Disparities in kidney transplantation accessibility among immigrant populations in Europe:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objectives: Disparities in access to healthcare for patients with an immigration background are well-known. The aim of this study was to determine whether disparities among immigrant populations translate into a relative difference in the number of kidney transplants (KT) performed in documented immigrant patients (first and second generation) relative to native-born patients in Europe. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed from inception to 11-10-2022. Studies were eligible if: (1) written in English, (2) included immigrant and native-born KT patients, (3) performed in countries registered as Council of Europe members, (4) focused on documented first- and second-generation immigrant populations [1]. Systematic reviews, literature reviews, and case reports or articles about emigration, non-KT, and undocumented immigrants were excluded. The outcome measurement was a relative percentage of KTs to the total population per 100.000 residents. By dividing the immigrant percentages by the native-born resident percentages, the odds ratio (OR) was calculated in a meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed; articles with high risk of bias were excluded in a second meta-analysis. Results: Out of 109 articles, 5 were included (n = 24,614). One Italian study (n = 24,174) had a ratio below 1, being 0.910 (95%CI 0.877–0.945). The other four articles (n = 196, n = 283, n = 77, n = 119) had ratios above 1: 1.36 (95%CI 0.980–1.87), 2.04 (95%CI 1.56–2.68), 2.23 (95%CI 1.53–3.25) and 2.64 (95%CI 1.68–4.15). After performing a meta-analysis, the OR did not show a significant difference: 1.68 (95%CI 1.03–2.75). After bias correction, this remained unchanged: 1.78 (95%CI 0.961–3.31). Conclusions: In our meta-analysis we did not find a significant difference in the relative number of KTs performed in immigrant versus native-born populations in Europe. However, a lesser likelihood for immigrants to receive a pre-emptive kidney transplantation was found. Large heterogeneity between studies (e.g. different sample size, patient origins, study duration, adult vs children patients) was a shortcoming to our analysis. Nevertheless, our article is the first review in this understudied topic. As important questions (e.g. on ethnicity, living donor rate) remain, future studies are needed to address them.</p

Telemedicine for Kidney Transplant Recipients:Current State, Advantages, and Barriers

Telemedicine is defined as the use of electronic information and communication technologies to provide and support healthcare at a distance. In kidney transplantation, telemedicine is limited but is expected to grow markedly in the coming y. Current experience shows that it is possible to provide transplant care at a distance, with benefits for patients like reduced travel time and costs, better adherence to medication and appointment visits, more self-sufficiency, and more reliable blood pressure values. However, multiple barriers in different areas need to be overcome for successful implementation, such as recipients' preferences, willingness, skills, and digital literacy. Moreover, in many countries, limited digital infrastructure, legislation, local policy, costs, and reimbursement issues could be barriers to the implementation of telemedicine. Finally, telemedicine changes the way transplant professionals provide care, and this transition needs time, training, willingness, and acceptance. This review discusses the current state and benefits of telemedicine in kidney transplantation, with the aforementioned barriers, and provides an overview of future directions on telemedicine in kidney transplantation.</p

Risk of Nephrotic Syndrome for Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Users

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been associated with AKI. Their association with nephrotic syndrome has not been systematically studied. This study aimed to assess the risk of nephrotic syndrome associated with NSAID use. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A matched case-control study was performed in the UK primary care database. Cases were patients with a first diagnosis of nephrotic syndrome and controls were those without nephrotic syndrome. NSAID exposure (grouped either based on cyclooxygenase enzyme selectivity and chemical groups) was classified as either current (use at the nephrotic syndrome diagnosis date and corresponding date in the control group), recent, or past use. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using unconditional logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 2620 cases and 10,454 controls. Compared with non-use, current use of 15-28 days and >28 days of conventional NSAIDs was associated with a higher relative risk of nephrotic syndrome: adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.70, and OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.55, respectively. Also, recent use (discontinuation 1-2 months before nephrotic syndrome diagnosis date; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.15) and past use (discontinuation 2 months-2 years; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.43), but not current use of 2 years; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.09) were associated with a higher relative risk of nephrotic syndrome as well as past use of selective COX-2 inhibitors (discontinuation 2-24 months; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.58). Categorization based on chemical groups showed that acetic acid and propionic acid derivatives were associated with a higher risk of nephrotic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The use of conventional NSAIDs was associated with a higher risk of nephrotic syndrome starting from at least 2 weeks of exposure, as well as for recent and past exposure up to 2 years before the diagnosis of nephrotic syndrome. This higher risk appeared mainly attributable to acetic acid and propionic acid derivatives