Search

Background: Kidney transplant recipients with graft failure (KTR-GF) and those with a failing graft are an increasingly prevalent group of patients. Their clinical management is complex, and outcomes are worse than transplant naïve patients on dialysis. In 2023, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization reported findings from a controversies conference and identified several clinical practice priorities for KTR-GF. Objective: As an exercise in needs assessment, we aimed to collate and summarize current practices in adult Canadian kidney transplant programs around these KDIGO-identified clinical practice priorities. Design: Environmental scan followed by content analysis. Setting: Canadian adult kidney transplant programs. Measurements: We categorized the themes of our content analysis around 7 clinical practice priorities: (1) determining prognosis and kidney failure trajectory; (2) immunosuppression management; (3) management of medical complications; (4) preparing for return to dialysis; (5) evaluation and listing for re-transplantation; (6) management of psychological effects; and (7) transition to supportive care. Methods: We solicited documents that identified each program’s current care practices for KTR-GF or patients with a failing graft, including policies, procedures, pathways, and protocols. A content analysis of documents and informal correspondence (email or telephone conversations) was done to extract information surrounding the 7 practice priorities. Results: Of the 18 programs contacted, 12 transplant programs participated in this study and a document from a provincial organization (where 2 non-responding programs are located) was procured and included in this analysis. Overall, practice gaps and discrepancies were noted. Many participants highlighted the lack of evidence or consensus to guide the management of KTR-GF as the key reason. Immunosuppression management was the most frequently addressed priority. Six programs and the provincial document recommended a nuanced approach to immunosuppressant management based on clinical factors and re-transplant candidacy. Two programs used the Kidney Failure Risk Equation and eGFR to determine referral trajectories and prepare patients for return to dialysis. Exact processes outlining medical management during the transition were not found except for nephrectomy indications and in 1 program that has a specific transition clinic for KTR-GF. All programs have a formal or informal policy that KTR-GF should be assessed for re-transplantation. Referrals for psychological support and transition to supportive care were made on a case-by-case basis. Limitations: Our environmental scan was at risk of non-response bias and restricted to transplant programs. Kidney clinics and dialysis units may have relevant policies and procedures that were not examined. Conclusion: The findings from our environmental scan suggest gaps in care and potential areas for quality improvement, including a lack of multidisciplinary care, structured dialysis preparation and psychological support. There is also a need to prioritize research that generates evidence to guide the management of KTR-GF and contributes to the aim of developing clinical practice guidelines.

Background: There is a gap between the number of patients waiting for a transplant and the number of kidneys available. Some deceased donor kidneys are currently nonutilized, as medical teams fear that they will experience suboptimal graft survival. However, these organs could provide an acceptable therapeutic option if they were allocated for preemptive kidney transplantation in elderly candidates. Objective: This project aims to gather patients’ perspectives on the allocation of kidneys with lower longevity for preemptive kidney transplantation in elderly patients. Design: Individual interviews. Setting: The Center hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinic. Participants: Patients aged between 64 and 75 years with CKD G4-5 ND, followed at the CHUM and who have not initiated dialysis yet. Methods: Between March and July 2023, we conducted 14 individual interviews with patients aged between 64 and 75 years who had CKD G4-5 ND and were followed at the CHUM. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Most participants were in favor of using kidneys with lower longevity to increase their access to transplantation, improve their quality of life, enable accelerated transplantation, and avoid dialysis. Patients also wanted to be engaged in the decision-making process, underlining the importance of informed consent. Although the use of kidneys with lower longevity offers the hope of returning to “normal” life, some patients were concerned about the risk of reduced graft survival and the need for a subsequent kidney transplant. In these cases, patients were interested in using mitigation strategies, such as prioritization for kidney transplantation from standard donors in case of early graft loss associated with receiving kidneys with lower longevity. They also recommended the development of a separate waiting list for patients consenting to preemptive transplantation with kidneys with lower longevity. Limitations: This study was conducted in only 1 nephrology clinic in the province of Quebec with French-speaking patients. Consequently, the results may not be generalizable to other populations, including ethnic minorities. Conclusion: The use of kidneys with lower longevity for preemptive kidney transplantation appears to be an interesting option for elderly kidney transplant candidates. However, patient information and participation in the decision-making process are essential. Moreover, organ donation organizations and transplant programs should develop a separate waitlist for transplant candidates who have preconsented to receive organ offers of deceased donor kidneys with lower longevity. Trial registration: Not registered.

Background: It can be difficult for kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) to be physically active after their transplantation. Physical inactivity is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, one of the leading cause of death among KTRs. To help KTRs start and maintain a physical activity routine, we developed the KEeP ACTIVe Club, a 6-month online intervention with access to a kinesiologist, a patient partner, and a private support group with an online platform (Facebook). Objective: The objective of this study was to capture the participants’ experiences of the KEeP ACTIVe Club. Design: Individual interviews. Setting: The Center hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) and the McGill University Health Center (MUHC) kidney transplant programs. Participants: Kidney transplant recipients who participated in the KEeP ACTIVe Club. Methods: Between October and December 2021, we conducted 11 individual semi-directed interviews with KTRs from 2 urban kidney transplant programs who participated in the KEeP ACTIVe Club. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Participants’ principal motivation to participate in the KEeP ACTIVe Club was to improve their physical fitness following their transplant in a pandemic period. One of the main benefits of the KEeP ACTIVe Club was the improvement of participant’s self-confidence and the knowledge gained regarding exercises adapted to their reality as KTRs. However, the small number of participants and the schedules of classes offered were viewed as a pitfall of the current intervention. Finally, the peer mentoring and support gained by other participants were important and viewed as highly impactful aspects of the KEeP ACTIVe Club. Limitations: Only 11 of the 18 patients who participated in the KEeP ACTIVe Club took part in the interviews. Conclusion: Participants reported a positive experience with the KEeP ACTIVe Club. Peer mentoring and support gained from other participants seem to be essential aspects of the experience within the KEeP ACTIVe Club. This program is a good avenue to offer in post-transplant care to help KTRs to be more active and to connect with other patients.

Background. Antibody-mediated rejection is an important cause of kidney transplant loss. A new strategy requiring application of precision medicine tools in transplantation considers molecular compatibility between donors and recipients and holds the promise of improved immunologic risk, preventing rejection and premature graft loss. The objective of this study was to gather Canadian transplant professionals’ perspectives on molecular compatibility in kidney transplantation. Methods. Seventeen Canadian transplant professionals (14 nephrologists, 2 nurses, and 1 surgeon) participated in semistructured interviews in 2021. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the qualitative description approach. Results. Participants identified fair access to transplantation as the most important principle in kidney allocation. Molecular compatibility was viewed as a promising innovation. However, participants were concerned about increased waiting times, negative impact on some patients, and potential problems related to the adequacy of information explaining this new technology. To mitigate the challenges associated with molecular matching, participants suggested integrating a maximum waiting time for molecular-matched kidneys and expanding the program nationally/internationally. Conclusions. Molecular matching in kidney transplantation is viewed as a promising technology for decreasing the incidence of antibody-mediated rejection and improving graft survival. Further studies are needed to determine how to ethically integrate this technology into the kidney allocation algorithm.

Abstract Organ donation is not meeting demand, and yet 30–60% of potential donors are potentially not identified. Current systems rely on manual identification and referral to an Organ Donation Organization (ODO). We hypothesized that developing an automated screening system based on machine learning could reduce the proportion of missed potentially eligible organ donors. Using routine clinical data and laboratory time-series, we retrospectively developed and tested a neural network model to automatically identify potential organ donors. We first trained a convolutive autoencoder that learned from the longitudinal changes of over 100 types of laboratory results. We then added a deep neural network classifier. This model was compared to a simpler logistic regression model. We observed an AUROC of 0.966 (CI 0.949–0.981) for the neural network and 0.940 (0.908–0.969) for the logistic regression model. At a prespecified cutoff, sensitivity and specificity were similar between both models at 84% and 93%. Accuracy of the neural network model was robust across donor subgroups and remained stable in a prospective simulation, while the logistic regression model performance declined when applied to rarer subgroups and in the prospective simulation. Our findings support using machine learning models to help with the identification of potential organ donors using routinely collected clinical and laboratory data.

BackgroundLiving donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for patients with kidney failure and offers significant medical and economic advantages for both patients and health systems. Despite this, rates of LDKT in Canada have stagnated and vary significantly across Canadian provinces, the reasons for which are not well understood. Our prior work has suggested that system-level factors may be contributing to these differences. Identifying these factors can help inform system-level interventions to increase LDKT. ObjectiveOur objective is to generate a systemic interpretation of LDKT delivery across provincial health systems with variable performance. We aim to identify the attributes and processes that facilitate the delivery of LDKT to patients, and those that create barriers and compare these across systems with variable performance. These objectives are contextualized within our broader goal of increasing rates of LDKT in Canada, particularly in lower-performing provinces. MethodsThis research takes the form of a qualitative comparative case study analysis of 3 provincial health systems in Canada that have high, moderate, and low rates of LDKT performance (the percentage of LDKT to all kidney transplantations performed). Our approach is underpinned by an understanding of health systems as complex adaptive systems that are multilevel and interconnected, and involve nonlinear interactions between people and organizations, operating within a loosely bounded network. Data collection will comprise semistructured interviews, document reviews, and focus groups. Individual case studies will be conducted and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Following this, our comparative analysis will operationalize resource-based theory to compare case study data and generate explanations for our research question. ResultsThis project was funded from 2020 to 2023. Individual case studies were carried out between November 2020 and August 2022. The comparative case analysis will begin in December 2022 and is expected to conclude in April 2023. Submission of the publication is projected for June 2023. ConclusionsBy investigating health systems as complex adaptive systems and making comparisons across provinces, this study will identify how health systems can improve the delivery of LDKT to patients with kidney failure. Our resource-based theory framework will provide a granular analysis of the attributes and processes that facilitate or create barriers to LDKT delivery across multiple organizations and levels of practice. Our findings will have practice and policy implications and help inform transferrable competencies and system-level interventions conducive to increasing LDKT. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/44172

Background: Patients with kidney failure represent a major public health burden, and living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for these patients. Current work to optimize LDKT delivery to patients has focused on microlevel interventions and has not addressed interdependencies with meso and macro levels of practice. Objective: We aimed to learn from a health system with historically low LDKT performance to identify facilitators and barriers to LDKT. Our specific aims were to understand how LDKT delivery is organized through interacting macro, meso, and micro levels of practice and identify what attributes and processes of this health system facilitate the delivery of LDKT to patients with kidney failure and what creates barriers. Design: We conducted a qualitative case study, applying a complex adaptive systems approach to LDKT delivery, that recognizes health systems as being made up of dynamic, nested, and interconnected levels, with the patient at its core. Setting: The setting for this case study was the province of Quebec, Canada. Participants: Thirty-two key stakeholders from all levels of the health system. This included health care professionals, leaders in LDKT governance, living kidney donors, and kidney recipients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 32 key stakeholders and a document review were undertaken between February 2021 and December 2021. Inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes. Results: Overall, we identified strong links between system attributes and processes and LDKT delivery, and more barriers than facilitators were discerned. Barriers that undermined access to LDKT included fragmented LDKT governance and expertise, disconnected care practices, limited resources, and regional inequities. Some were mitigated to an extent by the intervention of a program launched in 2018 to increase LDKT. Facilitators driven by the program included advocacy for LDKT from individual member(s) of the care team, dedicated resources, increased collaboration, and training opportunities that targeted LDKT delivery at multiple levels of practice. Limitations: Delineating the borders of a “case” is a challenge in case study research, and it is possible that some perspectives may have been missed. Participants may have produced socially desirable answers. Conclusions: Our study systematically investigated real-world practices as they operate throughout a health system. This novel approach has cross-disciplinary methodological relevance, and our findings have policy implications that can help inform multilevel interventions to improve LDKT.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the health system worldwide. The organ and tissue donation and transplantation (OTDT) system is no exception and has had to face ethical challenges related to the pandemic, such as risks of infection and resource allocation. In this setting, many Canadian transplant programs halted their activities during the first wave of the pandemic. Method To inform future ethical guidelines related to the COVID-19 pandemic or other public health emergencies of international concern, we conducted a literature review to summarize the ethical issues. Results This literature review identified three categories of ethical challenges. The first one describes the general ethical issues and challenges reported by OTDT organizations and transplantation programs, such as risks of COVID-19 transmission and infection to transplant recipients and healthcare professionals during the transplant process, risk of patient waitlist mortality or further resource strain where transplant procedures have been delayed or halted, and resource allocation. The second category describes ethical challenges related to informed consent in the context of uncertainty and virtual consent. Finally, the third category describes ethical issues related to organ allocation, such as social considerations in selecting transplant candidates. Conclusion This literature review highlights the salient ethical issues related to OTDT during the current COVID-19 pandemic. As medical and scientific knowledge about COVID-19 increases, the uncertainties related to this disease will decrease and the associated ethical issues will continue to evolve.

Background: Kidney transplantation is the best treatment for kidney failure but is associated with medical, psychological, and existential challenges for patients. Patients’ experiential knowledge can help other patients facing these challenges. Patients’ self-narratives and creative writings are ways to operationalize this experiential knowledge. Creative writing has been described as a therapeutic tool for patients with chronic disease. Over the past year, we conducted creative writing workshops with kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), living kidney donors (LKDs), kidney transplant candidates (KTCs), and professional writers. During these workshops, patients were invited to explore different aspects of their experiences of their transplant or donation journey through narrative-writing, poetry, comic art, and screenwriting. Objective: The objectives of this study were to gather the perspectives of KTRs, KTCs, and LKDs on the role of patients’ self-narratives and creative writing, and to collect patients’ experiences of the creative writing workshops. Design: Focus groups and individual interviews. Setting: The Center hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) kidney transplant program. Participants: KTRs, LKDs, and KTCs attending the CHUM kidney transplant clinic between February 2020 and January 2021. Methods: We conducted 2 focus groups and 8 semi-structured individual interviews with 7 KTRs, 8 LKDs, and 5 KTCs from the CHUM between June and November 2020, before the creative writing workshops. We also conducted 10 semi-structured interviews with 5 KTRs, 1 KTC, and 4 LKDs in March 2021, after their participation in the creative writing workshops. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic and content analyses were conducted. Results: KTRs, LKDs, and KTCs had multiple significant moments to share from their transplant/donation journey. These moments were highly emotional and marked by uncertainty. The creative writing workshops were described as therapeutic by participants, because they offered a safe space for group-facilitated reflection, including a discovery and learning process, and normalization, relativization, and appreciation of the transplant/donation experience. The creative writing workshops also provided an opportunity to give back to others (helping other patients, promoting kidney donation and continuing this process in the future through the web platform). Limitations: Our participants came from a single French-speaking urban transplant center in Quebec and were highly educated. Conclusion: The study set out to capture the perspectives of KTRs, LKDs, and KTCs through the sharing of self-narratives and their participation in creative writing workshops related to their transplant or donation journey. A website was set up to publish patients’ creative writings ( https://recitsdudonetdelavie.lorganon.ca/les-recits/ ). Further study is needed to assess the website’s impact on other patients. Trial registration: Not registered.

Abstract Background Medical assistance in dying (MAID) has been legal in Québec since December 2015 and in the rest of Canada since July 2016. Since then, more than 60 people have donated their organs after MAID. Such donations raise ethical issues about respect of patients’ autonomy, potential pressure to choose MAID, the information given to potential donors, the acceptability of directed donations in such a context and the possibility of death by donation. The objective of this study was to explore Québec professionals’ perspectives on the ethical issues related to organ donation after MAID. Methods We conducted semi-directed interviews with 21 health care professionals involved in organ donation such as intensivists and intensive care nurses, operating room nurses, organ donation nurses and coordinators. Results The participants were all favourable to organ donation after MAID in order to respect patients’ autonomy. They also favoured informing all potential donors of the possibility of donating organs. They highlighted the importance of assessing donors’ reasons for requesting MAID during the assessment. They were divided on directed donation, living donation before MAID and death by donation. Conclusion Organ donation after MAID was widely accepted among the participants, based on the principle of respect for the donor’s autonomy. The findings of this study only provide the perspectives of Québec health care professionals involved in organ donation. Future studies are needed to gather other stakeholders’ perspectives on this issue as well as patients’ and families’ experiences of organ donation after MAID.

Background: Compatible pair participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) may increase the likelihood of finding suitable matches for all registered pairs. Retrospective studies have shown variable enthusiasm for participating in KPD in compatible pairs. Objective: The study objective was to gather potential living donor (PLD) and transplant candidate (TC) perspectives on compatible pair participation in KPD. Design: Surveys and qualitative interviews. Setting: Three transplant programs in Canada: Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal in Montreal (Québec), Vancouver General Hospital, and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver (British Columbia). Patients: Both PLDs and TCs undergoing evaluation for donation/transplantation between 2016 and 2018 at 3 transplant programs in Canada. Methods: Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for the results of the survey and thematic and content analysis method was used for the content of the qualitative interviews. Results: A total of 116 PLDs and 111 TCs completed surveys and an additional 18 PLDs and 17 TCs underwent semi-directed interviews. Of those surveyed, 61.2% of PLDs and 76.6% of TCs reported a willingness to participate in KPD as a compatible pair. The possibility of a more optimally matched kidney for the TC and policies ensuring prioritization of the TC for repeat transplantation in the event of early graft failure increased willingness to participate in KPD. Major concerns expressed during the interviews included the desire to retain the emotional bond of directed donation, the fear of chain breaks or donor reneging, delays in transplantation, and additional travel associated with participation in KPD. Limitation: The limitations of this study are that it was conducted in only 3 Canadian transplant programs and that the interviews and surveys were in French and in English. As a consequence, the results may not be reflective of the views of individuals not living in these 2 provinces and from ethnic minority populations. Conclusion: Most of the compatible PLDs and TCs surveyed were willing to participate in KPD. Ensuring timely transplantation and a more optimal match for TCs and offering a policy of reciprocity to ensure timely repeat transplantation for compatible recipients if their allograft fails post KPD transplant may further increase compatible pair participation in KPD.

Background. Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) face numerous challenges following transplantation. Given that healthcare professionals do not necessarily have first-hand experience living with or waiting for a transplant, it may be hard for them to communicate with and help patients when it comes to transplant-related issues. KTRs have experiential knowledge, which could enable them to help other patients going through similar situations. Peer mentoring involves pairing mentees with individuals who have had similar experiences, to provide training, information, and emotional support. The aim of this study was to gather KTRs’ perspectives on a potential peer mentoring program. Methods. A total of 13 KTRs took part in focus groups between June 2017 and March 2018. The focus group discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed. The content of the interviews was analyzed using the qualitative data analysis method, including deductive and inductive coding techniques. Results. All participants were supportive of a peer mentoring program as it is a convenient and user-friendly way to address posttransplant concerns. Peer mentoring was also viewed as a way to communicate with other patients who have gone through similar experiences and relieve the loneliness and isolation some participants experienced subsequent to their transplant. Young female participants expressed a need to connect with other young, female transplant recipients to be able to discuss issues such as pregnancy, sexuality, and body image. Conclusions. KTRs who participated in this study expressed a need for the development of a peer mentoring program to help other KTRs face the medical (including cardiovascular disease), social, and psychological challenges associated with kidney transplantation. The results of this study are the first step in the development of a structured peer mentoring program at the kidney transplantation clinic.

Purpose of review: To review an international guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors and provide a commentary on the applicability of the recommendations to the Canadian donor population. Sources of information: We reviewed the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors and compared this guideline to the Canadian 2014 Kidney Paired Donation (KPD) Protocol for Participating Donors. Methods: A working group was formed consisting of members from the Canadian Society of Transplantation and the Canadian Society of Nephrology. Members were selected to have representation from across Canada and in various subspecialties related to living kidney donation, including nephrology, surgery, transplantation, pediatrics, and ethics. Key findings: Many of the KDIGO Guideline recommendations align with the KPD Protocol recommendations. Canadian researchers have contributed to much of the evidence on donor evaluation and outcomes used to support the KDIGO Guideline recommendations. Limitations: Certain outcomes and risk assessment tools have yet to be validated in the Canadian donor population. Implications: Living kidney donors should be counseled on the risks of postdonation outcomes given recent evidence, understanding the limitations of the literature with respect to its generalizability to the Canadian donor population.

Plain English summary In recent years, the importance of involving patients in research has been increasingly recognized because it increases the relevance and quality of research, facilitates recruitment, enhances public trust and allows for more effective dissemination of results. The Canadian National Transplant Research Program (CNTRP) is an interdisciplinary research team looking at a variety of issues related to organ and tissue donation and transplantation. The aim of this study was to gather the perspectives of CNTRP researchers on engaging patients in research. We conducted interviews with 10 researchers who attended a national workshop on priority-setting in organ donation and transplant research. The researchers viewed patient engagement in research as necessary and important. They also considered that patients could be engaged at every step of the research process. Participants in this study identified scientific language, time, money, power imbalance, patient selection and risk of tokenism as potential barriers to patient engagement in research. Training, adequate resources and support from the institution were identified as facilitators of patient engagement. This study showed a positive attitude among researchers in the field of organ donation and transplantation. Further studies are needed to study the implementation and impact of patient engagement in research within the CNTRP. Abstract Background Involving patients in research has been acknowledged as a way to enhance the quality, relevance and transparency of medical research. No previous studies have looked at researchers’ perspectives on patient engagement (PE) in organ donation and transplant research in Canada. Objective The aim of this study was to gather the perspectives of Canadian National Transplant Research Program (CNTRP) researchers on PE in research. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten researchers who attended a national workshop on priority-setting in organ donation and transplant research. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were subjected to qualitative thematic and content analyses. Results The researchers viewed PE in research as necessary and important. PE was a method to incorporate the voice of the patient. They also considered that patients could be engaged at every step of the research process. The following were identified as the main barriers to PE in research: (i) scientific jargon; (ii) resources (time and money); (iii) tokenism; (iv) power imbalance; and (v) patient selection. Facilitating factors included (i) training for patients and researchers, (ii) adequate resources and (iii) institutional support. Conclusion This study revealed a favourable attitude and willingness among CNTRP researchers to engage and partner with patients in research. Further studies are needed to assess the implementation of PE strategy within the CNTRP and its impact.

Introduction In Canada, deceased organ donation provides over 80% of transplanted organs. At the time of death, families, friends or others assume responsibility as substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to consent to organ donation. Despite their central role in this process, little is known about what barriers, enablers and beliefs influence decision-making among SDMs. This study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of SDMs involved in making decisions around the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, end-of-life care and deceased organ donation.Methods and analysis SDMs of 60 patients admitted to intensive care units will be enrolled for this study. Ten hospitals across five provinces in Canada in a prospective multicentre qualitative cohort study. We will conduct semistructured telephone interviews in English or French with SDMs between 6 and 8 weeks after the patient’s death. Our sampling frame will stratify SDMs into three groups: SDMs who were not approached for organ donation; SDMs who were approached and consented to donate and SDMs who were approached but did not consent to donate. We will use two complementary theoretical frameworks—the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework— to inform our interview guide. Interview data will be analysed using deductive directed content analysis and inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Research Ethics Board. The findings from this study will help identify key factors affecting substitute decision-making in deceased organ donation, reasons for non-consent and barriers to achieve congruency between SDM and patient wishes. Ultimately, these data will contribute to the development and evaluation of tools and training for healthcare providers to support SDMs in making decisions about organ donation.Trial registration number NCT03850847.

Background: Transplantation for foreign nationals (non-citizens and non-residents) (FNs) in Canada is a complex issue. Currently, there are no Canadian guidelines for the provision of organ transplantation for FNs, and no empirical data on this issue or on transplant professionals’ practices are available. Objective: This project aimed to gather empirical data on transplant professionals’ perspectives and practices regarding transplantation for FNs. Design: Survey research design. Setting: A Web-based survey of members of the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST). Participants: All members of the CST were invited to participate between April and June 2016. Measurements: Multiple-choice questions were developed to capture participants’ attitudes toward different fictitious clinical scenarios in which an FN needed a transplant, their experiences with FNs, their attitude toward FNs in need of transplantation, their knowledge about relevant institutional and organ donation organization (ODO) policies, and their perspectives on a quota. There were two questions with a five-point Likert scale to measure respondents’ agreement with statements related to possible policy options and arguments for and against transplantation for FNs. There was one open-ended question about the content of transplant programs’ policies on transplantation for FNs. Methods: Descriptive statistical analysis were performed. Results: A total of 87 transplant professionals completed the survey. Over the 4-year period from 2012 to 2016, 47.1% of respondents dealt with at least one situation of listing or performing a transplant for an FN. Only 19.5% of respondents reported that their transplant program had a policy about transplantation for FNs and 59.7% did not know if their ODO had such a policy. When asked about policy options, 47.5% disagreed with a policy of no transplantation for FNs and 41.4% agreed with offering transplantation for FNs in some circumstances (including life-saving and non–life-saving organs). Study participants agreed that transplantation should not be offered to FNs traveling to Canada specifically for transplantation, that FNs should not be transplanted with organs not suitable for Canadian citizens and that there should not be a transplantation quota for FNs. Participants also seem to be more inclined to offer transplantation of life-saving organs, particularly for children. Limitations: The major limitation of this study is the low response rate of transplant professionals to this survey. Conclusion: This is the first study to describe Canadian transplant professionals’ perspectives on transplantation for FNs. The findings of this study will be of interest for future policy development on access to transplantation for FNs. Further studies are needed to gather various key stakeholders’ perspectives on this issue, as well as to analyze the legal and ethical issues and the economics, to develop future policies.

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) has several advantages over deceased donor kidney transplantation. Yet rates of living donation are declining in Canada and there exists significant interprovincial variability. Efforts to improve living donation tend to focus on the patient and barriers identified at their level, such as not knowing how to ask for a kidney or lack of education. These efforts favor those who have the means and the support to find living donors. Thus, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-organized workshop recommended that education efforts to understand and remove barriers should focus on health professionals (HPs). Despite this, little attention has been paid to what they identify as barriers to discussing LDKT with their patients. Objective: Our aim was to explore HP-identified barriers to discuss living donation with patients in 3 provinces of Canada with low (Quebec), moderate (Ontario), and high (British Columbia) rates of LDKT. Design: This study consists of an interpretive descriptive approach as it enables to move beyond description and inform clinical practice. Setting: Purposive criterion and quota sampling were used to recruit HPs from Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia who are involved in the care of patients with kidney disease and/or with transplant coordination. Patients: Not applicable. Measurements: Semistructured interviews were conducted. The interview guide was developed based on a preliminary analytical framework and a review of the literature. Methods: Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data stemming from the interviews. The coding process comprised of a deductive and inductive approach, and the use of a qualitative analysis software (NVivo 11). Following this, themes were identified and developed. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was obtained. In total, we conducted 16 telephone interviews as thematic saturation was attained. Results: Six predominant themes emerged: (1) lack of communication between transplant and dialysis teams, (2) absence of referral guidelines, (3) role perception and lack of multidisciplinary involvement, (4) HP’s lack of information and training, (5) negative attitudes of some HP toward LDKT, (6) patient-level barriers as defined by the HP. HPs did mention patients’ attitudes and some characteristics as the main barriers to discussions about living donation; this was noted in all provinces. HPs from Ontario and British Columbia indicated multiple strategies being implemented to address some of these barriers. Those from Ontario mentioned strategies that center on the core principles of provincial-level standardization, while those from British Columbia center on engaging the entire multidisciplinary team and improved role perception. We noted a dearth of such efforts in Quebec; however, efforts around education and promotion, while tentative, have emerged. Limitations: Social desirability and selection bias. Our analysis might not be applicable to other provinces. Conclusions: HPs involved with the referral and coordination of transplantation play a major role in access to LDKT. We have identified challenges they face when discussing living donation with their patients that warrant further assessment and research to inform policy change.

Background. Patients, families, and caregivers have a unique understanding of the diseases they live with and provide care for every day. Their experience and expertise are important and should be taken into consideration when determining research priorities. The aim of this study was to gather the perspectives of Canadian patients, families, caregivers, researchers, and healthcare professionals on what research priorities were important to them in the field of organ and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and donation within the Canadian National Transplant Research Program (CNTRP). Methods. The CNTRP developed a national consultation process, which included a Web-based survey and in-person workshop, to ascertain and validate the viewpoints of the Canadian donation and transplant community. The Web-based survey identified 3 principal research priorities (increasing donation, developing better antirejection drugs and developing tolerance), which were further refined and prioritized during the one-and-a-half day national workshop held in Toronto in November 2015. Results. A total of 505 participants answered the Web-based survey, and 46 participants (28 patients, 12 researchers and 6 healthcare professionals) participated in the in-person workshop. Workshop participants ranked the following 2 priorities as the most important in the fields of donation, HCT, and solid organ transplantation: methods for developing a culture of donation (within healthcare organizations and throughout society); and methods for improving graft survival and antirejection therapy. Conclusion. The CNTRP will use these results to prioritize future research projects and studies in donation, HCT, and solid organ transplantation in the years to come.

Rationale: Kidney transplantation has become standard of care for carefully selected patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) era. American and European prospective cohort studies have reported similar patient and graft survival compared with HIV-negative kidney transplant recipients. Despite an increased rate of acute rejection, partially due to drug interactions, HIV immunovirologic parameter generally remains under control during immunosuppression. A few cases of kidney transplantation between HIV-infected patients were done in South Africa and showed favorable results. No cases of kidney transplantation from an HIV-positive donor in Canada have previously been reported. Presenting concerns of the patient: A 60-year-old Canadian man with HIV infection presented in 2007 with symptoms compatible with acute renal failure secondary to IgA nephropathy. Chronic kidney disease resulted after the acute episode. Diagnoses: Hemodialysis was started in 2012. The patient was referred for a kidney transplantation evaluation. Interventions: The patient underwent kidney transplantation from an HIV-positive donor in January 2016. The recipient’s antiretroviral regimen consisted of abacavir, lamivudine, and dolutegravir. No drug interactions have been reported between these antiretrovirals and the maintenance immunosuppressive regimen used. Outcomes: The outcome at 7 months post transplantation was excellent, with good graft function and adequate control of HIV replication, in the absence of opportunistic infections at a time when immunosuppression is at its highest intensity. No acute rejection was reported. An episode of bacteremic graft pyelonephritis due to Enterococcus faecalis was successfully treated after transplantation. Novel finding: With careful selection of patient, kidney transplantation between HIV-infected patients is a viable option. The use of antiretroviral drugs free of interactions simplified the dosing and management of the immunosuppressive drugs.

Background: Living kidney transplantation (LKT) offers the best medical outcomes for organ recipients. Historically, our centre had a low rate of LKT. In 2009, in an effort to increase living organ donation (LOD), a dedicated team was created. Its mandate was to promote LOD at our centre and at referring centres, to coordinate assessments of living organ donors, to facilitate the process, and to ensure long-term follow-up after the donation. In November 2010, our centre joined the national living donor paired exchange registry (LDPE). Objective: To document the impact of the LOD team and LDPE registry on LOD rates at our centre. Design: Retrospective cohort study Setting: Single center study in a university hospital with an adult kidney transplant program Patients: Using our electronic database, we included all potential living organ donors who contacted our centre from 01/01/2005 to 31/12/2008 and from 01/01/2009 to 31/12/2012. Follow-up was conducted until 31/12/2013. Measurements: Number of transplantations from living donors, number of potential donors who contacted the centre, donor and recipient characteristics. Methods: We compared the number of transplantations from living donors performed and the number of potential donors who contacted the centre before and after the creation of the LOD team and participation in the LDPE. Results: A total of 50 renal transplantations were performed using organs from living donors during the first time period, whereas this increased to 73 in the 2009–2012 cohort (incidence rate difference (IRD): 0.030, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.003–0.056). We also observed a significant increase in the number of individuals who contacted our centre to donate a kidney. During the 2005–2008 period (cohort 1), 191 individuals interested in donating a kidney contacted our centre, whereas this figure was 304 during the 2009–2012 period (cohort 2) (IRD: 0.143, 95% CI 0.091–0.196). Limitations: Single center study, relatively low sample size Conclusion: The implementation of a LOD team, combined with our participation in the LDPE registry, was associated with a significant increase in the actual number of living kidney transplantations performed. These data support initiatives such as the creation of dedicated LOD teams and LDPE registry to increase LKT.

Purpose of the review: This review was conducted to determine the ethical acceptability of prescribing generic immunosuppressive drugs to renal transplant patients. Sources of information: The literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Google Scholar. Findings: The use of generic immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) in transplantation is a controversial topic. There is a consensus among transplant societies that clinical data is lacking and that caution should be exercised. The reluctance to use generic ISDs in organ transplantation is partly related to the fact that most are “critical dose drugs”, and that either low dosing or overdosing could have serious adverse consequences for both patients and society (i.e., the loss of scarce organs). In this paper, we examine the various ethical issues involved such as distributive justice, physician duties, risks versus benefits, conflict of interest, informed consent, and logistical and economic issues. Limitations: Our analysis was limited by the paucity of clinical data on generic ISDs and the absence of health economics studies to quantify the benefits of prescribing generic ISDs. Implications: Our study led us to conclude that it would be ethical to prescribe generic ISDs provided certain conditions were met. These include regulatory safeguards to minimize the risks of substitution; education of patients; and further clinical and health economics studies to better inform clinicians, patients and society of the risks and costs related to drug substitution.

Usually inaugural editorials are written by the Editor-in-Chief to describe the scope and vision for the journal to potential authors and readers. This editorial is written by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editors and the Associate Editors collaboratively as a clear signal that this is a unique and different journal. We will build this journal on a set of principles which are fundamental to improving the outcomes of patients with kidney disease. To that end, we aim to be supportive, to collaborate, to integrate multiple perspectives and to be open to possibilities.