Disparities in Provision of Transplant Education by Profit Status of the Dialysis Center

Kidney transplant education is associated with higher transplantation rates; however national policies regarding optimal timing and content of transplant education are lacking. We aimed to characterize nephrologists’ attitudes regarding kidney transplant education, and to compare practices between nephrologists at for-profit and nonprofit centers. We surveyed 906 nephrologist practicing in the United States. Most respondents (81%) felt the ideal time to spend on transplant education was >20 min, but only 43% reported actually doing so. Spending >20 min was associated with covering more topics, having one-on-one and repeated conversations, involving families in discussions and initiating discussions at CKD-stage 4. Providers at for-profit centers were significantly less likely to spend >20 min (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.80–0.99) or involve families (RR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.38–0.87); they reported that fewer of their patients received transplant counseling (RR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.37–0.96), initiated transplant discussions (RR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.38–0.88), or were eligible for transplantation (RR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.30–0.68). Of nephrologists who spent ≤20 min, those at for-profit centers more often cited lack of reimbursement as a reason (30.0% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.02). Disparities in quality of education at for-profit centers might partially explain previously documented disparities in access to transplantation for patients at these centers. National policies detailing the optimal timing and content of transplant education are needed to improve equity.     

Place de la transplantectomie après échec de greffe rénale

The number of kidney-transplant patients that return to dialysis therapy after a failed kidney allograft is increasing sharply. These patients differ from patients treated with chronic dialysis, but who have never received a transplant; i.e., former transplanted patients display a higher risk of morbidity–mortality, particularly from cardiovascular and infectious complications. The management of immunosuppression has not been codified for patients with a failed kidney allograft: immunosuppressive therapy can be either abruptly stopped or progressively reduced. In addition, nephrectomy of the failed allograft is debatable. Some advocate this procedure only when there is intolerance, e.g., gross hematuria, local pain, or unexplained inflammatory syndrome. In contrast, others propose a systematic nephrectomy, mainly to reveal anti-HLA antibodies within peripheral blood that may have been adsorbed within the failed allograft, and are not detected, even using sensitive techniques. Prospective studies are warranted to answer these issues.     

Chronic kidney disease progression in kidney transplant recipients: A focus on traditional risk factors

Kidney transplant recipients are a subset of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) that remain at high risk for progression to dialysis and mortality. Recent advances in immunosuppression have only partially improved long‐term graft and patient survival. Discovery of new immunosuppressive regimens is a slow and resource‐intensive process. Hence, recognition and management of modifiable allogeneic and non‐allogeneic risk factors for progression to CKD among kidney transplant recipients is of major interest for improving long‐term outcomes. Graft survival is mainly determined by the quality of the allograft and by the patient’s alloimmune response, which is influenced by human leukocyte antigen matching and the presence of donor‐specific antibodies. Alloimmune responses manifest as acute and chronic forms of cell‐ and antibody‐mediated rejection, which can be worsened by patient non‐adherence or under‐immunosuppression. However, donor and patient ages, glomerular disease recurrence, time on dialysis, pre‐existing cardiovascular burden, medication side‐effects and traditional risk factors, such as hypertension, proteinuria, anaemia, dyslipidaemia, diabetes and bone mineral disorder, which can ultimately lead to severe endothelial derangement, also contribute to graft loss and mortality. These traditional risk factors, common to pre‐dialysis patients, often are considered of secondary importance when compared to alloimmunity and immunosuppression concerns. In this review article, we focus on the epidemiological, pathophysiological and therapeutic features of non‐allogeneic traditional risk factors for CKD. We also discuss the benefit of adopting a multidisciplinary approach to pursue the same therapeutic targets recommended for pre‐dialysis patients.     

Inadequate involvement of nephrologist/dialysis physicians in transplantation: based on the findings of a survey of transplant recipients

The number of kidney transplantations(KTx) performed annually in Japan remains small even after enactment of the "Organ Transplant" law. One of the reasons for this paucity of KTx might be because most nephrologists or dialysis physicians who provide medical care to potential transplant candidates have little knowledge of KTx and are seldom involved in the care of recipients and donors. The extent to which Japanese physicians participate in KTx has not been well studied. We sent questionnaires to the 212 kidney transplant recipients who have received an allograft at Tokyo Women's Medical University and conducted a survey to examine the extent to which nephrologists or dialysis physicians are involved in KTx. There were 149 recipients, consisting of 95 males and 54 females with an average age of 46.5 years, who responded to the questionnaire. Only 23% of the patients had considered KTx before dialysis access placement. Lack of information on KTx was suspected for this delay in considering KTx. In fact, only 18% of patients were informed about KTx by their nephrologists before starting dialysis and as many as 49% did not receive any information at all. Forty-eight percent of the patients were not provided with the information even on registration for a cadaveric transplant list by their physicians. Only 20% of the patients received some information about KTx through their nephrologists. On the other hand, nearly 100% of patients think it is essential for nephrologists or dialysis physicians to provide information on KTx especially before the initiation on dialysis access. In addition, almost all of the patients would prefer nephrologists or a dialysis physician to participate in the care of transplant patients from the stage of preoperative evaluation through the post-transplant follow-up period. In conclusion, nephrologists or dialysis physicians have not provided information on KTx to their patients appropriately and most of the transplant recipients expect them to participate in KTx. Nephrologists and dialysis physicians need fundamental knowledge about KTx so that they can provide appropriate information to patients with end-stage renal disease.     

Early failure of kidney transplants in the current era—a national cohort study

Although short‐term outcome after kidney transplantation has improved, a small proportion of grafts are lost during the first year. We characterize in detail all early graft losses in the current era in a nationwide cohort of kidney transplant recipients. Altogether 2447 kidney transplantations, performed between June 2004 and October 2016, were included. All graft losses (return to dialysis or patient death) occurring during the first post‐transplant year were characterized. During the first post‐tranplant year, altogether 109 grafts were lost, 67 grafts failed, and 42 patients died. Fifty‐five per cent of the deaths were due to cardiovascular causes, and 29% due to infectious causes. Twenty‐one per cent of the failed grafts were primary nonfunction of unknown reason, 34% were lost due to venous thrombosis and 9% due to arterial thrombosis, but only 10 (15%) patients lost a graft due to acute cellular or humoral rejection. Independent risk factors for death included diabetes, and longer duration of pretransplant dialysis treatment, whereas risk factors for graft failure included increased level of panel‐reactive antibodies and increased cold ischaemia time. Kidney allografts are rarely lost due to immunological reasons during the first post‐transplant year. The most common causes of early death after transplantation are cardiovascular and infectious causes.     

Immunosuppressive management of dialysis patients with recently failed transplants

Over the past decade, patients returning to dialysis after a failed transplant comprised of 5-10% of the annual number of dialysis initiations in the United States, whereas retransplant candidates account for 5.0-13% of the annual deceased donor wait-list additions. The United States Renal Data System (USRDS) database revealed a >3-fold increase in the annual adjusted death rates for patients returning to dialysis after graft loss compared with patients with a functioning allograft (9.4% vs. 2.8%, respectively). Continuation of low-dose immunosuppression to maintain residual allograft function has been suggested as a contributing factor, presumably via treatment-related infectious and cardiovascular complications among others. In contrast, a survival advantage in maintaining patients on long-term immunosuppression after returning to peritoneal dialysis has also been suggested. Despite the significant number of patients requiring reinitiation of some form of renal replacement therapy after a failed transplant and the increasing evidence suggesting their high mortality and morbidity rates, management of the failed allograft in these patients has received little attention. This article presents an overview of the literature on the management of immunosuppression after allograft failure, a brief review on the pros and cons of allograft nephrectomy, and the authors' opinions on the management of immunosuppression in patients with a failed kidney allograft.     

Interventional nephrology in Brazil: current and future status

The care of chronic kidney disease patients frequently involves many diagnostic and interventional procedures. Most of these procedures are currently performed by radiologists, vascular surgeons, and general surgeons. This has caused fragmented medical care, which has led many nephrologists to introduce a new paradigm, often referred as interventional nephrology (IN). The aim of this study was to establish the extent of involvement of the Brazilian nephrology community with regard to specific IN procedures. From October 2004 to February 2005, questionnaires were sent by e-mail to all 2500 nephrologists throughout Brazil. The enrollment questionnaire was composed of five sections, with questions about renal biopsy, specific training in ultrasonography, peritoneal dialysis access (insertion of peritoneal catheters guided or not by peritoneoscopy), hemodialysis vascular access (ability to place tunneled catheters, construction of arteriovenous fistulas, and other vascular access procedures), and the nephrologist's interest in being trained in IN. A total of 239 nephrologists answered the questionnaire. Only 18% of Brazilian nephrologists perform kidney biopsy guided by ultrasonography assisted by a radiologist. On the other hand, 42% of them reported that this procedure was done without any image support. Most of the respondents (85%) indicated that they were not formally trained to perform renal ultrasonography. When asked about peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, 66% of the respondents reported that they referred their patients to a surgeon for this procedure. The insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters guided by peritoneoscopy was reported by 3% of the respondents. Similar to the results for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, the majority of the respondents (77%) indicated no training in the insertion of tunneled catheters for temporary hemodialysis. Regarding the interest of nephrologists to participate in an IN program, the great majority (87%) responded that they would like to be trained in these procedures. Most nephrologists are not trained in IN procedures. Therefore, in Brazil, it will be necessary to develop training centers for IN that will allow nephrologists to optimize nephrology care.     

Patterns of patient care reported by nephrologists: implications for nephrology training

The recent estimate of the nephrology workforce indicates that more nephrologists must be trained to care for the increasing number of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This conclusion was based on a 1996 survey indicating that nephrologists devote an average of 35% of their activities caring for ESRD patients. We compared data in that survey with those from a 1991 survey of members of the American Society of Nephrology to determine similarities between the different periods. The 1,590 responders in the 1991 survey (35% of the American Society of Nephrology membership) indicated that 50% devoted more than 75% of their effort to patient care, predominately for patients with general nephrology and hypertension problems. Approximately 69% of respondents cared for fewer than 50 hemodialysis patients, and the majority of respondents felt the maximum number of dialysis patients for whom they could provide adequate medical care would be 50. Most respondents felt that there would be a deficiency of nephrologists in their community within 5 years. Results from both the 1991 and 1996 surveys indicate that practice patterns have not changed markedly; combining results from the two surveys makes it clear that more nephrologists are needed to care for the projected increase in dialysis patients. Because nephrologists should be involved in the management of the pre-ESRD patient, training programs will have to broaden the preparation of future nephrologists.     

Implications of the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative for kidney transplant centers

The announcement of the Advancing American Kidney Health (AAKH) Initiative on July 10, 2019 was met with a mix of excitement and trepidation, befitting a proposed radical reconfiguration of the delivery of kidney disease care. Aspiring to reduce the incidence of end‐stage renal disease, increase the prevalence of home dialysis, and double the number of organs available for transplant, the AAKH payment models primarily focus on incenting behaviors of general nephrologists, though actualizing positive incentives will require the active cooperation of dialysis providers and transplant centers. Here, we review the AAKH initiatives’ potential impact on all stakeholders and opine on financial and regulatory pressures on kidney transplant programs, outlining areas of uncertainty and concern, and suggest key points of reflection for clinical and administrative leaders of kidney transplant centers weighing participation in any of the voluntary payment models.     

A world-wide survey on kidney transplantation practices in breast cancer survivors: The need for new management guidelines

Kidney transplantation reduces mortality in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Decisions about performing kidney transplantation in the setting of a prior cancer are challenging, as cancer recurrence in the setting of immunosuppression can result in poor outcomes. For cancer of the breast, rapid advances in molecular characterization have allowed improved prognostication, which is not reflected in current guidelines. We developed a 19-question survey to determine transplant surgeons’ knowledge, practice, and attitudes regarding guidelines for kidney transplantation in women with breast cancer. Of the 129 respondents from 32 states and 14 countries, 74.8% felt that current guidelines are inadequate. Surgeons outside the United States (US) were more likely to consider transplantation in a breast cancer patient without a waiting period (p = .017). Within the US, 29.2% of surgeons in the Western region would consider transplantation without a waiting period, versus 3.6% of surgeons in the East (p = .004). Encouragingly, 90.4% of providers surveyed would consider eliminating wait-times for women with a low risk of cancer recurrence based on the accurate prediction of molecular assays. These findings support the need for new guidelines incorporating individualized recurrence risk to improve care of ESRD patients with breast cancer.     

Timing of Return to Dialysis in Patients with Failing Kidney Transplants

In the last decade, the number of patients starting dialysis after a failed kidney transplant has increased substantially. These patients appear to be different from their transplant‐naïve counterparts, and so may be the timing of dialysis therapy initiation. An increasing number of studies suggest that in transplant‐naïve patients, later dialysis initiation is associated with better outcomes. Very few data are available on timing of dialysis reinitiation in failed transplant recipients, and they suggest that an earlier return to dialysis therapy tended to be associated with worse survival, especially among healthier and younger patients and women. Failed transplant patients may also have unique issues such as continuation of immunosuppression versus withdrawal or the need for remnant allograft nephrectomy with regard to dialysis reinitiation. These patients may have a different predialysis preparation work‐up, worse blood pressure control, higher or lower serum phosphorus levels, lower serum bicarbonate concentration, and worse anemia management. The choice of dialysis modality may also represent an important question for these patients, even though there appears to be no difference in mortality between patients starting peritoneal versus hemodialysis. Finally, failed transplant patients returning to dialysis appear to have a higher mortality rate compared with transplant‐naïve incident dialysis patients, especially in the first several months of dialysis therapy. In this review, we will summarize the available data related to the timing of dialysis initiation and outcomes in failed kidney transplant patients after returning to dialysis.     

COVID‐19 in kidney transplant recipients

There is minimal information on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in immunocompromised individuals. We have studied 10 patients treated at 12 adult care hospitals. Ten kidney transplant recipients tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) by polymerase chain reaction, and 9 were admitted. The median age was 57 (interquartile range [IQR] 47‐67), 60% were male, 40% Caucasian, and 30% Black/African American. Median time from transplant to COVID‐19 testing was 2822 days (IQR 1272‐4592). The most common symptom was fever, followed by cough, myalgia, chills, and fatigue. The most common chest X‐ray and computed tomography abnormality was multifocal patchy opacities. Three patients had no abnormal findings. Leukopenia was seen in 20% of patients, and allograft function was stable in 50% of patients. Nine patients were on tacrolimus and a mycophenolic antimetabolite, and 70% were on prednisone. Hospitalized patients had their antimetabolite agent stopped. All hospitalized patients received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. Three patients died (30%), and 5 (50%) developed acute kidney injury. Kidney transplant recipients infected with COVID‐19 should be monitored closely in the setting of lowered immunosuppression. Most individuals required hospitalization and presenting symptoms were similar to those of nontransplant individuals.     

Living donor program crisis management plans: Current landscape and talking point recommendations

Although minimized by expert evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care, the extremely low risk of perioperative mortality following living kidney or liver donation will never be eliminated. Furthermore, anticipation of poor donor outcome may simultaneously be a source of anxiety for physicians and programs and also be a circumstance for which they are unprepared. We conducted a national survey of US transplant surgeons to understand experiences with and systemic preparedness for the event of a living donor death. Respondents represented 87 unique transplant programs (71 kidney and 16 liver donor programs). Perioperative deaths were rare, as expected. Although most respondents (N = 57, 64% of total respondents; 88% of liver programs) reported being moderately to extremely concerned about a future living donor death at their institution, only 30 (33% of total program respondents) had a written plan available in the case of such an event; 63% of programs would find guidance and recommendations useful. To help address this gap, the American Society of Transplantation Live Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP) developed Living Donor Crisis Management Plan Talking Points suitable to guide crisis plan development at transplant programs.     

Drug insight: maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease, in part because of ongoing efforts towards improving immunosuppressive strategies. Although calcineurin inhibitors remain the mainstay of immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients, within this class of drug there has been a shift from use of ciclosporin to use of tacrolimus. Mycophenolate mofetil and mycophenolate sodium are now the antimetabolites of choice. A new class of drugs (inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin) that includes sirolimus is being increasingly used in stable kidney transplant recipients. New data, however, indicate that a more cautious approach to the use of this drug is warranted. Many transplant centers are now using steroid avoidance, minimization and withdrawal protocols. The impact of these different drugs and therapeutic strategies on outcomes has to be weighed against their immunosuppressive benefit. As more and more community-based nephrologists and primary care physicians are becoming involved in the care of stable kidney transplant recipients, it is important for these clinicians to familiarize themselves with novel immunosuppressive drugs and their pharmacokinetic properties.     

Canadian survey of clinical status at dialysis initiation 1998-1999: a multicenter prospective survey

AIMS: The current growth in end-stage kidney disease populations has led to increased efforts to understand the impact of status at dialysis initiation on long-term outcomes. Our main objective was to improve the understanding of current Canadian nephrology practice between October 1998 and December 1999. METHODS: Fifteen nephrology centers in 7 provinces participated in a prospective data collection survey. The main outcome of interest was the clinical status at dialysis initiation determined by: residual kidney function, preparedness for chronic dialysis as measured by presence or absence of permanent peritoneal or hemodialysis access, hemoglobin and serum albumin. Uremic symptoms at dialysis initiation were also recorded, however, in some cases these symptom data were obtained retrospectively. RESULTS: Data on 251 patients during 1-month periods were collected. Patients commenced dialysis at mean calculated creatinine clearance levels of approximately 10 ml/min, with an average of 3 symptoms. 35% of patients starting dialysis had been known to nephrologists for less than 3 months. These patients are more likely to commence without permanent access and with lower hemoglobin and albumin levels. Even of those known to nephrologists, only 66% had permanent access in place. CONCLUSIONS: Patients commencing dialysis in Canada appear to be doing so in relative concordance with published guidelines with respect to timing of initiation. Despite an increased awareness of kidney disease, a substantial number of patients continues to commence dialysis without previous care by a nephrologist. Of those who are seen by nephrologists, clinical and laboratory parameters are suboptimal according to current guidelines. This survey serves as an important baseline for future comparisons after the implementation of educational strategies for referring physicians and nephrologists.     

Securing the future of kidney transplantation by addressing the challenges of transplant nephrology

Kidney transplant is a life-changing procedure, and transplant nephrologists, as part of a larger transplant team, play an important role in the field by managing the complex medical needs of transplant patients. The subspecialty of transplant nephrology, however, faces structural challenges related to its workforce, reporting structures, compensation, research and innovation, and health care information technology. The position of transplant nephrology at the academic and operational intersection of medicine and surgery may limit its access to critical resources, hinder academic promotion, and contribute to physician burnout. The authors provide an overview of the subspecialty transplant nephrology and propose solutions. Collaborative efforts that fortify the subspecialty of transplant nephrology will ultimately improve the lives of patients suffering from kidney disease.     

Simultaneous Liver–Kidney Transplantation: A Survey of US Transplant Centers

Consensus recommendations have been published to help better define those patients who would benefit from simultaneous liver–kidney transplantation (SLK). We conducted a survey of transplant centers that perform SLK (n = 88, 65% response rate) to determine practice patterns in the United States. The majority of centers (73%) stated that they use dialysis duration whereas only 30% of centers use acute kidney injury duration as a criterion for determining need for SLK. Dialysis duration >4 weeks was used by 32% of centers, >6 weeks by 37% and >8 weeks by 32% of centers. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated using the modified diet in renal disease (MDRD)‐4 equation in roughly half of centers whereas the MDRD‐6 equation was used by only 6%. In patients with chronic kidney disease, GFR < 40 mL/min was used by 24% of centers as a criterion for SLK transplants instead of the recommended threshold of < 30 mL/min. Regional differences in practices were also observed. This survey demonstrates significant variation in the criteria used for SLK among transplant centers, with few centers following the current published recommendations, and emphasizes the need for evidence‐based guidelines and uniformity in studying renal dysfunction in liver transplant candidates.     

BK virus nephropathy in simultaneous pancreas kidney transplant: a potentially preventable cause of kidney allograft loss

More than half of the simultaneous pancreas kidney transplant (SPK) patients afflicted with BK virus nephropathy (BKVN) lose their kidney allograft. Fear of pancreatic rejection limits the ability to reduce immunosuppression; this may result in inadequate treatment of BKVN. This single-center retrospective review included 138 SPK patients who underwent periodic BKV screening and were managed with IS reduction alone as a treatment of choice for BKVN. All patients underwent rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) induction and were maintained on tacrolimus/sirolimus or mycophenolate. The incidence of BKVN was 4.4%. BKVN was diagnosed at a median of 11 months; mean serum creatinine 2.1 mg/dL and the geometric mean BK serum viral load at diagnosis 1,758,000 DNA copies/mL. Median time to BKV clearance was 5.6 months; there was 96% reduction in the mycophenolate dose, 100% reduction in sirolimus, and 40% reduction in the tacrolimus blood level at BKVN clearance. No BKVN-related kidney failure was noted, and patients retained excellent kidney and pancreatic allograft function till last follow-up (43 months). BKVN in SPK is a potentially preventable cause of end-stage kidney disease, and IS reduction alone is an acceptable treatment modality in SPK without a higher risk of kidney/pancreas allograft loss as long as close monitoring can be ensured.     

Review: Management of patients with kidney allograft failure

Late allograft loss in kidney transplant recipients remains a common problem and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. The management of patients with a failed kidney allograft includes a few major dilemmas: when to start dialysis, what is the optimal management regarding immunosuppression, and should an allograft nephrectomy be performed. In suitable candidates for a repeated transplantation there are additional matters to take in consideration. In this review we will discuss these dilemmas by providing an overview of current evidence and gaps in our knowledge. As many of these issues are incompletely resolved, we conclude that more studies are needed to improve the management of patients with a failed kidney allograft.