Teenagers and young adults with a past of allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are at significant risk of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) remains the treatment of choice for some malignant hemopathies in children, albeit with the risk of long-term consequences, including chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: In our single tertiary referral center, we retrospectively assessed the long-term renal outcome in a cohort of children and adolescents who had undergone aHSCT for malignant hemopathies between 2003 and 2017. We distinguished glomerular and tubular dysfunctions and assessed the accuracy of the most common formula(s) to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) during standard clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 166 patients who had received aHSCT, 61 underwent kidney functional assessment 1 to 10 years post-transplantation. Twenty-seven patients (44.3%) had a CKD with glomerular impairment, including 20 patients with a GFR < 90 mL/min/1.73 m2, and among these, 5 patients < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients with tubular signs had a significantly higher baseline GFR: 112 mL/min/1.73 m2 [100; 120] versus 102 [99.0; 112.5] for patients without kidney involvement, and 76 [61; 86] for patients with CKD (p < 0.01). Schwartz, CKiDU25, and EKFC formulas significantly overestimated mGFR, with a P30% ≤ 30%, which could lead to overlooking CKD diagnosis in this population. No patient reached kidney failure. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study shows that CKD represents an important long-term sequela for children and adolescents who undergo aHSCT for malignant hemopathies, either with glomerular dysfunction or with the more insidious tubular dysfunction which could potentially impact growth. These patients could benefit from specialized long-term nephrology follow-up. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

An evaluation of Hospice New Zealand's interprofessional fundamentals of palliative care program at a single site.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of two modules within the Fundamentals of Palliative Care educational program within a single site. The modules included the concepts of Essence of Palliative Care and Pain and Symptom Management. METHOD: A mixed-methods approach incorporating questionnaires and interviews was implemented. Two phases were included. First, a purposive sample of 22 workshop participants were invited to fill out evaluation questionnaires on two occasions (immediately after the session and four weeks as follow-up). Second, semistructured interviews were conducted and interviews transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Participants felt they gained further knowledge in palliative patient management and refined their clinical practice. The questionnaire feedback revealed that the Essence of Palliative Care module provided a breadth of content but had difficulties in capturing the diverse needs of all attendees. The Pain and Symptom Management module was perceived as more technical and clinical, and this suited health professionals with an informed background. The interviewee feedback (three nurses, three nurse educators, one manager) suggested that the learning outcomes were comprehensive but needed to be more sensitive to learner needs. The teaching and learning activities were perceived as useful and encouraging. However, learners came from diverse contexts, and it was difficult to suit all learning preferences. Assessment and evaluation processes required more psychometric attention. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The piloting of the Fundamentals of Palliative Care program at this single site was of benefit and relevance to participants in their clinical practice. Overall, participants felt the course was useful to them and that they were able to gain valuable knowledge and skills. Several areas could be refined to optimize the learning, including: (1) knowing attendee learning potentialities and prior experiences, (2) considering a more inclusive and formal assessment process, (3) creating diverse mechanisms for disseminating knowledge and skills, and (4) improving methods of evaluation.