What are the benefits of preemptive versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Opting for a preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) can help avoid costs and morbidity associated with dialysis. However, while multiple studies have shown clinical benefits of PKT, other studies have not demonstrated this, leading to controversy in the literature regarding the exact benefits of PKT. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of PKT versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation (nPKT) in adult patients. Multiple databases were searched up to May 4, 2022. Independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted relevant data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Eighty-seven studies including 859,715 adult kidney transplant patients were included the review. The risk of patient death (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.60–0.91]) was significantly lower in PKT versus nPKT patients for living donor (LD) transplants, whereas the risk of overall graft loss was significantly lower in PKT compared to nPKT patients for both LD (0.72 [0.62–0.83]) as well as deceased donor (DD) transplants (0.80 [0.69–0.92]). The evidence suggests that LD PKT patients have a lower risk of patient death and graft loss compared to nPKT patients, and DD PKT patients have a lower risk of graft loss than nPKT patients.</p

Trends in systematic reviews of kidney transplantation:A 10-year analysis of the evidence base

Background:Systematic reviews (SRs) are the highest form of evidence for all types of clinical questions in evidence-based practice. For the first time in 2018, the number of SRs in transplantation outstripped those from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This raises concerns of duplication or increased use of non-RCT evidence. We aimed to analyse the trends, strength and quality of SRs in kidney transplantation over a 10-year period.Methods:SRs in kidney transplantation were identified from the Transplant Library, without language restriction. All full-text citations were exported to a custom Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database prior to evaluation. Quality of evidence in all included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR-2.Results:We included 454 SRs, of which, only three were scored as ‘high quality’. We found that 96.70% of SRs were identified as ‘critically low quality’, which increased in number over time. We also found that inclusion of non-RCT data increased in the most recent 5 years. Only 14.12% of SRs had made a clear recommendation for practice.Conclusions:This review highlights several concerning statistics that need to be addressed. In the last 10 years, only three SRs in kidney transplantation were ‘high-quality’. The weaknesses identified in critical domains, alongside the increased use of non-RCT data and lack of conclusive recommendations undermines the confidence in the results of the SRs and purpose of publication. As these SRs are instrumental to clinical decision-making and patient care in kidney transplantation, we advocate for improved reporting quality among SRs in kidney transplantation