Search

Item does not contain fulltext, 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.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant (KT) recipients of HLA identical siblings (HLAid) have lower immunological risk, but there are no specific recommendations for immunosuppression. Our aim was to analyze evidence about results from HLAid living-donor recipients under different immunosuppression in the current era of immunological risk assessment. METHODS: Systematic review of studies describing associations between outcomes of HLAid living-donor KT recipients according to their immunological risk and applied immunosuppression. RESULTS: From 1351 studies, 16 (5636 KT recipients) were included in the analysis. All studies were retrospective, ten comparing immunosuppression strategies, and six immunological risk strata. Of those ten, six studies were published in 1990 or earlier and only three included tacrolimus. The evidence is poor, and the inclusion of calcineurin inhibitors does not demonstrate better results. Furthermore, only few studies describe different immunosuppression regimens according to the patient immunological risk and, in general, they do not include the assessment with new solid phase assays. CONCLUSIONS: There are no studies analyzing the association of outcomes of HLAid KT recipients with current immunological risk tools. In the absence of evidence, no decision or proposal of immunosuppression adapted to modern immunological risk assessment can be made currently by the Descartes Working Group., 01 december 2023

Contains fulltext : 283474.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

Item does not contain fulltext, Due to the shortage of deceased and genetically- or emotionally-related living donors, living unrelated paid donor (LURpD) kidney transplantation has been considered; however, this practice may result in medical, ethical and social dilemmas, induce organ trading (commodification), and even criminal activities. Commodification also risks undermining public trust in the transplant system and impeding the development of proper altruistic or deceased donor programs by ignoring altruism, volunteerism, and dignity. However, despite many objections by authoritative organizations, black market practices are involved in up to 10% of all transplants worldwide. The authors strongly discourage any payment or rewards for organ donation, and instead urge the governments of all countries to provide adequate and accessible kidney health care. However, it is an undeniable fact that paid-living donor transplantation is increasing despite all objections, disapprovals and regulations. We feel it as our responsibility not to ignore this uncertain and undesirable practice, but rather to underline the necessity for strict rules and prohibitions to minimize unacceptable medical, social and ethical risks as long as it exists. Furthermore, economic profit, be it direct or indirect, must not be the goal of those involved, and the employment of intermediaries must be avoided entirely. Additionally, the donor should be in a position where not donating has no detrimental effect on his/her future in any way (free agency). In our view, every country has the obligation and responsibility to provide adequate kidney health care and to make kidney transplantation accessible to those in need. This provision is key to stop transplant tourism and commercialization of kidney transplantation. The nephrology community has a duty to establish structures that optimize organ availability within strict ethical limits. The legal position of LURpD varies considerably worldwide. Strictly respecting each country's

Item does not contain fulltext, 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.

Contains fulltext : 220660.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)