Update on the ethical, legal and technical challenges of translating xenotransplantation.

This manuscript reports on a landmark symposium on the ethical, legal and technical challenges of xenotransplantation in the UK. King's College London, with endorsement from the British Transplantation Society (BTS), and the European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT), brought together a group of experts in xenotransplantation science, ethics and law to discuss the ethical, regulatory and technical challenges surrounding translating xenotransplantation into the clinical setting. The symposium was the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years. This paper summarises the content of the expert lectures showcasing the progress which has been made in xenotransplantation including-the history of xenotransplantation, advances in gene edited animals and progress towards clinical xenotransplantation. We then set out the ethical and legal issues still to be resolved. Finally, we report the themes of the roundtable discussion highlighting areas of consensus and controversy. While the detail of the legal discussion was directed towards the UK, the principles and summary reported here are intended to be applicable to any jurisdiction seeking to implement clinical xenotransplantation.

Propensity Score and Instrumental Variable Techniques in Observational Transplantation Studies: An Overview and Worked Example Relating to Pre-Transplant Cardiac Screening.

Inferring causality from observational studies is difficult due to inherent differences in patient characteristics between treated and untreated groups. The randomised controlled trial is the gold standard study design as the random allocation of individuals to treatment and control arms should result in an equal distribution of known and unknown prognostic factors at baseline. However, it is not always ethically or practically possible to perform such a study in the field of transplantation. Propensity score and instrumental variable techniques have theoretical advantages over conventional multivariable regression methods and are increasingly being used within observational studies to reduce the risk of confounding bias. An understanding of these techniques is required to critically appraise the literature. We provide an overview of propensity score and instrumental variable techniques for transplant clinicians, describing their principles, assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses. We discuss the different patient populations included in analyses and how to interpret results. We illustrate these points using data from the Access to Transplant and Transplant Outcome Measures study examining the association between pre-transplant cardiac screening in kidney transplant recipients and post-transplant cardiac events.

A propensity score-matched analysis indicates screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease does not predict cardiac events in kidney transplant recipients.

Screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease prior to kidney transplantation aims to reduce peri- and post-operative cardiac events. It is uncertain if this is achieved. Here, we investigated whether pre-transplant screening with a stress test or coronary angiogram associated with any difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) up to five years post-transplantation. We examined a national prospective cohort recruited to the Access to Transplant and Transplant Outcome Measures study who received a kidney transplant between 2011-2017, and linked patient demographics and details of cardiac screening investigations to outcome data extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset and United Kingdom Renal Registry. Propensity score matched groups were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox survival analyses. Overall, 2572 individuals were transplanted in 18 centers; 51% underwent screening and the proportion undergoing screening by center ranged from 5-100%. The incidence of MACE at 90 days, one and five years was 0.9%, 2.1% and 9.4% respectively. After propensity score matching based on the presence or absence of screening, 1760 individuals were examined (880 each in screened and unscreened groups). There was no statistically significant association between screening and MACE at 90 days (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval 0.31-2.05), one year (1.12, 0.51-2.47) or five years (1.31, 0.86-1.99). Age, male sex and history of ischemic heart disease were associated with MACE. Thus, there is no association between screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease and MACE up to five years post-transplant. Practices involving unselected screening of transplant recipients should be reviewed.

Do routine hospital data accurately record comorbidity in advanced kidney disease populations? A record linkage cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Routine healthcare datasets capturing clinical and administrative information are increasingly being used to examine health outcomes. The accuracy of such data is not clearly defined. We examine the accuracy of diagnosis recording in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease using a routine healthcare dataset in England with comparison to information collected by trained research nurses. METHODS: We linked records from the Access to Transplant and Transplant Outcome Measures study to the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and Office for Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Interventions and Procedures (OPCS-4) codes were used to identify medical conditions from hospital data. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for a range of diagnoses. RESULTS: Comorbidity information was available in 96% of individuals prior to starting kidney replacement therapy. There was variation in the accuracy of individual medical conditions identified from the routine healthcare dataset. Sensitivity and positive predictive values ranged from 97.7 and 90.4% for diabetes and 82.6 and 82.9% for ischaemic heart disease to 44.2 and 28.4% for liver disease. CONCLUSIONS: Routine healthcare datasets accurately capture certain conditions in an advanced chronic kidney disease population. They have potential for use within clinical and epidemiological research studies but are unlikely to be sufficient as a single resource for identifying a full spectrum of comorbidities.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and early mortality of waitlisted and solid organ transplant recipients in England: A national cohort study.

Patients waitlisted for and recipients of solid organ transplants (SOT) are perceived to have a higher risk of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and death; however, definitive epidemiological evidence is lacking. In a comprehensive national cohort study enabled by linkage of the UK transplant registry and Public Health England and NHS Digital Tracing services, we examined the incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent mortality in patients on the active waiting list for a deceased donor SOT and recipients with a functioning SOT as of February 1, 2020 with follow-up to May 20, 2020. Univariate and multivariable techniques were used to compare differences between groups and to control for case-mix. One hundred ninety-seven (3.8%) of the 5184 waitlisted patients and 597 (1.3%) of the 46 789 SOT recipients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Mortality after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 10.2% (20/197) for waitlisted patients and 25.8% (154/597) for SOT recipients. Increasing recipient age was the only variable independently associated with death after positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Of the 1004 transplants performed in 2020, 41 (4.1%) recipients have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with 8 (0.8%) deaths reported by May 20. These data provide evidence to support decisions on the risks and benefits of SOT during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Changes in quality of life, health status and other patient-reported outcomes following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPKT): a quantitative and qualitative analysis within a UK-wide programme.

We examined quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in 95 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPKT) recipients and 41 patients wait-listed for SPKT recruited to the UK Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) programme. Wait-listed patients transplanted within 12 months of recruitment (n = 22) were followed 12 months post-transplant and compared with those still wait-listed (n = 19) to examine pre- to post-transplant changes. Qualitative interviews with ten SPKT recipients 12 months post-transplant were analysed thematically. Cross-sectional analyses showed several better 12-month outcomes for SPKT recipients compared with those still wait-listed, a trend to better health utilities but no difference in diabetes-specific QoL or diabetes treatment satisfaction. Pre- to post-transplant, SPKT recipients showed improved treatment satisfaction, well-being, self-reported health, generic QoL and less negative impact on renal-specific QoL (ps < 0.05). Health utility values were better overall in transplant recipients and neither these nor diabetes-specific QoL changed significantly in either group. Pre-emptive transplant advantages seen in 12-month cross-sectional analyses disappeared when controlling for baseline values. Qualitative findings indicated diabetes complications, self-imposed blood glucose monitoring and dietary restrictions continued to impact QoL negatively post-transplant. Unrealistic expectations of SPKT caused some disappointment. Measuring condition-specific PROMs over time will help in demonstrating the benefits and limitations of SPKT.

Limited health literacy is associated with reduced access to kidney transplantation.

Limited health literacy is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and has been variably associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The prevalence of limited health literacy is lower in kidney transplant recipients than in individuals starting dialysis, suggesting selection of patients with higher health literacy for transplantation. We investigated the relationship between limited health literacy and clinical outcomes, including access to kidney transplantation, in a prospective UK cohort study of 2,274 incident dialysis patients aged 18-75 years. Limited health literacy was defined by a validated Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS). Multivariable regression was used to test for association with outcomes after adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic status (educational level and car ownership), ethnicity, first language, primary renal diagnosis, and comorbidity. In fully adjusted analyses, limited health literacy was not associated with mortality, late presentation to nephrology, dialysis modality, haemodialysis vascular access, or pre-emptive kidney transplant listing, but was associated with reduced likelihood of listing for a deceased-donor transplant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.90), receiving a living-donor transplant (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19-0.88), or receiving a transplant from any donor type (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44-0.96). Limited health literacy is associated with reduced access to kidney transplantation, independent of patient demographics, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity. Interventions to ameliorate the effects of low health literacy may improve access to kidney transplantation.

Allograft and patient survival after sequential HSCT and kidney transplantation from the same donor-A multicenter analysis.

Tolerance induction through simultaneous hematopoietic stem cell and renal transplantation has shown promising results, but it is hampered by the toxicity of preconditioning therapies and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Moreover, renal function has never been compared to conventionally transplanted patients, thus, whether donor-specific tolerance results in improved outcomes remains unanswered. We collected follow-up data of published cases of renal transplantations after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from the same donor and compared patient and transplant kidney survival as well as function with caliper-matched living-donor renal transplantations from the Austrian dialysis and transplant registry. Overall, 22 tolerant and 20 control patients were included (median observation period 10 years [range 11 months to 26 years]). In the tolerant group, no renal allograft loss was reported, whereas 3 were lost in the control group. Median creatinine levels were 85 µmol/l (interquartile range [IQR] 72-99) in the tolerant cohort and 118 µmol/l (IQR 99-143) in the control group. Mixed linear-model showed around 29% lower average creatinine levels throughout follow-up in the tolerant group (P < .01). Our data clearly show stable renal graft function without long-term immunosuppression for many years, suggesting permanent donor-specific tolerance. Thus sequential transplantation might be an alternative approach for future studies targeting tolerance induction in renal allograft recipients.

Health literacy and patient outcomes in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.

Background: Limited health literacy affects 25% of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and may reduce self-management skills resulting in poorer clinical outcomes. By disproportionately affecting people with low socio-economic status and non-white ethnicity, limited health literacy may promote health inequity. Methods: We performed a systematic review of quantitative studies of health literacy and clinical outcomes among adults with CKD. Results: A total of 29 studies (13 articles; 16 conference abstracts) were included. One included non-USA patients. Of the 29 studies, 5 were cohort studies and 24 were cross-sectional. In all, 18 300 patients were studied: 4367 non-dialysis CKD; 13 202 dialysis; 390 transplant; 341 unspecified. Median study size was 127 [interquartile range (IQR) 92-238)], but 480 (IQR 260-2392) for cohort studies. Median proportion of non-white participants was 48% (IQR 17-70%). Six health literacy measures were used. Outcomes included patient attributes, care processes, clinical/laboratory parameters and 'hard' clinical outcomes. Limited health literacy was significantly, independently associated with hospitalizations, emergency department use, missed dialysis sessions, cardiovascular events and mortality (in cohort studies). Study quality was high (1 study), moderate (3 studies) and poor (25 studies), limited by sampling methods, variable adjustment for confounders and reduced methodological detail given in conference abstracts. Conclusions: There is limited robust evidence of the causal effects of health literacy on patient outcomes in CKD. Available evidence suggests associations with adverse clinical events, increased healthcare use and mortality. Prospective studies are required to determine the causal effects of health literacy on outcomes in CKD patients, and examine the relationships between socio-economic status, comorbidity, health literacy and CKD outcomes. Intervention development and evaluation will determine whether health literacy is a modifiable determinant of poor outcomes in CKD.