Allograft and Patient Outcomes Between Indigenous and Nonindigenous Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant outcomes of indigenous Australians are poorer compared with nonindigenous Australians, but it is unknown whether the type of acute rejection differs between these patient groups or whether rejection mediates the effect between ethnicity, death-censored graft failure (DCGF), and death with a functioning graft (DWFG). METHODS: Biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) rates and types were compared between indigenous and nonindigenous recipients. The associations between ethnicity, BPAR, DCGF, and DWFG were examined using adjusted competing risk analyses, and mediation analysis was conducted to determine whether BPAR mediated the adverse effects between ethnicity and outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (9.3%) of 616 patients who have received kidney-only transplants between 2000 and 2010 in Western Australia were indigenous. Compared with nonindigenous recipients, BPAR rates were higher in indigenous recipients (42 versus 74 episodes/100 recipients, P < 0.01), with an excess of antibody-mediated rejections. During a median follow-up of 8 years, indigenous recipients were more likely to experience BPAR, DCGF, and DWFG compared with nonindigenous recipients, with adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 1.94 (1.39-2.70), 1.53 (0.85-2.76; P = 0.159), and 2.14 (1.13-4.06; P = 0.020), respectively. Although 70% of the effect between ethnicity and DCGF was mediated by BPAR, no similar association was found for DWFG. CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous recipients experienced poorer allograft and patient outcomes compared with nonindigenous recipients, with BPAR an important determinant for DCGF. Future research identifying other risk factors and mediators associated with patient survival in indigenous recipients should be considered a priority.

Comprehensive evaluation of a prospective Australian patient cohort with suspected genetic kidney disease undergoing clinical genomic testing: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in genomic technology have allowed better delineation of renal conditions, the identification of new kidney disease genes and subsequent targets for therapy. To date, however, the utility of genomic testing in a clinically ascertained, prospectively recruited kidney disease cohort remains unknown. The aim of this study is to explore the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of genomic testing within a national cohort of patients with suspected genetic kidney disease who attend multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective observational cohort study performed at 16 centres throughout Australia. Patients will be included if they are referred to one of the multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics and are deemed likely to have a genetic basis to their kidney disease by the multidisciplinary renal genetics team. The expected cohort consists of 360 adult and paediatric patients recruited by December 2018 with ongoing validation cohort of 140 patients who will be recruited until June 2020. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients who receive a molecular diagnosis via genomic testing (diagnostic rate) compared with usual care. Secondary outcomes will include change in clinical diagnosis following genomic testing, change in clinical management following genomic testing and the cost-effectiveness of genomic testing compared with usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project has received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. All participants will provide written informed consent for data collection and to undergo clinically relevant genetic/genomic testing. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will also be presented at national and international conferences.

Acute kidney injury is under-recognised and under-reported in hospitalised patients in Australia.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalised patients is associated with adverse outcomes; however, it remains unrecognised and under-reported. A total of 48 045 serum creatinine results from 8129 tertiary hospital inpatients were reviewed. The prevalence of AKI was 4.33%. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with AKI (16.76%) compared to those without AKI (1.88%, P < 0.001). Documentation of AKI in discharge summaries was poor.

Diagnostic Accuracies of Glycated Hemoglobin, Fructosamine, and Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance in Predicting Impaired Fasting Glucose, Impaired Glucose Tolerance, or New Onset Diabetes After Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: New onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is associated with a 3-fold greater risk of cardiovascular disease events, with early identification and treatment potentially attenuating this risk. The optimal screening test to identify those with NODAT remains unclear, and the aim of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracies of 4 screening tests in identifying impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and NODAT. METHODS: This is a single-center prospective cohort study of 83 nondiabetic kidney transplant recipients between 2008 and 2011. Oral glucose tolerance test was considered the gold standard in identifying IFG/IGT or NODAT. Diagnostic accuracies of random blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HBA1c), fructosamine, and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance in predicting IFG/IGT or NODAT were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Forty (48%) recipients had IFG/IGT or NODAT. Compared with HBA1c with adjusted area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.77-0.93), fructosamine was the most accurate test with adjusted AUC of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). The adjusted AUCs of random blood glucose and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance in identifying IFG/IGT were between 0.81 and 0.85. Restricting to identifying IGT/NODAT using 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (n = 66), fructosamine was the most accurate diagnostic test with adjusted AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84-0.99), but not statistically different to HBA1c with adjusted AUC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Although HBA1c is an acceptable and widely used screening test in detecting IFG/IGT or NODAT, fructosamine may be a more accurate diagnostic test but this needs to be further examined in larger cohorts.

Preclinical assessment of adjunctive tPA and DNase for peritoneal dialysis associated peritonitis.

A major complication of peritoneal dialysis is the development of peritonitis, which is associated with reduced technique and patient survival. The inflammatory response elicited by infection results in a fibrin and debris-rich environment within the peritoneal cavity, which may reduce the effectiveness of antimicrobial agents and predispose to recurrence or relapse of infection. Strategies to enhance responses to antimicrobial agents therefore have the potential to improve patient outcomes. This study presents pre-clinical data describing the compatibility of tPA and DNase in combination with antimicrobial agents used for the treatment of PD peritonitis. tPA and DNase were stable in standard dialysate solution and in the presence of antimicrobial agents, and were safe when given intraperitoneally in a mouse model with no evidence of local or systemic toxicity. Adjunctive tPA and DNase may have a role in the management of patients presenting with PD peritonitis.

Detection of polyomavirus BK reactivation after renal transplantation using an intensive decoy cell surveillance program is cost-effective.

BACKGROUND: Reactivation of polyomavirus BK (BKV) after renal transplantation can lead to allograft dysfunction or loss with early detection improving outcomes. Current guidelines recommend quantitative polymerase chain reaction for surveillance; however, urinary decoy cell detection is a potentially cost-effective alternative. We present the outcomes from an early intensive BKV surveillance program using decoy cell detection for initial screening starting 2 weeks after transplantation. METHODS: Records for all recipients of kidney (n=211) or simultaneous kidney and pancreas (n=102) transplants performed over 2 years in a single center were reviewed. Follow-up was for a minimum of 1 year. Urine cytology screening was performed fortnightly from 0 to 3 months after transplantation, monthly from 3 to 6 months then every 2 months from 6 to 12 months. RESULTS: Decoy cell positivity occurred in 56 of 313 patients (17.9%) with sustained decoy cell positivity (≥2 positive urine samples >2 weeks apart) present in 32 patients (10.2%). Twenty-four patients (7.6%) became viremic and three patients (1%) developed polyoma virus nephropathy. The median time after transplantation until decoy cell positivity was 78 days, decreasing to 67 days for patients with sustained positivity and 57 days for patients who developed polyoma virus nephropathy. No grafts were lost due to BKV during the study period. Decoy cell screening resulted in savings of approximately £135,000 over 2 years, when compared with routine surveillance by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant BKV reactivation occurs early after transplantation and can be reliably detected by decoy cell screening. A surveillance strategy for detecting BKV reactivation based on urine cytology is cost-effective.