Increasing access to kidney transplantation in countries with limited resources: the Indian experience with kidney paired donation

Sex and Gender Disparities in Living Kidney Donation: A Scoping Review

Background

Women are more likely than men to be living kidney donors. We summarized the evidence concerning the reasons behind sex and gender disparities in living kidney donation (LKD).

Methods

A scoping review of quantitative and qualitative evidence on reasons for sex and gender disparities in LKD was conducted from inception to March 2023.

Results

Of 1123 studies screened, 45 were eligible for inclusion. Most studies were from North America, Europe, and Central Asia (n = 33, 73%). A predominance of women as living donors (55%-65%) was observed in 15 out of 18 (83%) studies. Reasons for sex and gender disparities in LKD included socioeconomic, biological, and cognitive or emotional factors. A gendered division of roles within the families was observed in most studies, with men being the primary income earner and women being the main caregiver. Fear of loss of income was a barrier to male donation. Human leukocyte antigen sensitization through pregnancy in female recipients precluded male partner donation, whereas female donation was supported by altruism and a positive attitude toward LKD.

Conclusions

Sex imbalance in LKD is prevalent, with a predominance of women as living donors. Such disparities are driven by societal and cultural perceptions of gender roles, pregnancy-induced sensitization, and attitudes toward donation and at least some of these factors are modifiable. Donor compensation to support predonation assessments and income loss, implementation of innovative desensitization treatments, promotion of paired kidney exchange program, and targeted educational initiatives to promote equitable living donation may help to close the gender gap in LKD.

Time from kidney failure onset to transplantation and its impact on growth in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

In children with kidney failure, the longer the duration of dialysis the greater the impact on growth deficit, quality of life, and life expectancy. The aim of this research is to test whether there was a shortening of treatment time from kidney failure to transplantation in pediatric patients and whether this time interval impacted height.

METHODS

Observational retrospective cohort study from 2005 to 2018. The first outcome variable was time to transplantation in years, while the second was height/age standard deviation score (SDS) at transplantation. Cox regression models were used to analyze time from disease to transplantation and linear regression was employed to test the association of the year of kidney failure onset with height.

RESULTS

A total of 780 children were evaluated and 517 underwent kidney transplantation after a median time of 1.9 years (IQR = 1.0-4.0). The variables significantly associated with time to transplant were: year of kidney failure onset (HR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.10; p < .001), age at kidney failure onset <12 years (HR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.49-0.71; p < .001), living in different state as transplant center (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.77; p < .001), and undergoing blood transfusion before transplantation (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.75; p < .001). Regarding growth, for each 1-year increase in the epoch of kidney failure onset, a 0.05 SDS raise in height/age is expected (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Children with recent kidney failure onset had significantly lower time to the outcome and this reduction was associated with a less severe growth deficit.

Past, present and future of kidney paired donation transplantation in India

One third of healthy willing living kidney donors are rejected due to ABO blood group incompatibility and donor specific antibody. This increases pre-transplant dialysis duration leading to increased morbidity and mortality on the kidney transplantation waiting list. Over the last decade kidney paired donation is most rapidly increased source of living kidney donors. In a kidney transplantation program dominated by living donor kidney transplantation, kidney paired donation is a legal and valid alternative strategy to increase living donor kidney transplantation. This is more useful in countries with limited resources where ABO incompatible kidney transplantation or desensitization protocol is not feasible because of costs/infectious complications and deceased donor kidney transplantation is in initial stages. The matching allocation, ABO blood type imbalance, reciprocity, simultaneity, geography were the limitation for the expansion of kidney paired donation. Here we describe different successful ways to increase living donor kidney transplantation through kidney paired donation. Compatible pairs, domino chain, combination of kidney paired donation with desensitization or ABO incompatible transplantation, international kidney paired donation, non-simultaneous, extended, altruistic donor chain and list exchange are different ways to expand the donor pool. In absence of national kidney paired donation program, a dedicated kidney paired donation team will increase access to living donor kidney transplantation in individual centres with team work. Use of social networking sites to expand donor pool, HLA based national kidney paired donation program will increase quality and quantity of kidney paired donation transplantation. Transplant centres should remove the barriers to a broader implementation of multicentre, national kidney paired donation program to further optimize potential of kidney paired donation to increase transplantation of O group and sensitized patients. This review assists in the development of similar programs in other developing countries.

Severe type 1 upgrading leprosy reaction in a renal transplant recipient: a paradoxical manifestation associated with deficiency of antigen-specific regulatory T-cells?

BACKGROUND

Due to its chronic subclinical course and large spectrum of manifestations, leprosy often represents a diagnostic challenge. Even with proper anti-mycobacteria treatment, leprosy follow up remains challenging: almost half of leprosy patients may develop reaction episodes. Leprosy is an infrequent complication of solid organ transplant recipients. This case report illustrates the challenges in diagnosing and managing leprosy and its reactional states in a transplant recipient.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 53-year-old man presented 34 months after a successful renal transplantation a borderline-tuberculoid leprosy with signs of mild type 1 upgrading reaction (T1R). Cutaneous manifestations were atypical, and diagnosis was only made when granulomatous neuritis was found in a cutaneous biopsy. He was successfully treated with the WHO recommended multidrug therapy (MDT: rifampicin, dapsone and clofazimine). However he developed a severe T1R immediately after completion of the MDT but no signs of allograft rejection. T1R results from flare-ups of the host T-helper-1 cell-mediated immune response against Mycobacterium leprae antigens in patients with immunologically unstable, borderline forms of leprosy and has been considered an inflammatory syndrome in many aspects similar to the immune reconstitution inflammatory syndromes (IRS). The T1R was successfully treated by increasing the prednisone dose without modifying the other immunosuppressive drugs used for preventing allograft rejection. Immunological study revealed that the patient had a profound depletion of both in situ and circulating regulatory T-cells and lack of expansion of the Tregs upon M. leprae stimulation compared to T1R leprosy patients without iatrogenic immunosuppression.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case report highlights that leprosy, especially in the transplant setting, requires a high degree of clinical suspicion and the contribution of histopathology. It also suggests that the development of upgrading inflammatory syndromes such as T1R can occur despite the sustained immunosuppressors regimen for preventing graft rejection. Our hypothesis is that the well-known deleterious effects of these immunosuppressors on pathogen-induced regulatory T-cells contributed to the immunedysregulation and development T1R.

Kidney paired exchange and desensitization: Strategies to transplant the difficult to match kidney patients with living donors

With organs in short supply, only a limited number of kidney transplants can be performed a year. Live donor donation accounts for 1/3rd of all kidney transplants performed in the United States. Unfortunately, not every donor recipient pair is feasible because of Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization and ABO incompatibility. To overcome these barriers to transplant, strategies such as kidney paired donation (KPD) and desensitization have been developed. KPD is the exchange of donors between at least two incompatible donor-recipient pairs such that they are now compatible. Desensitization is the removal of circulating donor specific antibodies to prevent graft rejection. Regardless of the treatment strategy, highly sensitized patients whose calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) is ≥95% remain difficult to transplant with match rates as low as 15% in KPD pools. Desensitization has proved to be difficult in those with high antibody titers. A novel approach is the combination of both KPD and desensitization to facilitate compatible and successful transplantation. A highly sensitized patient can be paired with a better immunological match in the KPD pool and subsequently desensitized to a lesser degree. This article reviews the current progress in KPD and desensitization and their use as a combined therapy.

Midterm Outcome of Living-Related Kidney Transplantation From Aged Donors: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the most effective treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Using grafts from aged donors is increasing worldwide. Our aim was to better understand the safety and effectiveness of aged living donors.

METHODS

First, 482 cases with living-related kidney transplantation were analyzed retrospectively. The cases were divided into 2 groups by donor age ≥ 55 years (aged donor group, 136 cases) and <55 years (young donor group, 346 cases). Then donor and recipient characteristics were summarized. In addition, the renal function of graft was compared between young donor group and aged donor group. Finally, patient and graft survivals were examined with the use of Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared with the use of the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The mean donor estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in the aged donor group compared with in the young donor group. After KT, the mean eGFR of the graft in the recipient was also lower in the aged donor group than in the young donor group. To confirm the effect of aged kidney grafts on renal function, we measured proteinuria. Compared with the young donor group, in the aged donor group incidence of proteinuria and 24-hour urinary protein were significantly higher. However, the incidence of delayed graft function was not significantly different between the 2 groups. We found that aged kidney grafts had no significant effect on long-term patient and graft survivals.

CONCLUSIONS

With the current lack of organs, aged kidney grafts are an acceptable alternative. Use of organs from aged donors safely expands the living donor pool.

Cost of renal replacement: how to help as many as possible while keeping expenses reasonable?

The treatment of kidney diseases consumes a substantial amount of the health budget for a relatively small fraction of the overall population. If the nephrological community and society do not develop mechanisms to contain those costs, it will become impossible to continue assuring optimal outcomes and quality of life while treating all patients who need it. In this article, we describe several mechanisms to maintain sustainability of renal replacement therapy. These include (i) encouragement of transplantation after both living and deceased donation; (ii) stimulation of alternative dialysis strategies besides classical hospital haemodialysis, such as home haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or self-care and necessitating less reimbursement; (iii) promotion of educational activities guiding the patients towards therapies that are most suited for them; (iv) consideration of one or more of cost containment incentives such as bundling of reimbursement (if not affecting quality of the treatment), timely patient referral, green dialysis, start of dialysis based on clinical necessity rather than renal function parameters and/or prevention of CKD or its progression; (v) strategically planned adaptations to the expected growth of the ageing population in need of renal replacement; (vi) the necessity for support of research in the direction of helping as large as possible patient populations for acceptable costs; and (vii) the need for more patient-centred approaches. We also extend the discussion to the specific situation of kidney diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Finally, we point to the dramatic differences in accessibility and reimbursement of different modalities throughout Europe. We hope that this text will offer a framework for the nephrological community, including patients and nurses, and the concerned policy makers and caregivers on how to continue reaching all patients in need of renal replacement for affordable expenses.