RESUMEN
In the United States, potential transplant candidates with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus are inconsistently offered pancreas transplantation (PTx), contributing to a dramatic decline in pancreas allograft utilization over the past 2 decades. The American Society of Transplantation organized a workshop to identify barriers inhibiting PTx and to develop strategies for a national comeback. The 2-day workshop focused on 4 main topics: (1) referral/candidate selection, (2) organ recovery/utilization, (3) program performance/patient outcomes, and (4) enhanced education/research. Topics were explored through expert presentations, patient testimonials, breakout sessions, and strategic planning, including the identification of tasks for immediate focus. Additionally, a modified-Delphi survey was conducted among workshop members to develop and rate the importance of barriers, and the impact and feasibility of workgroup-identified improvement strategies. The panelists identified 16 barriers to progress and 44 strategies for consideration. The steps for a national comeback in PTx involve greater emphasis on efficient referral and candidate selection, better donor pancreas utilization practices, eliminating financial barriers to procurement and transplant, improving collaboration between transplant and diabetes societies and professionals, and increasing focus on PTx training, education, and research. Partnership between national societies, patient advocacy groups, and professionals will be essential to realizing this critical agenda.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Páncreas , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Técnica Delphi , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos , Donantes de Tejidos/provisión & distribución , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/cirugíaRESUMEN
Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.
Asunto(s)
Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Fallo Renal Crónico , Trasplante de Riñón , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos , Humanos , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/métodos , Fallo Renal Crónico/cirugía , Donadores Vivos/provisión & distribución , Listas de EsperaRESUMEN
Importance: Recipient outcomes after kidney transplant from deceased donors who received dialysis prior to kidney donation are not well described. Objective: To compare outcomes of transplant recipients who received kidneys from deceased donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation vs recipients of kidneys from deceased donors who did not undergo dialysis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted including data from 58 US organ procurement organizations on deceased kidney donors and kidney transplant recipients. From 2010 to 2018, 805 donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation were identified. The donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation were matched 1:1 with donors who did not undergo dialysis using a rank-based distance matrix algorithm; 1944 kidney transplant recipients were evaluated. Exposure: Kidney transplants from deceased donors who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation compared with kidney transplants from deceased donors who did not undergo dialysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 4 study outcomes were delayed graft function (defined as receipt of dialysis by the kidney recipient ≤1 week after transplant), all-cause graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and death. Results: From 2010 to 2018, 1.4% of deceased kidney donors (805 of 58â¯155) underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation. Of these 805 individuals, 523 (65%) donated at least 1 kidney. A total of 969 kidneys (60%) were transplanted and 641 kidneys (40%) were discarded. Among the donors with kidneys transplanted, 514 (mean age, 33 years [SD, 10.8 years]; 98 had hypertension [19.1%] and 36 had diabetes [7%]) underwent dialysis prior to donation and were matched with 514 (mean age, 33 years [SD, 10.9 years]; 98 had hypertension [19.1%] and 36 had diabetes [7%]) who did not undergo dialysis. Kidney transplants from donors who received dialysis prior to donation (n = 954 kidney recipients) were associated with a higher risk of delayed graft function compared with kidney transplants from donors who did not receive dialysis (n = 990 kidney recipients) (59.2% vs 24.6%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 4.17 [95% CI, 3.28-5.29]). The incidence rates did not significantly differ at a median follow-up of 34.1 months for all-cause graft failure (43.1 kidney transplants per 1000 person-years from donors who received dialysis prior to donation vs 46.9 kidney transplants per 1000 person-years from donors who did not receive dialysis; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.15]), for death-censored graft failure (22.5 vs 20.6 per 1000 person-years, respectively; adjusted HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.83-1.69]), or for death (24.6 vs 30.8 per 1000 person-years; adjusted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.55-1.04]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with receiving a kidney from a deceased donor who did not undergo dialysis, receiving a kidney from a deceased donor who underwent dialysis prior to kidney donation was associated with a significantly higher incidence of delayed graft function, but no significant difference in graft failure or death at follow-up.
Asunto(s)
Funcionamiento Retardado del Injerto , Trasplante de Riñón , Diálisis Renal , Donantes de Tejidos , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Femenino , Masculino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Funcionamiento Retardado del Injerto/epidemiología , Obtención de Tejidos y ÓrganosRESUMEN
Rationale & Objective: The effect of apolipoprotein L1(APOL1) genotype on future risk of kidney disease among middle-aged individuals with good kidney function is not well established. Study Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting & Participants: In total, 5,886 healthy individuals (45-64 years old) enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study with creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 80 mL/min who would be suitable kidney donors. Exposures: Race and APOL1 genotype. Outcomes: Creatinine- and cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr-cys) using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) 2021 equation, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR), proportion with chronic kidney disease (CKD) 3a or worse, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and death. Analytical Approach: Participants grouped based on race and APOL1 genotype. Compared eGFRcr-cys and UACR across groups. Multinomial logistic regression models were used compare odds of CKD. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created to compare rates of ESKD and death at last follow-up. Results: There were 5,075 Whites (86%), 701 Blacks carrying the low-risk APOL1 genotype (12%), and 110 Blacks carrying the high-risk APOL1 genotype (2%). The mean age at baseline was 53 ± 6 years. At 10 years, White participants had lower eGFRcr-cys than low-risk and high-risk groups (89 ± 16 vs 91 ± 16 and 92 ± 15 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively; P < 0.001). At 25 years, White participants continued to have lower eGFRcr-cys than the low-risk group (70 ± 18 vs 72 ± 19 mL/min/1.73 m2; P < 0.001) but not compared with the high-risk APOL1 genotype (67±23 mL/min/1.73 m2). There was no difference in UACR among groups at 10 and 25 years (P = 0.87 and 0.91, respectively). The odds of developing CKD stage 3a or worse were not different between low-risk and high-risk APOL1 group in both unadjusted and adjusted models (P = 0.26 and P = 0.39, respectively). At last follow-up, <5% developed ESKD, and 45% of individuals either died or reached ESKD with no difference in outcomes between the groups. Limitations: Low ascertainment because of death and long follow-up. Conclusions: Among middle-aged individuals, APOL1 genotype does not appear to be a major driver of future risk of kidney disease.
Black patients with kidney disease carrying 2 variants of the apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene, referred to as the high-risk genotype, experience an accelerated decline in kidney function than those with 0 or 1 risk variant. It is unknown whether the high-risk genotype negatively affects kidney function of healthy middle-aged individuals. We evaluated the effect of APOL1 genotype on kidney function of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study participants (mean age 53 years) who had normal kidney function and blood pressure at baseline. At 25 years of follow-up, the APOL1 high-risk genotype did not appear to be a major driver of future risk of kidney disease. Our study findings are relevant for counseling older living donor candidates as well as family members of patients with APOL1-associated kidney disease.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Best practices in psychosocial evaluation and care of living donor candidates and donors are not well established. METHODS: We surveyed 195 living kidney donor (LKD) transplant centers in United States from October 2021 to April 2022 querying (1) composition of psychosocial teams, (2) evaluation processes including clinical tools and domains assessed, (3) selection criteria, and (4) psychosocial follow-up post-donation. RESULTS: We received 161 responses from 104 programs, representing 53% of active LKD programs and 67% of LKD transplant volume in 2019. Most respondents (63%) were social workers/independent living donor advocates. Over 90% of respondents indicated donor candidates with known mental health or substance use disorders were initially evaluated by the psychosocial team. Validated psychometric or transplant-specific tools were rarely utilized but domains assessed were consistent. Active suicidality, self-harm, and psychosis were considered absolute contraindications in >90% of programs. Active depression was absolute contraindication in 50% of programs; active anxiety disorder was excluded 27%. Conditions not contraindicated to donation include those in remission: anxiety (56%), depression (53%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (41%). There was acceptance of donor candidates using alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis recreationally, but not if pattern met criteria for active use disorder. Seventy-one percent of programs conducted post-donation psychosocial assessment and use local resources to support donors. CONCLUSIONS: There was variation in acceptance of donor candidates with mental health or substance use disorders. Although most programs conducted psychosocial screening post-donation, support is not standardized and unclear if adequate. Future studies are needed for consensus building among transplant centers to form guidelines for donor evaluation, acceptance, and support.
RESUMEN
Kidney transplant is not only the best treatment for patients with advanced kidney disease but it also reduces health care expenditure. The management of transplant patients is complex as they require special care by transplant nephrologists who have expertise in assessing transplant candidates, understand immunology and organ rejection, have familiarity with perioperative complications, and have the ability to manage the long-term effects of chronic immunosuppression. This skill set at the intersection of multiple disciplines necessitates additional training in Transplant Nephrology. Currently, there are more than 250,000 patients with a functioning kidney allograft and over 100,000 waitlisted patients awaiting kidney transplant, with a burgeoning number added to the kidney transplant wait list every year. In 2022, more than 40,000 patients were added to the kidney wait list and more than 25,000 received a kidney transplant. The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, passed in 2019, is aiming to double the number of kidney transplants by 2030 creating a need for additional transplant nephrologists to help care for them. Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the Nephrology-as well Transplant Nephrology-workforce due to a multitude of reasons. The American Society of Transplantation Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice created a workgroup to discuss the Transplant Nephrology workforce shortage. In this article, we discuss the scope of the problem and how the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recognition of Transplant Nephrology Fellowship could at least partly mitigate the Transplant Nephrology work force crisis.