Prognostic Biomarkers in Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon. METHODS: We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators. RESULTS: A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8-35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3-59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96-629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0-6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Competing and Noncompeting Risk Models for Predicting Kidney Allograft Failure.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are becoming increasingly relevant in clinical trials as potential surrogate endpoints, and for patient management as clinical decision support tools. However, the impact of competing risks on model performance remains poorly investigated. We aimed to carefully assess the performance of competing risk and noncompeting risk models in the context of kidney transplantation, where allograft failure and death with a functioning graft are two competing outcomes. METHODS: We included 11,046 kidney transplant recipients enrolled in 10 countries. We developed prediction models for long-term kidney graft failure prediction, without accounting (i.e., censoring) and accounting for the competing risk of death with a functioning graft, using Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox regression models. To this aim, we followed a detailed and transparent analytical framework for competing and noncompeting risk modelling, and carefully assessed the models' development, stability, discrimination, calibration, overall fit, clinical utility, and generalizability in external validation cohorts and subpopulations. More than 15 metrics were used to provide an exhaustive assessment of model performance. RESULTS: Among 11,046 recipients in the derivation and validation cohorts, 1,497 (14%) lost their graft and 1,003 (9%) died with a functioning graft after a median follow-up post-risk evaluation of 4.7 years (IQR 2.7-7.0). The cumulative incidence of graft loss was similarly estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen methods (17% versus 16% in the derivation cohort). Cox and competing risk models showed similar and stable risk estimates for predicting long-term graft failure (average mean absolute prediction error of 0.0140, 0.0138 and 0.0135 for Cox, Fine-Gray, and cause-specific Cox models, respectively). Discrimination and overall fit were comparable in the validation cohorts, with concordance index ranging from 0.76 to 0.87. Across various subpopulations and clinical scenarios, the models performed well and similarly, although in some high-risk groups (such as donors over 65 years old), the findings suggest a trend towards moderately improved calibration when using a competing risk approach. CONCLUSIONS: Competing and noncompeting risk models performed similarly in predicting long-term kidney graft failure.

Temporal trends in kidney paired donation in the United States: 2006-2021 UNOS/OPTN database analysis.

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a major innovation that is changing the landscape of kidney transplantation in the United States. We used the 2006-2021 United Network for Organ Sharing data to examine trends over time. KPD is increasing, with 1 in 5 living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) in 2021 facilitated by KPD. The proportion of LDKT performed via KPD was comparable for non-Whites and Whites. An increasing proportion of KPD transplants are going to non-Whites. End-chain recipients are not identified in the database. To what extent these trends reflect how end-chain kidneys are allocated, as opposed to increase in living donation among minorities, remains unclear. Half the LDKT in 2021 in sensitized (panel reactive antibody ≥ 80%) and highly sensitized (panel reactive antibody ≥ 98%) groups occurred via KPD. Yet, the proportion of KPD transplants performed in sensitized recipients has declined since 2013, likely due to changes in the deceased donor allocation policies and newer KPD strategies such as compatible KPD. In 2021, 40% of the programs reported not performing any KPD transplants. Our study highlights the need for understanding barriers to pursuing and expanding KPD at the center level and the need for more detailed and accurate data collection at the national level.

The Banff 2022 Kidney Meeting Work Plan: Data-driven refinement of the Banff Classification for renal allografts.

The XVIth Banff Meeting for Allograft Pathology was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, from September 19 to 23, 2022, as a joint meeting with the Canadian Society of Transplantation. In addition to a key focus on the impact of microvascular inflammation and biopsy-based transcript analysis on the Banff Classification, further sessions were devoted to other aspects of kidney transplant pathology, in particular T cell-mediated rejection, activity and chronicity indices, digital pathology, xenotransplantation, clinical trials, and surrogate endpoints. Although the output of these sessions has not led to any changes in the classification, the key role of Banff Working Groups in phrasing unanswered questions, and coordinating and disseminating results of investigations addressing these unanswered questions was emphasized. This paper summarizes the key Banff Meeting 2022 sessions not covered in the Banff Kidney Meeting 2022 Report paper and also provides an update on other Banff Working Group activities relevant to kidney allografts.

Targeted Quantification of Proteoforms in Complex Samples by Proteoform Reaction Monitoring.

Existing mass spectrometric assays used for sensitive and specific measurements of target proteins across multiple samples, such as selected/multiple reaction monitoring (SRM/MRM) or parallel reaction monitoring (PRM), are peptide-based methods for bottom-up proteomics. Here, we describe an approach based on the principle of PRM for the measurement of intact proteoforms by targeted top-down proteomics, termed proteoform reaction monitoring (PfRM). We explore the ability of our method to circumvent traditional limitations of top-down proteomics, such as sensitivity and reproducibility. We also introduce a new software program, Proteoform Finder (part of ProSight Native), specifically designed for the easy analysis of PfRM data. PfRM was initially benchmarked by quantifying three standard proteins. The linearity of the assay was shown over almost 3 orders of magnitude in the femtomole range, with limits of detection and quantification in the low femtomolar range. We later applied our multiplexed PfRM assay to complex samples to quantify biomarker candidates in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from liver-transplanted patients, suggesting their possible translational applications. These results demonstrate that PfRM has the potential to contribute to the accurate quantification of protein biomarkers for diagnostic purposes and to improve our understanding of disease etiology at the proteoform level.

Association of Pre-Existing Type 2 Diabetes on Kidney Transplant Outcomes and Factors Correlating With Survival: A Single-Center Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplantation (KT) is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Diabetes mellitus is the most common indication for KT, with most recipients having type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Previous studies have shown inferior patient survival in T2DM KT recipients. This single-center study aimed to understand the individual factors associated with negative long-term outcomes. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of adult KT recipients, with and without T2DM from 2012 to 2017 with a follow-up through December 2022. Primary Outcomes were graft loss and patient survival. Univariate, Multivariate Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess KT outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 1185 patients, 288 (24.3%) with T2DM. T2DM patients tended to be older, 56.6 ± 9.8 versus 47.1 ± 13.7 y. (P < 0.01), male (66.3% versus 58.2% P < 0.001) had a higher body mass index, 31.3 ± 5.4 versus 27.4 ± 5.7 P < 0.01) and less likely to get a living donor transplant (46.5% versus 58.4%, P < 0.01). T2DM patients after KT had a 50% higher risk for graft loss (hazard ratio 1.509, 95% CI 1.15-1.95, P < 0.001) and a 106% higher risk of death (hazard ratio 2.06 (95% CI 1.48-2.87, P < 0.0001). Among the T2DM patients, the most common cause of death was infection (39.9%). The average HbA1c at 1 y after transplant was 7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that T2DM is strongly associated with an increased risk of graft loss and death after KT, particularly in older recipients of deceased donor transplants with longer cold ischemia time that experience delayed graft function. This underscores the importance of avoiding delayed graft function in older, type 2 diabetic kidney transplant recipients and prioritizing living donors.

Addressing sex-based disparities in solid organ transplantation in the United States - a conference report.

Solid organ transplantation provides the best treatment for end-stage organ failure, but significant sex-based disparities in transplant access exist. On June 25, 2021, a virtual multidisciplinary conference was convened to address sex-based disparities in transplantation. Common themes contributing to sex-based disparities were noted across kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation, specifically the existence of barriers to referral and wait listing for women, the pitfalls of using serum creatinine, the issue of donor/recipient size mismatch, approaches to frailty and a higher prevalence of allosensitization among women. In addition, actionable solutions to improve access to transplantation were identified, including alterations to the current allocation system, surgical interventions on donor organs, and the incorporation of objective frailty metrics into the evaluation process. Key knowledge gaps and high-priority areas for future investigation were also discussed.

European Society of Organ Transplantation Consensus Statement on Testing for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Kidney Allograft Rejection.

To address the need for improved biomarkers for kidney transplant rejection, European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) convened a dedicated working group comprised of experts in kidney transplant biomarkers to review literature pertaining to clinical and subclinical acute rejection to develop guidelines in the screening and diagnosis of acute rejection that were subsequently discussed and voted on during the Consensus Conference that took place in person in Prague. The findings and recommendations of the Working Group on Molecular Biomarkers of Kidney Transplant Rejection are presented in this article.

Kidney organ allocation: reducing discards.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The donation and kidney transplant system in the United States is challenged with reducing the number of kidneys that are procured for transplant but ultimately discarded. That number can reach 20% of donated kidneys each year. RECENT FINDINGS: The reasons for these discards, in the face of overwhelming demand, are multiple. SUMMARY: The authors review the data supporting a number of potential causes for high discard rates as well as provide potential solutions to the problem.

ESOT Consensus Platform for Organ Transplantation: Setting the Stage for a Rigorous, Regularly Updated Development Process.

The European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) has created a platform for the development of rigorous and regularly updated evidence based guidelines for clinical practice in the transplantation field. A dedicated Guideline Taskforce, including ESOT-council members, a representative from the Centre for Evidence in Transplantation, editors of the journal Transplant International has developed transparent procedures to guide the development of guidelines, recommendations, and consensus statements. During ESOT's first Consensus Conference in November 2022, leading experts will present in-depth evidence based reviews of nine themes and will propose recommendations aimed at reaching a consensus after public discussion and assessment by an independent jury. All recommendations and consensus statements produced for the nine selected topics will be published including the entire evidence-based consensus-finding process. An extensive literature review of each topic was conducted to provide final evidence and/or expert opinion.

Defining the roles and responsibilities of the kidney transplant medical director: A necessary step for future training, mentoring, and professional development.

The management of a kidney transplant program has evolved significantly in the last decades to become a highly specialized, multidisciplinary standard of care for end-stage kidney disease. Transplant center job descriptions have similarly morphed with increasing responsibilities to address a more complex patient mix, increasing medical and surgical therapeutic options, and increasing regulatory burden in the face of an ever-increasing organ shortage. Within this evolution, the role of the Kidney Transplant Medical Director (KTMD) has expanded beyond the basic requirements described in the United Network for Organ Sharing bylaws. Without a clear job description, transplant nephrology trainees may be inadequately trained and practicing transplant nephrologists may face opaque expectations for the roles and responsibilities of Medical Director. To address this gap and clarify the key areas in which the KTMD interfaces with the kidney transplant program, American Society of Transplantation (AST) formed a Task Force of 14 AST KTMDs to review and define the role of the KTMD in key aspects of administrative, regulatory, budgetary, and educational oversight of a kidney transplant program.

The failing kidney allograft: A review and recommendations for the care and management of a complex group of patients.

The return to dialysis after allograft failure is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This transition is made more complex by the rising numbers of patients who seek repeat transplantation and therefore may have indications for remaining on low levels of immunosuppression, despite the potential increased morbidity. Management strategies vary across providers, driven by limited data on how to transition off immunosuppression as the allograft fails and a paucity of randomized controlled trials to support one approach over another. In this review, we summarize the current data available for management and care of the failing allograft. Additionally, we discuss a suggested plan for immunosuppression weaning based upon the availability of re-transplantation and residual allograft function. We propose a shared-care model in which there is improved coordination between transplant providers and general nephrologists so that immunosuppression management and preparation for renal replacement therapy and/or repeat transplantation can be conducted with the goal of improved outcomes and decreased morbidity in this vulnerable patient group.

Kidney recipients with allograft failure, transition of kidney care (KRAFT): A survey of contemporary practices of transplant providers.

Kidney allograft failure and return to dialysis carry a high risk of morbidity. A practice survey was developed by the AST Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice workgroup and distributed electronically to the AST members. There were 104 respondents who represented 92 kidney transplant centers. Most survey respondents were transplant nephrologists at academic centers. The most common approach to immunosuppression management was to withdraw the antimetabolite first (73%), while only 12% responded they would withdraw calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) first. More than 60% reported that the availability of a living donor is the most important factor in their decision to taper immunosuppression, followed by risk of infection, risk of sensitization, frailty, and side effects of medications. More than half of respondents reported that embolization was either not available or offered to less than 10% as an option for surgical intervention. Majority reported that ≤50% of failed allograft patients were re-listed before dialysis, and less than a quarter of transplant nephrologists performed frequent visits with their patients with failed kidney allograft after they return to dialysis. This survey demonstrates heterogeneity in the care of patients with a failing allograft and the need for more evidence to guide improvements in clinical practice related to transition of care.

Transplant administration-A survey of the roles and responsibilities of kidney and pancreas medical directors of US transplant centers.

The current American Society of Transplantation (AST) accredited transplant fellowship programs in the United States provide no structured formal training in leadership and administration which is essential for successfully running a transplant program. We conducted a survey of medical directors of active adult kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant programs in the United States about their demographics, training pathways, and roles and responsibilities. The survey was emailed to 183 medical directors, and 123 (67.2%) completed the survey. A majority of respondents were older than 50 years (61%), males (80%), and holding that position for more than 10 years (47%). Only 51% of current medical directors had taken that position after completing a one-year transplant fellowship, and 58% took on the role with no prior administrative or leadership experience. The medical directors reported spending a median 50%-75% of time in clinical responsibilities, 25%-50% of time in administration, and 0%-25% time in research. The survey also captured various administrative roles of medical directors vis-à-vis other transplant leaders. The study, designed to be the starting point of an improvement initiative of the AST, provided important insight into the demographics, training pathways, roles and responsibilities, job satisfaction, education needs, and training gaps of current medical directors.

Multicenter Study to Transplant Hepatitis C-Infected Kidneys (MYTHIC): An Open-Label Study of Combined Glecaprevir and Pibrentasvir to Treat Recipients of Transplanted Kidneys from Deceased Donors with Hepatitis C Virus Infection.

BACKGROUND: Single-center trials and retrospective case series have reported promising outcomes using kidneys from donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, multicenter trials are needed to determine if those findings are generalizable. METHODS: We conducted a prospective trial at seven centers to transplant 30 kidneys from deceased donors with HCV viremia into HCV-uninfected recipients, followed by 8 weeks of once-daily coformulated glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, targeted to start 3 days posttransplant. Key outcomes included sustained virologic response (undetectable HCV RNA 12 weeks after completing treatment with glecaprevir and pibrentasvir), adverse events, and allograft function. RESULTS: We screened 76 patients and enrolled 63 patients, of whom 30 underwent kidney transplantation from an HCV-viremic deceased donor (median kidney donor profile index, 53%) in May 2019 through October 2019. The median time between consent and transplantation of a kidney from an HCV-viremic donor was 6.3 weeks. All 30 recipients achieved a sustained virologic response. One recipient died of complications of sepsis 4 months after achieving a sustained virologic response. No severe adverse events in any patient were deemed likely related to HCV infection or treatment with glecaprevir and pibrentasvir. Three recipients developed acute cellular rejection, which was borderline in one case. Three recipients developed polyomavirus (BK) viremia near or >10,000 copies/ml that resolved after reduction of immunosuppression. All recipients had good allograft function, with a median creatinine of 1.2 mg/dl and median eGFR of 57 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our multicenter trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of transplantation of 30 HCV-viremic kidneys into HCV-negative recipients, followed by early initiation of an 8-week regimen of glecaprevir and pibrentasvir.

Are borderline changes real rejection? Current viewpoints.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The clinical significance and treatment of borderline changes are controversial. The lowest detectable margin for rejection on histology is unclear. We review recent evidence about borderline changes and related biomarkers. RECENT FINDINGS: Borderline change (Banff ≥ t1i1) is associated with progressive fibrosis, a greater propensity to form de-novo DSA, and reduced graft survival. Isolated tubulitis appears to have similar kidney allograft outcomes with normal controls, but this finding should be validated in a larger, diverse population. When borderline change was treated, a higher chance of kidney function recovery and better clinical outcomes were observed. However, spontaneous borderline changes resolution without treatment was also observed. Various noninvasive diagnostic biomarkers have been developed to diagnose subclinical acute rejection, including borderline changes and ≥ Banff 1A TCMR. Biomarkers using gene expression and donor-derived cell-free DNA, and HLA DR/DQ eplet mismatch show potential to diagnose subclinical acute rejection (borderline change and ≥Banff 1A TCMR), to avoid surveillance biopsy, or to predict poor kidney allograft outcomes. SUMMARY: Borderline changes are associated with poor kidney allograft outcomes, but it remains unclear if all cases of borderline changes should be treated. Novel biomarkers may inform physicians to aid in the diagnosis and treatment.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.

Living kidney donation is widely practiced throughout the world. During the past 2 decades, various groups have provided guidance about the evaluation and care of living donors. However, during this time, our knowledge in the field has advanced substantially and many agreed on the need for a comprehensive, unifying document. KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) addressed this issue at an international level with the publication of its clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. The KDIGO work group extensively reviewed the available literature and wrote a series of guideline recommendations using various degrees of evidence when available. As has become recent practice, NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) convened a work group to provide a commentary on the KDIGO guideline, with a focus on how these recommendations apply in the context of the United States. In the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) guides and regulates the practice of living kidney donation. While the KDIGO guideline for the care of living kidney donors and UNOS policy are similar in most aspects of the care of living kidney donors, several important areas are not consistent or do not align with common practice by US transplantation programs in areas in which UNOS has not set specific policy. For the time being, and recognizing the value of the KDIGO guidelines, US transplantation programs should continue to follow UNOS policy.

Physician and patient acceptance of policies to reduce kidney discard.

Despite the shortage of kidneys for transplantation in the United States, approximately 18%-20% of deceased donor kidneys are discarded each year. These discarded kidneys can offer a survival benefit to suitable patients. Revisions to the current kidney allocation policy may be needed to reduce deceased donor kidney discard. We surveyed transplant physicians and patients to assess their perceived acceptability of policy proposals to reduce the discard of deceased donor kidneys. Members of professional societies (AST, ASTS) and a patient organization (AAKP) were invited to complete the survey. Responses were obtained from 97 physicians and 107 patients. The majority of physicians (73.4%) and patients (73.8%) "somewhat" or "completely" accepted a policy for fast-tracking kidneys at risk of discard. Physicians and patients also supported returning a proportion of waiting time to patients who accept KDPI >85 kidneys and experience graft failure within the first 12 months, with 36% of physicians and 50% of patients electing to return 100% of the waiting time. The majority of physicians (75%) "somewhat or completely" accepted a policy to skip less aggressive centers for KDPI 90 + offers. Physicians and patients provided insights into factors researchers, and policymakers should consider in the design and implementation of these policies.

Trends and predictors of multidimensional health-related quality of life after living donor kidney transplantation.

PURPOSE: Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) imparts the best graft and patient survival for most end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. Yet, there remains variation in post-LDKT health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Improved understanding of post-LDKT HRQOL can help identify patients for interventions to maximize the benefit of LDKT. METHODS: For 477 LDKT recipients transplanted between 11/2007 and 08/2016, we assessed physical, mental, social, and kidney-targeted HRQOL pre-LDKT, as well as 3 and 12 months post-operatively using the SF-36, Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQOL-SF), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index 19 item version (FKSI-19). We then examined trajectories of each HRQOL domain using latent growth curve models (LGCMs). We also examined associations between decline in HRQOL from 3 months to 12 months post-LDKT and death censored graft failure (DCGF) using Cox regression. RESULTS: Large magnitude effects (d > 0.80) were observed from pre- to post-LDKT change on the SF-36 Vitality scale (d = 0.81) and the KDQOL-SF Burden of Kidney Disease (d = 1.05). Older age and smaller pre- to post-LDKT decreases in serum creatinine were associated with smaller improvements on many HRQOL scales across all domains in LGCMs. Higher DCGF rates were associated with worse physical [e.g., SF-36 PCSoblique hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.38], mental (KDQOL-SF Cognitive Function HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00-1.62), and kidney-targeted (FKSI-19 HR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.00-1.38) HRQOL domains. CONCLUSION: Clinical HRQOL monitoring may help identify patients who are most likely to have failing grafts and who would benefit from post-LDKT intervention.

Correction to: Trends and predictors of multidimensional health-related quality of life after living donor kidney transplantation.

In its original publication, an erroneous version of Fig. 2d was included in the manuscript. The corrected figure has now been added.