Defining Priorities for Future Research:Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership

It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field.The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten.The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered "indicative" questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities.The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the transplant process, including access to transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity

Body mass index and outcome in renal transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Whether overweight or obese end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are suitable for renal transplantation (RT) is often debated. The objective of this review and meta-analysis was to systematically investigate the outcome of low versus high BMI recipients after RT. METHODS: Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE OvidSP, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Embase, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2014, issue 8). We reviewed four major guidelines that are available regarding (potential) RT recipients. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and written based on the PRISMA statement. The quality assessment of studies was performed by using the GRADE tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Random-effects models were used. RESULTS: After identifying 5,526 studies addressing this topic, 56 studies were included. We extracted data for 37 outcome measures (including data of more than 209,000 RT recipients), of which 26 could be meta-analysed. The following outcome measures demonstrated significant differences in favour of low BMI (<30) recipients: mortality (RR = 1.52), delayed graft function (RR = 1.52), acute rejection (RR = 1.17), 1-, 2-, and 3-year graft survival (RR = 0.97, 0.95, and 0.97), 1-, 2-, and 3-year patient survival (RR = 0.99, 0.99, and 0.99), wound infection and dehiscence (RR = 3.13 and 4.85), NODAT (RR = 2.24), length of hospital stay (2.31 days), operation duration (0.77 hours), hypertension (RR = 1.35), and incisional hernia (RR = 2.72). However, patient survival expressed in hazard ratios was in significant favour of high BMI recipients. Differences in other outcome parameters were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Several of the pooled outcome measurements show significant benefits for ‘low’ BMI (<30) recipients. Therefore, we postulate that ESRD patients with a BMI >30 preferably should lose weight prior to RT. If this cannot be achieved with common measures, in morbidly obese RT candidates, bariatric surgery could be considered. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0340-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Elevated incidence of posttransplant erythrocytosis after simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation

Posttransplant erythrocytosis (PTE) poses a potential risk of thrombosis in kidney transplantation. Clinical observation of our systemically drained simultaneous kidney pancreas transplant (S-SPK) patients showed a higher incidence of PTE and need for phlebotomies. To evaluate the incidence of PTE we analyzed hematocrit (Hct) levels and frequency of phlebotomies in 94 SPK as compared to 174 living donor (LD) recipients and 53 type-I diabetic with kidney transplant only. For study purposes we defined PTE as Hct >50% or the necessity for phlebotomies. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association between the transplant type and PTE. We found an increased incidence of PTE in SPK compared to LD (p < 0.001). In the multivariate model, SPK had a 5-fold risk for the development of PTE (AHR 5.3, 95% CI 1.8, 15.9). The incidence of therapeutic phlebotomy was 13% among SPK patients and 4% in LD kidney recipients; 19 patients altogether. A total of 64 units were phlebotomized (48-SPK and 16-LD). Type I diabetic patients with a kidney transplant showed a 0% incidence of PTE. We observed a greater incidence of PTE and phlebotomies in S-SPK compared to LD with kidney only transplant recipients