidden: what is the role of the nephrologist when dealing with a patient who wants to buy a kidney?

Organ trafficking is officially banned in several countries and by the main Nephrology Societies. However, this practice is widespread and is allowed or tolerated in many countries, hence, in the absence of a universal law, the caregiver may be asked for advice, placing him/her in a difficult balance between legal aspects, moral principles and ethical judgments. In spite of the Istanbul declaration, which is a widely shared position statement against organ trafficking, the controversy on mercenary organ donation is still open and some experts argue against taking a negative stance. In the absence of clear evidence showing the clinical disadvantages of mercenary transplantation compared to chronic dialysis, self-determination of the patient (and, with several caveats, of the donor) may conflict with other ethical principles, first of all non-maleficence. The present paper was drawn up with the participation of the students, as part of the ethics course at our medical school. It discusses the situation in which the physician acts as a counselor for the patient in the way of a sort of “reverse” informed consent, in which the patient asks advice regarding a complex personal decision, and includes a peculiar application of the four principles (beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and autonomy) to the donor and recipient parties