Disaster preparedness for people with kidney disease and kidney healthcare providers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Man-made and natural disasters become more frequent and provoke significant morbidity and mortality, particularly among vulnerable people such as patients with underlying kidney diseases. This review summarizes strategies to minimize the risks associated with mass disasters among kidney healthcare providers and patients affected by kidney disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Considering patients, in advance displacement or evacuation are the only options to avoid harmful consequences of predictable disasters such as hurricanes. Following unpredictable catastrophes, one can only rely upon educational initiatives for disaster risk mitigation. Preparatory initiatives before disasters such as training courses should target minimizing hazards in order to decrease morbidity and mortality by effective interventions during and early after disasters. Retrospective evaluation of previous interventions is essential to identify adverse consequences of disaster-related health risks and to assess the efficacy of the medical response. However, preparations and subsequent responses are always open for ameliorations, even in well developed countries that are aware of disaster risks, and even after predictable disasters. SUMMARY: Adverse consequences of disasters in patients with kidney diseases and kidney healthcare providers can be mitigated by predisaster preparedness and by applying action plans and pragmatic interventions during and after disasters. Preparing clear, practical and concise recommendations and algorithms in various languages is mandatory.

Distribution, preparedness and management of Ukrainian adult refugees on dialysis-an international survey by the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the European Renal Association.

BACKGROUND: Due to the Russian-Ukrainian war, some of the about 10 000 adults requiring dialysis in Ukraine fled their country to continue dialysis abroad. To better understand the needs of conflict-affected dialysis patients, the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the European Renal Association conducted a survey on distribution, preparedness and management of adults requiring dialysis who were displaced due to the war. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was sent via National Nephrology Societies across Europe and disseminated to their dialysis centers. Fresenius Medical Care shared a set of aggregated data. RESULTS: Data were received on 602 patients dialyzed in 24 countries. Most patients were dialyzed in Poland (45.0%), followed by Slovakia (18.1%), Czech Republic (7.8%) and Romania (6.3%). The interval between last dialysis and the first in the reporting center was 3.1 ± 1.6 days, but was ≥4 days in 28.1% of patients. Mean age was 48.1 ± 13.4 years, 43.5% were females. Medical records were carried by 63.9% of patients, 63.3% carried a list of medications, 60.4% carried the medications themselves and 44.0% carried their dialysis prescription, with 26.1% carrying all of these items and 16.1% carrying none. Upon presentation outside Ukraine, 33.9% of patients needed hospitalization. Dialysis therapy was not continued in the reporting center by 28.2% of patients until the end of the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: We received information about approximately 6% of Ukrainian dialysis patients, who had fled their country by the end of August 2022. A substantial proportion were temporarily underdialyzed, carried incomplete medical information and needed hospitalization. The results of our survey may help to inform policies and targeted interventions to respond to the special needs of this vulnerable population during wars and other disasters in the future.

Armed conflicts and kidney patients: a consensus statement from the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the ERA.

During conflicts, people with kidney disease, either those remaining in the affected zones or those who are displaced, may be exposed to additional threats because of medical and logistical challenges. Acute kidney injury developing on the battlefield, in field hospitals or in higher-level hospital settings is characterized by poor outcomes. People with chronic kidney disease may experience treatment interruptions, contributing to worsening kidney function. Patients living on dialysis or with a functioning graft may experience limitations of dialysis possibilities or availability of immunosuppressive medications, increasing the risk of severe complications including death. When patients must flee, these threats are compounded by unhealthy and insecure conditions both during displacement and/or at their destination. Measures to attenuate these risks may only be partially effective. Local preparedness for overall and medical/kidney-related disaster response is essential. Due to limitations in supply, adjustments in dialysis frequency or dose, switching between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis and changes in immunosuppressive regimens may be required. Telemedicine (if possible) may be useful to support inexperienced local physicians in managing medical and logistical challenges. Limited treatment possibilities during warfare may necessitate referral of patients to distant higher-level hospitals, once urgent care has been initiated. Preparation for disasters should occur ahead of time. Inclusion of disaster nephrology in medical and nursing curricula and training of patients, families and others on self-care and medical practice in austere settings may enhance awareness and preparedness, support best practices adapted to the demanding circumstances and prepare non-professionals to lend support.

The 3-Step Model of informed consent for living kidney donation: a proposal on behalf of the DESCaRTES Working Group of the European Renal Association.

Living donation challenges the ethical principle of non-maleficence in that it exposes healthy persons to risks for the benefit of someone else. This makes safety, informed consent (IC) and education a priority. Living kidney donation has multiple benefits for the potential donor, but there are also several known short- and long-term risks. Although complete standardization of IC is likely to be unattainable, studies have emphasized the need for a standardized IC process to enable equitable educational and decision-making prospects for the prevention of inequities across transplant centers. Based on the Three-Talk Model of shared decision-making by Elwyn et al., we propose a model, named 3-Step (S) Model, where each step coincides with the three ideal timings of the process leading the living donor to the decision to pursue living donation: prior to the need for kidney replacement therapy (team talk); at the local nephrology unit or transplant center, with transplant clinicians and surgeons prior to evaluations start (option talk); and throughout evaluation, after having learned about the different aspects of donation, especially if there are second thoughts or doubts (decision talk). Based on the 3-S Model, to deliver conceptual and practical guidance to nephrologists and transplant clinicians, we provide recommendations for standardization of the timing, content, modalities for communicating risks and assessment of understanding prior to donation. The 3-S Model successfully allows an integration between standardization and individualization of IC, enabling a person-centered approach to potential donors. Studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-S Model in kidney transplant clinical practice.

Lessons learned during the war in Ukraine: a report from the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the ERA.

People living with kidney disease are among the most vulnerable at times of natural or man-made disasters. In addition to their unpredictable course, armed conflicts impose a major threat given the disruption of infrastructure, sanitation and access to food, water and medical care. The ongoing war in Ukraine has once more demonstrated the importance of preparedness, organization, coordination and solidarity during disasters. People living with kidney disease face serious challenges given their dependence on life-sustaining treatment, irrespective of whether they remain in the war zone or are displaced internally or externally. This especially affects those requiring kidney replacement therapy, dialysis or transplantation, but also patients with other kidney diseases and the medical staff who care for them. Soon after the war started, the European Renal Association assigned a Renal Disaster Relief Task Force dedicated to support the people living with kidney disease and the nephrology community in Ukraine. This report summarizes the major challenges faced, actions taken and lessons learned by this task force. We anticipate that the experience will help to increase preparedness and mitigate the devastating effects of armed conflicts on the kidney community in the future and propose to establish an international collaboration to extend this effort to other parts of the world facing similar challenges.

Efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 blockers in kidney transplant recipients with familial Mediterranean fever: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on use of interleukin (IL)-1 blockers in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) are very limited. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anakinra and canakinumab in the transplantation setting. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included KTRs who suffered from AA amyloidosis caused by FMF and treated with anakinra or canakinumab (study group, n = 36). Using propensity score matching, we selected 36 patients without FMF or amyloidosis from our database of 696 KTRs as the control group. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival. Biopsy-confirmed graft rejection, changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), proteinuria and number of monthly attacks were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: All KTRs with FMF began IL-1 blocker therapy with anakinra and nine (25%) were switched to canakinumab. Overall death was more frequent in the study group (19.4% vs 0%) (P = .005); however, overall graft loss was comparable between study (27.8%) and control groups (36.1%) (P = .448). Five- and 10-year graft survival rates were significantly higher in the study group (94.4% and 83.3%, respectively) than in the control group (77.8% and 63.9%, respectively) (P = .014 and P < .001, respectively). Rejections were numerically lower in study group (8.3% vs 25%), but it did not reach to statistical significance (P = .058). When compared with the pre-treatment period, with IL-1 blockers, the number of attacks per month (P < .001), and eGFR (P = .004), hsCRP (P < .001) and ESR (P = .026) levels were lower throughout the follow-up, whereas proteinuria levels were not. CONCLUSIONS: Anakinra and canakinumab are effective in KTRs suffering from FMF; however, the mortality rate may be of concern.

Assessment of pre-donation glomerular filtration rate: going back to basics.

The 2017 version of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines is the most recent international framework for the evaluation and care of living kidneys donors. Along with the call for an integrative approach evaluating the long-term end-stage kidney disease risk for the future potential donor, several recommendations are formulated regarding the pre-donation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) adequacy with no or little consideration for the donor candidate's age or for the importance of using reference methods of GFR measurements. Herein, we question the position of the KDIGO guidelines and discuss the rationale and modalities for a more basic, but no less demanding GFR evaluation enabling a more efficient selection of potential kidney donors.

Issues regarding COVID-19 in kidney transplantation in the ERA of the Omicron variant: a commentary by the ERA Descartes Working Group.

The Omicron variant, which has become the dominant strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, brings new challenges to preventing and controlling the infection. Moreover, the widespread implementation of vaccination policies before and after transplantation, and the development of new prophylactic and treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) over the past 12-18 months, has raised several new issues concerning kidney transplant recipients. In this special report, the ERA DESCARTES (Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States) Working Group addresses several questions related to everyday clinical practice concerning kidney transplant recipients and to the assessment of deceased and live kidney donors: what is the current risk of severe disease and of breakthrough infection, the optimal management of immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19, the role of passive immunization and the efficacy of antiviral drugs in ambulatory patients, the management of drug-to-drug interactions, safety criteria for the use of SARS-CoV-2-positive donors, issues related to the use of T cell depleting agents as induction treatment, and current recommendations for shielding practices.

Kidney transplantation during mass disasters - from COVID-19 to other catastrophes A Consensus Statement by the DESCARTES Working Group and Ethics Committee of the ERA.

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between health care demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience for guiding transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to save as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of health care resources.

Kidney transplantation during mass disasters - from COVID-19 to other catastrophes.

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between health care demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience for guiding transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to save as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of health care resources.

Management of obesity in kidney transplant candidates and recipients: A clinical practice guideline by the DESCARTES Working Group of ERA.

The clinical practice guideline Management of Obesity in Kidney Transplant Candidates and Recipients was developed to guide decision-making in caring for people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) living with obesity. The document considers the challenges in defining obesity, weighs interventions for treating obesity in kidney transplant candidates as well as recipients and reflects on the impact of obesity on the likelihood of wait-listing as well as its effect on transplant outcomes. It was designed to inform management decisions related to this topic and provide the backdrop for shared decision-making. This guideline was developed by the European Renal Association's Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States working group. The group was supplemented with selected methodologists to supervise the project and provide methodological expertise in guideline development throughout the process. The guideline targets any healthcare professional treating or caring for people with ESKD being considered for kidney transplantation or having received a donor kidney. This includes nephrologists, transplant physicians, transplant surgeons, general practitioners, dialysis and transplant nurses. Development of this guideline followed an explicit process of evidence review. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and areas of future research are presented.

COVID-19-related mortality in kidney transplant and haemodialysis patients: a comparative, prospective registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed haemodialysis (HD) patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients to an unprecedented life-threatening infectious disease, raising concerns about kidney replacement therapy (KRT) strategy during the pandemic. This study investigated the association of the type of KRT with COVID-19 severity, adjusting for differences in individual characteristics. METHODS: Data on KT recipients and HD patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 1 December 2020 were retrieved from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database. Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, frailty and comorbidities were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for 28-day mortality risk in all patients and in the subsets that were tested because of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 1670 patients (496 functional KT and 1174 HD) were included; 16.9% of KT and 23.9% of HD patients died within 28 days of presentation. The unadjusted 28-day mortality risk was 33% lower in KT recipients compared with HD patients {HR 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.85]}. In a fully adjusted model, the risk was 78% higher in KT recipients [HR 1.78 (95% CI 1.22-2.61)] compared with HD patients. This association was similar in patients tested because of symptoms [fully adjusted model HR 2.00 (95% CI 1.31-3.06)]. This risk was dramatically increased during the first post-transplant year. Results were similar for other endpoints (e.g. hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and mortality >28 days) and across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: KT recipients had a greater risk of a more severe course of COVID-19 compared with HD patients, therefore they require specific infection mitigation strategies.

LIMS1 risk genotype and T cell-mediated rejection in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to examine the association of LIM zinc finger domain containing 1 (LIMS1) genotype with allograft rejection in an independent kidney transplant cohort. METHODS: We genotyped 841 kidney transplant recipients for the LIMS1 rs893403 variant by Sanger sequencing followed by polymerase chain reaction confirmation of the deletion. Recipients who were homozygous for the LIMS1 rs893403 genotype GG were compared with the AA/AG genotypes. The primary outcome was T cell-mediated or antibody-mediated rejection (TCMR or ABMR, respectively) and secondary outcome was allograft loss. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.4 years, the rate of TCMR was higher in recipients with the GG genotype (n = 200) compared with the AA/AG genotypes (n = 641) [25 (12.5%) versus 35 (5.5%); P = 0.001] while ABMR did not differ by genotype [18 (9.0%) versus 62 (9.7%)]. Recipients with the GG genotype had 2.4 times higher risk of TCMR than those who did not have this genotype [adjusted hazard ratio2.43 (95% confidence interval 1.44-4.12); P = 0.001]. A total of 189 (22.5%) recipients lost their allografts during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year (94.3% versus 94.4%; P = 0.99) and 10-year graft survival rates (86.9% versus 83.4%; P = 0.31) did not differ significantly in the GG versus AA/AG groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that recipient LIMS1 risk genotype is associated with an increased risk of TCMR after kidney transplantation, confirming the role of the LIMS1 locus in allograft rejection. These findings may have clinical implications for the prediction and clinical management of kidney transplant rejection by pretransplant genetic testing of recipients and donors for LIMS1 risk genotype.

Long-term risks after kidney donation: how do we inform potential donors? A survey from DESCARTES and EKITA transplantation working groups.

BACKGROUND: Publications from the last decade have increased knowledge regarding long-term risks after kidney donation. We wanted to perform a survey to assess how transplant professionals in Europe inform potential kidney donors regarding long-term risks. The objectives of the survey were to determine how they inform donors and to what extent, and to evaluate the degree of variation. METHODS: All transplant professionals involved in the evaluation process were considered eligible, regardless of the type of profession. The survey was dispatched as a link to a web-based survey. The subjects included questions on demographics, the information policy of the respondent and the use of risk calculators, including the difference of relative and absolute risks and how the respondents themselves understood these risks. RESULTS: The main finding was a large variation in how often different long-term risks were discussed with the potential donors, i.e. from always to never. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of end-stage renal disease, while 56% of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of preeclampsia. Twenty percent of respondents answered correctly regarding the relationship between absolute and relative risks for rare outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of written information and checklists should be encouraged. This may improve standardization regarding the information provided to potential living kidney donors in Europe. There is a need for information and education among European transplant professionals regarding long-term risks after kidney donation and how to interpret and present these risks.

Disasters, children and the kidneys.

Following disasters, children are physically, psychologically and socially more vulnerable than adults; consequently, their morbidity and mortality are higher. The risks are especially high for orphans and unaccompanied children who are separated from their families, making them frequently victims of human trafficking, slavery, drug addiction, crime or sexual exploitation. Education of children and families about disaster-related risks and providing special protection in disaster preparedness plans may mitigate these threats. Kidney disease patients, both paediatric and adult, are extra vulnerable during disasters, because their treatment is dependent on technology and functioning infrastructure. Acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis and dialysis and transplant patients are faced with extensive problems. Overall, similar treatment principles apply both for adults and paediatric kidney patients, but management of children is more problematic, because of substantial medical and logistic difficulties. To minimize drawbacks, it is vital to be prepared for renal disasters. Preparedness plans should address not only medical professionals, but also patients and their families. If problems cannot be coped with locally, calling for national and/or international help is mandatory. This paper describes the spectrum of disaster-related problems in children and the specific features in treating acute and chronic kidney disease in disasters.

Nephrology and Public Policy Committee propositions to stimulate research collaboration in adults and children in Europe.

The strengths and the limitations of research activities currently present in Europe are explored in order to outline how to proceed in the near future. Epidemiological and clinical research and public policy in Europe are generally considered to be comprehensive and successful, and the European Renal Association - European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) is playing a key role in the field of nephrology research. The Nephrology and Public Policy Committee (NPPC) aims to improve the current situation and translation into public policy by planning eight research topics to be supported in the coming 5 years by ERA-EDTA.

Co-Deposition of IgM and C3 May Indicate Unfavorable Renal Outcomes in Adult Patients with Primary Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We aimed to investigate the effects of glomerular IgM and C3 deposition on outcomes of adult patients with primary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 86 consecutive adult patients with biopsy-proven primary FSGS were stratified into 3 groups according to their histopathological features: IgM- C3-, IgM+ C3-, and IgM+ C3+. Primary outcome was defined as at least a 50% reduction in baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or development of kidney failure, while complete or partial remission rates were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Glomerular IgM deposits were found in 44 (51.1%) patients, 22 (25.5%) of which presented with accompanying C3 deposition. Patients in IgM+ C3+ group had higher level of proteinuria (5.6 g/24 h [3.77-8.5], p = 0.073), higher percentage of segmental glomerulosclerosis (20% [12.3-27.2], p = 0.001), and lower levels of eGFR (69 ± 37.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.029) and serum albumin (2.71 ± 0.85 g/dL, p = 0.045) at the time of diagnosis. Despite 86.3% of patients in IgM+ C3+ group (19/22) received immunosuppressive treatment, the primary outcome was more common in patients in the IgM+ C3+ group compared with patients in IgM+ C3- and IgM- C3- groups (11 [50%] vs. 2 [9%] and 11 [26.1%] respectively [p = 0.010]). Complete or partial remission rates were lower in patients in the IgM+ C3+ group (5/22, 22.7%), as well (p = 0.043). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that IgM and C3 co-deposition was an independent risk factor associated with primary outcome (hazard ratio 3.355, 95% CI 1.349-8.344, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Glomerular IgM and C3 co-deposition is a predictor of unfavorable renal outcomes in adult patients with primary FSGS.

Immunosuppressive Treatment in C3 Glomerulopathy: Is it Really Effective?

BACKGROUND: C3 glomerulopathy (C3GP) is a recently identified and described disease that has a high risk of progressing into end-stage renal disease. We aimed to evaluate the effects of various immunosuppressive regimens on C3GP progression because there are conflicting data on the treatment modalities. METHODS: In this retrospective study of 66 patients with C3GP, 27 patients received mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-based treatment, 23 received non-MMF-based treatment (prednisolone or cyclophosphamide), and 16 received conservative care. The study groups were compared with each other with specific focus on primary outcomes defined as (1) kidney failure and (2) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline ≥50% from the baseline value. RESULTS: Overall, 17 (25.8%) patients reached the primary outcome after a median period of 28 months. The number of patients who reached the primary outcome were similar among the study groups (MMF-based: 8/27 [29.6%], non-MMF-based: 4/23 [17.4%], and conservative care: 5/16 [31.3%], p = 0.520). In the Cox regression analysis, age (HR 0.912, p = 0.006), eGFR (HR 0.945, p = 0.001), and proteinuria levels (HR 1.418, p = 0.015) at the time of biopsy, percentage of crescentic (HR 1.035, p = 0.001) and sclerotic glomeruli (HR 1.041, p = 0.006), severity of interstitial fibrosis (HR 1.981, p = 0.048), as well as no remission of proteinuria (HR 2.418, p = 0.002) predicted the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Although patients receiving immunosuppressive treatments had higher proteinuria and lower serum albumin at baseline, there were no differences between these patients and those receiving conservative care alone in proteinuria remission or in the decline of renal function. Younger age, higher proteinuria, lower eGFR, and the presence of crescentic and sclerotic glomeruli, severity of interstitial fibrosis, and no remission of proteinuria predicted the progression of kidney disease.

Re-evaluation of glomerulitis using occlusion criteria based on the Banff 2013 revision: a retrospective study.

The presence of occlusion/near-occlusion of glomerular capillaries was recently added to the existing definition of glomerulitis (g). We retrospectively re-evaluated 135 renal allograft biopsies regarding g to ensure no antibody-damaged grafts were missed. Previous and revised g scores (pg and rg, respectively) were compared for clinicopathologic correlations. The g score did not change in 100 (74.1%) biopsies. Thirty-five (25.9%) biopsies were changed to a lower score. Sensitivity and specificity of pg and rg for the presence of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) were 76% vs. 58% and 70% vs. 79%, respectively. Pg score indicated graft loss with 65% sensitivity and 63% specificity, whereas rg showed 46% sensitivity and 71% specificity. Area under the curve (AUC) values in ROC analysis for DSA and graft loss were as follows: pg, 0.773; rg, 0.693; and pg, 0.635; rg, 0.577, respectively. A comparison of the two AUC values revealed a significant difference between pg and rg only for DSA (P = 0.0076). Pg and post-transplant time of biopsy independently predicted graft loss, whereas rg did not. In conclusion, revised g scores showed lesser sensitivity but higher specificity for DSA and graft loss. Recent definition of g missed antibody-mediated rejection in few cases, and it was not an independent predictor for graft loss.