Should Transplant Nephrology Pursue Recognition from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)?

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.

Genetic evaluation of living kidney donor candidates: A review and recommendations for best practices.

The growing accessibility and falling costs of genetic sequencing techniques has expanded the utilization of genetic testing in clinical practice. For living kidney donation, genetic evaluation has been increasingly used to identify genetic kidney disease in potential candidates, especially in those of younger ages. However, genetic testing on asymptomatic living kidney donors remains fraught with many challenges and uncertainties. Not all transplant practitioners are aware of the limitations of genetic testing, are comfortable with selecting testing methods, comprehending test results, or providing counsel, and many do not have access to a renal genetic counselor or a clinical geneticist. Although genetic testing can be a valuable tool in living kidney donor evaluation, its overall benefit in donor evaluation has not been demonstrated and it can also lead to confusion, inappropriate donor exclusion, or misleading reassurance. Until more published data become available, this practice resource should provide guidance for centers and transplant practitioners on the responsible use of genetic testing in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates.

Effect of age and rural residency on perceptions about SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and vaccination in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Transplant patients have poor outcomes in coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pandemic's effects on rural patients' overall care experience, attitudes to telemedicine, and vaccination are poorly understood. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to adult kidney transplant recipients in central Pennsylvania across four clinical sites between March 29, 2021 and June 2, 2021. We assessed the pandemic's impact on care access, telemedicine experience, attitudes toward preventive measures, vaccination, and variation by sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Survey completion rate was 51% (303/594). Of these, 52.8% were rural residents. The most common impact was use of telemedicine (79.2%). Predominant barriers to telemedicine were lack of video devices (10.9%), perceived complexity (5.6%), and technical issues (5.3%). On a 0-10 Likert scale, the mean positive impression for telemedicine was 7.7; lower for patients with telephone-only versus video visits (7.0 vs. 8.2; p < .001), and age ≥60 years (7.4 vs. 8.1; p = .01) on univariate analyses. Time/travel savings were commonly identified (115/241, 47.7%) best parts of telemedicine and lack of personal connection (70/166, 42.2%) the worst. Only 68.9% had received any dose of COVID vaccination. The vaccinated group members were older (58.4 vs. 53.5 years; p = .007), and less likely rural (47.8% vs. 65.2%; p = .005). Common themes associated with vaccine hesitancy included concerns about safety (27/59, 46%), perceived lack of data (19/59, 32%), and distrust (17/59, 29%). At least one misconception about the vaccines or COVID-19 was quoted by 29% of vaccine-hesitant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among respondents, the pandemic significantly impacted healthcare experience, especially in older patients in underserved communities. COVID-19 vaccination rate was relatively low, driven by misconceptions and lack of trust.

Vignette-Based Reflections to Inform Genetic Testing Policies in Living Kidney Donors.

Family history of kidney disease increases risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in donors. Pre-donation genetic testing is recommended in evaluation guidelines and regulatory policy. Collaborating across several institutions, we describe cases to illustrate the utility as well as practical issues in incorporating genetic testing in transplant protocols. Case 1 is from 2009, before pervasive genetic testing. A healthy 27-year-old Caucasian male had an uneventful donor evaluation for his mother, who had early onset ESKD of unclear cause. He participated in paired-exchange kidney donation, but developed progressive kidney disease and gout over the next 10 years. A uromodulin gene mutation (NM_003361.3(UMOD):c.377 G>A p.C126Y) was detected and kidney biopsy showed tubulointerstitial kidney disease. The patient subsequently required kidney transplantation himself. Case 2 was a 36-year-old African American female who had an uneventful kidney donor evaluation. She underwent gene panel-based testing to rule out ApolipoproteinL1 risk variants, for which was negative. Incidentally, a sickle-cell trait (NM_000518.5(HBB):c.20A>T p.Glu7Val) was noted, and she was declined for kidney donation. This led to significant patient anguish. Case 3 was a 26-year-old Caucasian female who underwent panel-based testing because the potential recipient, her cousin, carried a variant of uncertain significance in the hepatocyte nuclear factor-1-ß (HNF1B) gene. While the potential donor did not harbor this variant, she was found to have a likely pathogenic variant in complement factor I (NM_000204.4(CFI):c.1311dup:p.Asp438Argfs*8), precluding kidney donation. Our cases emphasize that while genetic testing can be invaluable in donor evaluation, transplant centers should utilize detailed informed consent, develop care pathways for secondary genetic findings, and share experience to develop best practices around genetic testing in donors.