Patient preferences for the allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation: a mixed methods study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Deceased donor kidneys are a scarce health resource, yet patient preferences for organ allocation are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to determine patient preferences for how kidneys should be allocated for transplantation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients on dialysis and kidney transplant recipients were purposively selected from two centres in Australia to participate in nominal/focus groups in March 2011. Participants identified and ranked criteria they considered important for deceased donor kidney allocation. Transcripts were thematically analysed to identify reasons for their rankings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From six groups involving 37 participants, 23 criteria emerged. Most agreed that matching, wait-list time, medical urgency, likelihood of surviving surgery, age, comorbidities, duration of illness, quality of life, number of organs needed and impact on the recipient's life circumstances were important considerations. Underpinning their rankings were four main themes: enhancing life, medical priority, recipient valuation, and deservingness. These were predominantly expressed as achieving equity for all patients, or priority for specific sub-groups of potential recipients regarded as more "deserving".</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients believed any wait-listed individual who would gain life expectancy and quality of life compared with dialysis should have access to transplantation. Equity of access to transplantation for all patients and justice for those who would look after their transplant were considered important. A utilitarian rationale based on maximizing health gains from the allocation of a scarce resource to avoid "wastage," were rarely expressed. Organ allocation organisations need to seek input from patients who can articulate preferences for allocation and advocate for equity and justice in organ allocation.</p

High rates of albuminuria but not of low eGFR in Urban Indigenous Australians: the DRUID Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Indigenous Australians have an incidence of end stage kidney disease 8-10 times higher than non-Indigenous Australians. The majority of research studies concerning Indigenous Australians have been performed in rural or remote regions, whilst the majority of Indigenous Australians actually live in urban settings. We studied prevalence and factors associated with markers of kidney disease in an urban Indigenous Australian cohort, and compared results with those for the general Australian population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>860 Indigenous adult participants of the Darwin Region Urban Indigenous Diabetes (DRUID) Study were assessed for albuminuria (urine albumin-creatinine ratio≥2.5 mg/mmol males, ≥3.5 mg/mmol females) and low eGFR (estimated glomular filtration rate < 60 mls/min/1.73 m²). Associations between risk factors and kidney disease markers were explored. Comparison was made with the AusDiab cohort (n = 8,936 aged 25-64 years), representative of the general Australian adult population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A high prevalence of albuminuria (14.8%) was found in DRUID, whilst prevalence of low eGFR was 2.4%. Older age, higher HbA1c, hypertension, higher C-reactive protein and current smoking were independently associated with albuminuria on multiple regression. Low eGFR was independently associated with older age, hypertension, albuminuria and higher triglycerides. Compared to AusDiab participants, DRUID participants had a 3-fold higher adjusted risk of albuminuria but not of low eGFR.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Given the significant excess of ESKD observed in Indigenous versus non-Indigenous Australians, these findings could suggest either: albuminuria may be a better prognostic marker of kidney disease than low eGFR; that eGFR equations may be inaccurate in the Indigenous population; a less marked differential between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians for ESKD rates in urban compared to remote regions; or that differences in the pathophysiology of chronic kidney disease exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.</p

Research Priorities in CKD: Report of a National Workshop Conducted in Australia

Research aims to improve health outcomes for patients. However, the setting of research priorities is usually performed by clinicians, academics, and funders, with little involvement of patients or caregivers and using processes that lack transparency. A national workshop was convened in Australia to generate and prioritize research questions in chronic kidney disease (CKD) among diverse stakeholder groups. Patients with CKD (n = 23), nephrologists/surgeons (n = 16), nurses (n = 8), caregivers (n = 7), and allied health professionals and researchers (n = 4) generated and voted on intervention questions across 4 treatment categories: CKD stages 1 to 5 (non–dialysis dependent), peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis, and kidney transplantation. The 5 highest ranking questions (in descending order) were as follows: How effective are lifestyle programs for preventing deteriorating kidney function in early CKD? What strategies will improve family consent for deceased donor kidney donation, taking different cultural groups into account? What interventions can improve long-term post-transplant outcomes? What are effective interventions for post hemodialysis fatigue? How can we improve and individualize drug therapy to control post-transplant side effects? Priority questions were focused on prevention, lifestyle, quality of life, and long-term impact. These prioritized research questions can inform funding agencies, patient/consumer organizations, policy makers, and researchers in developing a CKD research agenda that is relevant to key stakeholders

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate, Albuminuria, and Adverse Outcomes. An Individual-Participant Data Meta-Analysis

IMPORTANCE: Chronic kidney disease (low estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] or albuminuria) affects approximately 14% of adults in the US. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate associations of lower eGFR based on creatinine alone, lower eGFR based on creatinine combined with cystatin C, and more severe albuminuria with adverse kidney outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, and other health outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual-participant data meta-analysis of 27 503 140 individuals from 114 global cohorts (eGFR based on creatinine alone) and 720 736 individuals from 20 cohorts (eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C) and 9 067 753 individuals from 114 cohorts (albuminuria) from 1980 to 2021. EXPOSURES: The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2021 equations for eGFR based on creatinine alone and eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C; and albuminuria estimated as urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The risk of kidney failure requiring replacement therapy, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute kidney injury, any hospitalization, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral artery disease. The analyses were performed within each cohort and summarized with random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Within the population using eGFR based on creatinine alone (mean age, 54 years [SD, 17 years]; 51% were women; mean follow-up time, 4.8 years [SD, 3.3 years]), the mean eGFR was 90 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD, 22 mL/min/1.73 m2) and the median UACR was 11 mg/g (IQR, 8-16 mg/g). Within the population using eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C (mean age, 59 years [SD, 12 years]; 53% were women; mean follow-up time, 10.8 years [SD, 4.1 years]), the mean eGFR was 88 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD, 22 mL/min/1.73 m2) and the median UACR was 9 mg/g (IQR, 6-18 mg/g). Lower eGFR (whether based on creatinine alone or based on creatinine and cystatin C) and higher UACR were each significantly associated with higher risk for each of the 10 adverse outcomes, including those in the mildest categories of chronic kidney disease. For example, among people with a UACR less than 10 mg/g, an eGFR of 45 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 based on creatinine alone was associated with significantly higher hospitalization rates compared with an eGFR of 90 to 104 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.2-1.3]; 161 vs 79 events per 1000 person-years; excess absolute risk, 22 events per 1000 person-years [95% CI, 19-25 events per 1000 person-years]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective analysis of 114 cohorts, lower eGFR based on creatinine alone, lower eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C, and more severe UACR were each associated with increased rates of 10 adverse outcomes, including adverse kidney outcomes, cardiovascular diseases, and hospitalizations

Identifying outcomes that are important to living kidney donors: A nominal group technique study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Living kidney donor candidates accept a range of risks and benefits when they decide to proceed with nephrectomy. Informed consent around this decision assumes they receive reliable data about outcomes they regard as critical to their decision making. We identified the outcomes most important to living kidney donors and described the reasons for their choices. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Previous donors were purposively sampled from three transplant units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and Canada (Vancouver). In focus groups using the nominal group technique, participants identified outcomes of donation, ranked them in order of importance, and discussed the reasons for their preferences. An importance score was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Across 14 groups, 123 donors aged 27-78 years identified 35 outcomes. Across all participants, the ten highest ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance=0.40, scale 0-1), time to recovery (0.27), surgical complications (0.24), effect on family (0.22), donor-recipient relationship (0.21), life satisfaction (0.18), lifestyle restrictions (0.18), kidney failure (0.14), mortality (0.13), and acute pain/discomfort (0.12). Kidney function and kidney failure were more important to Canadian participants, compared with Australian donors. The themes identified included worthwhile sacrifice, insignificance of risks and harms, confidence and empowerment, unfulfilled expectations, and heightened susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: Living kidney donors prioritized a range of outcomes, with the most important being kidney health and the surgical, lifestyle, functional, and psychosocial effects of donation. Donors also valued improvements to their family life and donor-recipient relationship. There were clear regional differences in the rankings

Сацыяльна-псіхалагічныя асновы вобраза свекрыві-маці ў беларускіх сямейна-бытавых песнях

Research aims to improve health outcomes for patients. However, the setting of research priorities is usually performed by clinicians, academics, and funders, with little involvement of patients or caregivers and using processes that lack transparency. A national workshop was convened in Australia to generate and prioritize research questions in chronic kidney disease (CKD) among diverse stakeholder groups. Patients with CKD (n = 23), nephrologists/surgeons (n = 16), nurses (n = 8), caregivers (n = 7), and allied health professionals and researchers (n = 4) generated and voted on intervention questions across 4 treatment categories: CKD stages 1 to 5 (non–dialysis dependent), peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis, and kidney transplantation. The 5 highest ranking questions (in descending order) were as follows: How effective are lifestyle programs for preventing deteriorating kidney function in early CKD? What strategies will improve family consent for deceased donor kidney donation, taking different cultural groups into account? What interventions can improve long-term post-transplant outcomes? What are effective interventions for post hemodialysis fatigue? How can we improve and individualize drug therapy to control post-transplant side effects? Priority questions were focused on prevention, lifestyle, quality of life, and long-term impact. These prioritized research questions can inform funding agencies, patient/consumer organizations, policy makers, and researchers in developing a CKD research agenda that is relevant to key stakeholders

Clinical Trials for Immunosuppression in Transplantation: The Case for Reform and Change in Direction

Currently trials of immunosuppression in transplantation are in decline because their objectives remain focused on improving acute rejection rates and graft survival in the first 12 months. With 1 year renal graft survival rates of greater than 90% the best that can be hoped for is noninferiority trial outcomes compared with current standard of care. Current trial design is not leading to novel therapies improving long-term outcomes and safety, and hence important unmet clinical needs in transplantation remain unanswered. Issues that need to be addressed include but are not limited to: prevention of subclinical rejection in the first year, better 5- and 10-year graft outcomes, more effective treatment for high immunological risk and sensitized (including donor-specific antibody) patients, immunosuppressive combinations that are better tolerated by patients with fewer side effects and less morbidity and mortality. In September 2015, the Transplantation Society convened a group of transplant clinical trial experts to address these problems. The aims were to substantially realign the priorities of clinical trials for renal transplant immunosuppression with the current unmet needs and to propose new designs for clinical trials for transplant immunosuppression. Moving forward, the transplant community needs to provide trial data that will identify superior treatment options for patient subgroups and allow new agents to be evaluated for efficacy and safety and achieve timely regulatory approval. Trial designs for new transplant immunosuppression must be intelligently restructured to ensure that short- and long-term clinical outcomes continue to improve.status: publishe