Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know Into What We do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary-care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know Into What We Do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay. DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.8216.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Achieving consensus on psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management for people living with kidney disease.

Background: People living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) need to be able to live well with their condition. The provision of psychosocial interventions (psychological, psychiatric and social care) and physical rehabilitation management is variable across England, as well as the rest of the UK. There is a need for clear recommendations for standards of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation care for people living with CKD, and guidance for the commissioning and measurement of these services. The National Health Service (NHS) England Renal Services Transformation Programme (RSTP) supported a programme of work and modified Delphi process to address the management of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation care as part of a larger body of work to formulate a comprehensive commissioning toolkit for renal care services across England. We sought to achieve expert consensus regarding the psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management of people living with CKD in England and the rest of the UK. Methods: A Delphi consensus method was used to gather and refine expert opinions of senior members of the kidney multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and other key stakeholders in the UK. An agreement was sought on 16 statements reflecting aspects of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management for people living with CKD. Results: Twenty-six expert practitioners and other key stakeholders, including lived experience representatives, participated in the process. The consensus (>80% affirmative votes) amongst the respondents for all 16 statements was high. Nine recommendation statements were discussed and refined further to be included in the final iteration of the 'Systems' section of the NHS England RSTP commissioning toolkit. These priority recommendations reflect pragmatic solutions that can be implemented in renal care and include recommendations for a holistic wellbeing assessment for all people living with CKD who are approaching dialysis, or who are at listing for kidney transplantation, which includes the use of validated measurement tools to assess the need for further intervention in psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management. It is recommended that the scores from these measurement tools be included in the NHS England Renal Data Dashboard. There was also a recommendation for referral as appropriate to NHS Talking Therapies, psychology, counselling or psychotherapy, social work or liaison psychiatry for those with identified psychosocial needs. The use of digital resources was recommended to be used in addition to face-to-face care to provide physical rehabilitation, and all healthcare professionals should be educated to recognize psychosocial and physical rehabilitation needs and refer/sign-post people with CKD to appropriate services. Conclusion: There was high consensus amongst senior members of the kidney MDT and other key stakeholders, including those with lived experience, in the UK on all aspects of the psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management of people living with CKD. The results of this process will be used by NHS England to inform the 'Systems' section of the commissioning toolkit and data dashboard and to inform the National Standards of Care for people living with CKD.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR and SRR databases.

Background: Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK. Methods: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR). Results: Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 1852) or molnupiravir (n = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.71]; P = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13-1.21); P = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P > .05). Conclusions: In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves.

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study.

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.

Association between practice coding of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care and subsequent hospitalisations and death: a cohort analysis using national audit data.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between practice percentage coding of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care with risk of subsequent hospitalisations and death. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using linked electronic healthcare records. SETTING: 637 general practitioner (GP) practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 167 208 patients with CKD stages 3-5 identified by 2 measures of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, separated by at least 90 days, excluding those with coded initiation of renal replacement therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospitalisations with cardiovascular (CV) events, heart failure (HF), acute kidney injury (AKI) and all-cause mortality RESULTS: Participants were followed for (median) 3.8 years for hospital outcomes and 4.3 years for deaths. Rates of hospitalisations with CV events and HF were lower in practices with higher percentage CKD coding. Trends of a small reduction in AKI but no substantial change in rate of deaths were also observed as CKD coding increased. Compared with patients in the median performing practice (74% coded), patients in practices coding 55% of CKD cases had a higher rate of CV hospitalisations (HR 1.061 (95% CI 1.015 to 1.109)) and HF hospitalisations (HR 1.097 (95% CI 1.013 to 1.187)) and patients in practices coding 88% of CKD cases had a reduced rate of CV hospitalisations (HR 0.957 (95% CI 0.920 to 0.996)) and HF hospitalisations (HR 0.918 (95% CI 0.855 to 0.985)). We estimate that 9.0% of CV hospitalisations and 16.0% of HF hospitalisations could be prevented by improving practice CKD coding from 55% to 88%. Prescription of antihypertensives was the most dominant predictor of a reduction in hospitalisation rates for patients with CKD, followed by albuminuria testing and use of statins. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of CKD coding by GP practices were associated with lower rates of CV and HF events, which may be driven by increased use of antihypertensives and regular albuminuria testing, although residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

Establishing a core outcome measure for life participation in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis: A Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis consensus workshop report.

BACKGROUND: Life participation is an outcome of critical importance to patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, there is no widely accepted or validated tool for measuring life participation in patients receiving PD. METHODS: Online consensus workshop to identify the essential characteristics of life participation as a core outcome, with the goal of establishing a patient-reported outcome measure for use in all trials in patients receiving PD. Thematic analysis of transcripts was performed. RESULTS: Fifty-six participants, including 17 patients and caregivers, from 15 countries convened via online videoconference. Four themes were identified: reconfiguring expectations of daily living (accepting day-to-day fluctuation as the norm, shifting thresholds of acceptability, preserving gains in flexibility and freedom), ensuring broad applicability and interpretability (establishing cross-cultural relevance, incorporating valued activities, distinguishing unmodifiable barriers to life participation), capturing transitions between modalities and how they affect life participation (responsive to trajectory towards stable, reflecting changes with dialysis transitions) and maximising feasibility of implementation (reducing completion burden, administrable with ease and flexibility). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a validated, generalisable outcome measure for life participation in patients receiving PD. Feasibility, including length of time to complete and flexible mode of delivery, are important to allow implementation in all trials that include patients receiving PD.

Building a bridge between patients and transplant healthcare professionals - a descriptive study.

This article describes a pathway for collaboration between transplant healthcare professionals and organ recipients. Under the umbrella of the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) a joint initiative started from three Sections and Committees of ESOT: EDTCO (European Donation and Transplant Coordination Organisation), ETHAP (European Transplant Allied Healthcare Professionals) and ELPAT (Ethical, Legal and Psycho-social Aspects of Transplantation). The formal 'kick-off' of the Advisory Board Meeting of the European Transplant Patient Organisation (ETPO) was during the ESOT congress in 2019. The aim was to produce a series of statements to serve as a path to dialogue between patients and transplant professionals and to define the next steps towards giving a voice to the patient network. To include the patients' perspectives, two surveys have been performed. The results identified the unmet needs and lead to a proposal for future plans. Educational activities have since started leading to a patient learning workstream. All initiatives taken have one purpose: to include patients, give them a voice and build a foundation for collaboration between patients and transplant professionals. ESOT has created a platform for mutual understanding, learning and a collaborative partnership between ETPO and European donation and transplant professionals.

Patient-reported outcome measures for life participation in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD) endure an ongoing regimen of daily fluid exchanges and are at risk of potentially life-threatening complications and debilitating symptoms that can limit their ability to participate in life activities. The aim of the study was to identify the characteristics, content and psychometric properties of measures for life participation used in research in PD. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to May 2020 for all studies that reported life participation in patients on PD. The characteristics, dimensions of life participation and psychometric properties of these measures were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 301 studies included, 17 (6%) were randomized studies and 284 (94%) were nonrandomized studies. Forty-two different measures were used to assess life participation. Of these, 23 (55%) were used in only one study. Fifteen (36%) measures were specifically designed to assess life participation, while 27 (64%) measures assessed broader constructs, such as quality of life, but included questions on life participation. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form were the most frequently used measures [122 (41%) and 86 (29%) studies, respectively]. Eight (19%) measures had validation data to support their use in patients on PD. CONCLUSIONS: The many measures currently used to assess life participation in patients receiving PD vary in their characteristics, content and validation. Further work to pilot and validate potential measures is required to establish a core patient-reported outcome measure to assess life participation in patients receiving PD.

Biological variation of measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease.

When assessing changes in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) it is important to differentiate pathological change from intrinsic biological and analytical variation. GFR is measured using complex reference methods (e.g., iohexol clearance). In clinical practice measurement of creatinine and cystatin C are used in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] or Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] equations to provide estimated GFR. Here we studied the biological variability of measured and estimated GFR in twenty nephrology outpatients (10 male, 10 female; median age 71, range 50-80 years) with moderate CKD (GFR 30-59 ml/min per 1.73 m2). Patients underwent weekly GFR measurement by iohexol clearance over four consecutive weeks. Simultaneously, GFR was estimated using the MDRD, CKD-EPIcreatinine, CKD-EPIcystatinC and CKD-EPIcreatinine+cystatinC equations. Within-subject biological variation expressed as a percentage [95% confidence interval] for the MDRD (5.0% [4.3-6.1]), CKD-EPIcreatinine (5.3% [4.5-6.4]), CKD-EPIcystatinC (5.3% [4.5-6.5]), and CKD-EPIcreatinine+cystatinC (5.0% [4.3-6.2]) equations were broadly equivalent. The within-subject biological variation for MDRD and CKD- EPIcreatinine+cystatinC estimated GFR were each significantly lower than that of the measured GFR (6.7% [5.6-8.2]). Reference change values, the point at which a true change in a biomarker in an individual can be inferred to have occurred with 95% probability were calculated. By the MDRD equation, positive and negative reference change values were 15.1% and 13.1% respectively. If an individual's baseline MDRD estimated GFR (ml/min per 1.73 m2) was 59, significant increases or decreases would be to values over 68 or under 51 respectively. Within-subject variability of estimated GFR was lower than measured GFR. Reference change values can be used to understand GFR changes in clinical practice. Thus, estimates of GFR are at least as reliable as measured GFR for monitoring patients over time.

How to increase kidney transplant activity throughout Europe-an advocacy review by the European Kidney Health Alliance.

Kidney transplantation offers better outcomes and quality of life at lower societal costs compared with other options of renal replacement therapy. In this review of the European Kidney Health Alliance, the current status of kidney transplantation throughout Europe and suggestions for improvement of transplantation rates are reported. Although the European Union (EU) has made considerable efforts in the previous decade to stimulate transplantation activity, the discrepancies among European countries suggest that there is still room for improvement. The EU efforts have partially been neutralized by external factors such as economic crises or legal issues, especially the illicit manipulation of waiting lists. Hence, growth in the application of transplantation throughout Europe virtually remained unchanged over the last few years. Continued efforts are warranted to further stimulate transplantation rates, along with the current registration and data analysis efforts supported by the EU in the Effect of Differing Kidney Disease Treatment Modalities and Organ Donation and Transplantation Practices on Health Expenditure and Patient Outcomes project. Future actions should concentrate on organization, harmonization and improvement of the legal consent framework, population education and financial stimuli.

Implementing personalized medicine in diabetic kidney disease: Stakeholders' perspectives.

The promise of personalized medicine to deliver "the right treatments at the right time to the right person" is the next frontier in healthcare. However, to implement personalized medicine in chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus and diabetic kidney disease (DKD), a number of different aspects need to be taken into account. Better risk stratification and more precise options for treatment need to be developed and included in clinical practice guidelines. A patient's unique psychological, social and environmental situation also drive disease progression and outcomes. Appraising the cost effectiveness of precision medicines is necessary, not just as the cost of new therapies, but also the cost of diagnosis with novel methodologies and averted complications. As the prevalence of DKD grows worldwide to epidemic proportions, challenges such as global disparities in resources, access to healthcare and prevalence need to be addressed. This review considers these issues to achieve the short and longer-term goals of implementing personalized medicine in clinical practice.

Defining Priorities for Future Research: Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field. METHODS: The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten. RESULTS: The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered "indicative" questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities. CONCLUSIONS: The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the transplant process, including access to transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity.