Development of a Donor-Centered Approach to Risk Assessment: Rebalancing Nonmaleficence and Autonomy

Non-Maleficence toward Young Kidney Donors: A Call for Stronger Ethical Standards and Associated Factors in Multidisciplinary Nephrology Teams

BACKGROUND

The rising frequency of live kidney donations is accompanied by growing ethical concerns as to donor autonomy, the comprehensiveness of disclosure, and donors' understanding of long-term consequences.

AIM

To explore donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed among Israeli live kidney donors who had donated a kidney in two hospitals that belonged to the Ministry of Health's Transplantation Center one year after the donation, from December 2018 to December 2020. Data collection was conducted online and through face-to-face interviews with the donors in their native language (Hebrew or Arabic).

RESULTS

Overall, 91 live kidney donors aged 18-49 years were enrolled. Of those, 65.9% were males, and 54.9% were academic donors. Among the live kidney donors, 59.3% reported that the motivation behind the donation was a first-degree family member vs. 35.2% altruistic and 5.5% commercial. Only 13.2% reported that the provided disclosure adequately explained the possible consequences of living with a single kidney. Approximately 20% of the participants reported that the disclosure included information regarding their risk of developing ESRD, hypertension, and proteinuria. The donors reported a low mean of the index score that indicates a low follow-up by the physician after the donation (mean = 1.16, SD = 0.37). The mean GFR level was significantly lower in the post-donation period one year following a kidney donation (117.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) compared with the pre-donation period (84.0 mL/min/1.73 m2), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Our findings display that donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding the disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors is low. This study indicates that donors are at an increased risk of worsening kidney functions (creatinine and GFR), and BMI. Our findings underscore the imperative to advise donors that their condition may worsen over time and can result in complications; thus, they should be monitored during short and long-term follow-up periods. This study was not registered.

Respecting living kidney donor autonomy: an argument for liberalising living kidney donor acceptance criteria

Doctors routinely refuse donation offers from prospective living kidney donors with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or obesity out of concern for donor wellbeing. This refusal occurs despite the ongoing shortage of kidney transplants and the superior performance of living donor kidney transplants compared to those from deceased donors. In this paper, we argue that this paternalistic refusal by doctors is unjustified and that, within limits, there should be greater acceptance of such donations. We begin by describing possible weak and strong paternalistic justifications of current conservative donor acceptance guidelines and practices. We then justify our position by outlining the frequently under-recognised benefits and the routinely overestimated harms of such donation, before discussing the need to respect the autonomy of willing donors with certain comorbidities. Finally, we respond to a number of possible objections to our proposal for more liberal kidney donor acceptance criteria. We use the situation in Australia as our case study, but our argument is applicable to comparable situations around the world.

Ethical analysis examining the prioritisation of living donor transplantation in times of healthcare rationing

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency-do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making.

Ethical Aspects of Kidney Donation and Transplantation for Migrants

Migrants represent a large and diverse population globally that includes international refugees, stateless persons, expatriate workers, and more. Many migrants face significant barriers in accessing health care, especially scarce and costly resources such as dialysis and kidney transplantation. Improving equity of access to these kidney replacement therapies for migrant populations may present a range of complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the setting of crises and when considering the use of residency status and citizenship as eligibility criteria for access to treatment. In this article, we discuss ethical obligations to provide kidney care for migrants, the implications of the self-sufficiency concept with regard to access to deceased donation and transplantation, factors that may influence evaluation of the risks and benefits of transplantation for migrants with insecure access to care, and the vulnerability of migrants to organ trafficking. We also present a set of general recommendations to assist in preventing and managing ethical dilemmas when making decisions about policy or practice regarding kidney care for migrants.

Donor Autonomy and Self-Sacrifice in Living Organ Donation: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View

Clinical teams understandably wish to minimise risks to living kidney donors undergoing surgery, but are often faced with uncertainty about the extent of risk, or donors who wish to proceed despite those risks. Here we explore how these difficult decisions may be approached and consider the conflicts between autonomy and paternalism, the place of self-sacrifice and consideration of risks and benefits. Donor autonomy should be considered as in the context of the depth and strength of feeling, understanding risk and competing influences. Discussion of risks could be improved by using absolute risk, supra-regional MDMs and including the risks to the clinical team as well as the donor. The psychological effects on the donor of poor outcomes for the untransplanted recipient should also be taken into account. There is a lack of detailed data on the risks to the donor who has significant co-morbidities.

Have we reached the limits in altruistic kidney donation?

Altruistic donation (unspecified donation) is an important aspect of living donor kidney transplantation. Although donation to a stranger is lawful and supported in many countries, it remains uncommon and not actively promoted. Herein, we ask the question if we have reached the limit in altruistic donation. In doing so, we examine important ethical questions that define the limits of unspecified donation, such as the appropriate balance between autonomous decision-making and paternalistic protection of the donor, the extent of outcome uncertainty and risk-benefit analyses that donors should be allowed to accept. We also consider the scrutiny and acceptance of donor motives, the potential for commercialization, donation to particular categories of recipients (including those encountered through social media) and the ethical boundaries of active promotion of unspecified kidney donation. We conclude that there is scope to increase the number of living donation kidney transplants further by optimizing existing practices to support and promote unspecified donation. A number of strategies including optimization of the assessment process, innovative approaches to reach potential donors together with reimbursement of expenses and a more specific recognition of unspecified donation are likely to lead to a meaningful increase in this type of donation.

Quantifying Risk Tolerance Among Potential Living Kidney Donors With the Donor-Specific Risk Questionnaire

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Enhanced informed consent tools improve patient engagement. A novel visual aid measured potential donors' risk tolerance to postdonation kidney failure and assessed if the closeness of the relationship to the intended recipient altered willingness to accept risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of donor evaluations at the time of enrollment into a longitudinal mixed-methods study between November 2014 and February 2016.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Three US kidney transplant centers. English-speaking adults presenting for in-person living kidney donor evaluation.

EXPOSURE

Closeness of the relationship between the potential living donor and intended recipient.

OUTCOME

Willingness to accept postdonation kidney failure.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The Donor-Specific Risk Questionnaire, a dot matrix visual diagram, was used to measure willingness to accept kidney failure risk. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between risk acceptance and data from social science instruments, which measured donors' perceived closeness with the recipient. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically per grounded theory.

RESULTS

307 participants (response rate: 86%) completed testing. 96% indicated a willingness to accept a risk of kidney failure of 0.9% or greater. Those who were older (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]), women (OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31-0.93]), and Black (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08-0.76]) were less likely to be in the medium versus low willingness to accept risk group. Closeness of the relationship to the recipient was independently associated with greater risk acceptance (for every 1-point greater closeness score, odds ratios for being in the medium and high willingness to accept risk groups were 1.21 [95% CI, 1.03-1.41] and 2.42 [95% CI, 1.53-3.82] compared with being in the low willingness to accept risk group). With the exception of parental relationships, biological linkages were not associated with accepting higher kidney failure risk.

LIMITATIONS

First demonstration of visual aid that used one risk estimate of kidney failure provided to all participants. Risk estimates were not customized to different demographic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Relationship closeness was independently associated with a greater willingness to accept postdonation kidney failure. Visual aids can provide transplant teams with individualized donor perspectives on risk thresholds and can potentially facilitate greater patient-centered care for living donors.

The Tangible Benefits of Living Donation: Results of a Qualitative Study of Living Kidney Donors

The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood).

Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action

The American Society of Nephrology, the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association and the International Society of Nephrology Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology have identified ten broad areas of ethical concern as priority challenges that require collaborative action. Here, we describe these challenges - equity in access to kidney failure care, avoiding futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in kidney disease prevention and care, the ethical implications of genetic kidney diseases, responsible advocacy for kidney health and management of conflicts of interest - with the aim of highlighting the need for ethical analysis of specific issues, as well as for the development of tools and training to support clinicians who treat patients with kidney disease in practising ethically and contributing to ethical policy-making.

Kidney Dyads: Caregiver Burden and Relationship Strain Among Partners of Dialysis and Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors.

METHODS

To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT.

RESULTS

Caregiver-partners reported increases in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03) and stress (P = 0.01) and decreases in social life (P = 0.02) and sexual relations (P < 0.01) after their patient-partner initiated dialysis. However, after their patient-partner underwent KT, caregiver-partners reported improvements in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03), personal time (P < 0.01), social life (P = 0.01), stress (P = 0.02), sexual relations (P < 0.01), and overall quality of life (P = 0.03). These improvements were of sufficient impact that caregiver-partners reported similar levels of caregiver burden after their patient-partner's KT as before their patient-partner initiated dialysis (P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation When Deceased Donor Is Not Possible or Timely: Case Examples and Ethical Perspectives

This article analyzes the ethical soundness of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in situations where the transplant team does not consider deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) a clinical or timely option. Given that patients with end-stage liver disease have a high risk of death without DDLT, the option of LDLT becomes compelling and may save lives. We present 3 representative cases from our center that raise concerns over social behavior, limited time constraints for decision making, and high potential for disease recurrence that render DDLT an unlikely option. Thereafter, we discuss ethical issues for each patient, which predominantly pertain to compromises to the living donor informed consent process and the feasibility of LDLT. We conclude with recommendations regarding whether LDLT is an acceptable ethical option for those patients, which may inform clinical practice in the broader transplant community.

The experiences and impact of being deemed ineligible for living kidney donation: Semi-structured interview study

AIM

We aimed to describe the impact and experience of being deemed ineligible as a living kidney donor.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 ineligible donor candidates. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified: deriving health and relationship benefits in the process (strengthening emotional connection, identifying problematic health conditions); devastating loss and disappointment (harbouring guilt over personal failings, shattering confidence and hope, undermining relationships with extended family and friends, disrupting home dynamics); constrained within a rigid system (denied autonomy, resorting to other avenues); acknowledging as matter of fact (accepting the clinical decision, reassured by preventing a poor outcome); reluctant to relinquish the donor identity (unable to fulfil family duty, having the donor role stolen, holding onto other opportunities to donate); uncertainty in unpredictability, inconsistency and ambiguities (frustrated by inefficiencies, questioning clinician motivation, suspended donor status, unfairness in changeable eligibility criteria, unresolved concerns and questions of own health); and abandoned in despair (lacking practical support to meet eligibility criteria, ill prepared for rejection, dismissed and discarded by the system).

CONCLUSION

Being deemed unsuitable for donation took an emotional toll on ineligible donor candidates who felt immense guilt for 'failing' the potential recipient. Ineligible donor candidates were frustrated and angry with the perceived lack of support from clinicians and rigidity of the evaluation process. Informing potential donors of available services, including psychological support, communicating the decision sensitively and with sufficient time, and full disclosure of their health status, may contribute to improved adjustment following the ineligibility decision.

Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors

In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.

Why Potential Living Kidney Donors Do Not Proceed for Donation: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation is the best type of renal replacement therapy. However, large numbers of potential living kidney donors (LKDs) are declined because of various reasons. The aim of this study is to define and quantify the reasons for declining potential LKDs.

METHODS

All potential LKDs evaluated at our center between September 2008 and December 2016 were reviewed. Data were collected from the electronic database.

RESULTS

A total of 2090 potential LKDs were evaluated, with an average age of 32 years (range, 18-67 years) and men constituting 72.6%. A total of 675 (32.3%) were accepted for donor nephrectomy. Living kidney donation did not proceed in 830 (39.7%): 661 (79.6%) because of donor-related reasons and 169 (20.4%) because of recipient-related reasons. Donor-related reasons included medical contraindications (61.7%), immunological barriers (23.1%), surgical contraindications (7.9%), and psychosocial reasons (7.3%). A total of 585 (28.0%) potential LKDs voluntarily withdrew themselves at variable time points during the evaluation process, even after being accepted for donation. Male and young (18-35 years) potential LKDs were more likely to withdraw compared with female and older (>35 years) potential LKDs (34.3% vs 11.4%, P < .005 and 29.6% vs 24.5%, P = .02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large number of potential LKDs, medically complex donors are increasing, and a significant proportion decided to withdraw at some point during the evaluation process. The latter highlights the need to increase public awareness about living donation, to perform more careful initial screening and targeted educational programs, and to provide continuous support for potential LKDs.

Supplementing living kidney transplantees' medical records with donor- and recipient-narratives

Norway provides total social welfare coverage for organ transplantations, including free immunosuppressive medication and prepaid life-long follow up for both recipients and donors. Despite these benefits the proportion of living kidney donors (LKD) has in recent years declined from around 40% (2011) of all kidney transplantations to 24% (2016). This study suggests harnessing patient- and donor-narratives as a tool for addressing the current fall in donation rates. The hospital records of 18 recipient/donor dyads were compared with patient and donor accounts elicited in semi-structured interviews. Narratives afford a pertinent supplement to the primarily biomedical and technical information stored in medical records. Even in condensed form, the messages embedded in narratives contribute to a 'thicker' understanding of the complexity of living kidney donation (LKD)-decisions. Narratives represent a source of education for referring-nephrologists wishing to deepen their evaluation skills and avoid making decisions based on insufficient insight into patients' and potential donors' values and life-situation. Recipients' and donors' unedited accounts of their motivations, worries, doubts and expectations afford a revealing and edifying supplement to the primarily biomedical and technical information stored in medical records. In narratives, the predicaments and dilemmas surrounding LKD become visible and debatable and can serve as support for future donors, recipients and the nephrologists responsible for evaluation-conclusions. Generating narratives raises a number of practical, epistemic and normative challenges.

Considerations on the Factors Influencing Living Kidney Donors' Autonomous Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review

As outcomes of organ transplantation have improved with advances in medicine, managing medical ethics issues has become increasingly more important. Although a basic consensus has been formed on the respect of autonomy in decision-making by prospective donors regarding living kidney transplantation, concrete and practical measures at the clinical site are required to ensure donor autonomy. The aim of the study was to identify elements related to autonomy in the kidney donor decision-making process.

METHODS

We systematically collected relevant studies from multiple databases in and out of Japan and conducted qualitative and inductive analyses.

RESULTS

The identified elements were categorized into 12 subcategories and then regrouped into the following 4 categories based on the similarity of the contents: donor personality and values, inability to fully understand the implications of donation, possibility of direct pressure on donor's decision-making process, and donor's environment and situation.

DISCUSSION

The autonomy-related elements were highly diverse, including obvious pressure upon the donor and their values as well as influences from health care professionals. Some elements had room for change, such as the informed consent procedure, while some elements were unchangeable. Other elements were changeable by intervention, but discussion is required about the appropriateness of the intervention itself. Further, a classification of clinical approach was suggested by the development of an analytical framework using 2 axes of "site where the element arises" and "room for change" based on the practical viewpoint of clinical circumstances.

Identifying Outcomes that Are Important to Living Kidney Donors: A Nominal Group Technique Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Living kidney donor candidates accept a range of risks and benefits when they decide to proceed with nephrectomy. Informed consent around this decision assumes they receive reliable data about outcomes they regard as critical to their decision making. We identified the outcomes most important to living kidney donors and described the reasons for their choices.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Previous donors were purposively sampled from three transplant units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and Canada (Vancouver). In focus groups using the nominal group technique, participants identified outcomes of donation, ranked them in order of importance, and discussed the reasons for their preferences. An importance score was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Across 14 groups, 123 donors aged 27-78 years identified 35 outcomes. Across all participants, the ten highest ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance=0.40, scale 0-1), time to recovery (0.27), surgical complications (0.24), effect on family (0.22), donor-recipient relationship (0.21), life satisfaction (0.18), lifestyle restrictions (0.18), kidney failure (0.14), mortality (0.13), and acute pain/discomfort (0.12). Kidney function and kidney failure were more important to Canadian participants, compared with Australian donors. The themes identified included worthwhile sacrifice, insignificance of risks and harms, confidence and empowerment, unfulfilled expectations, and heightened susceptibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donors prioritized a range of outcomes, with the most important being kidney health and the surgical, lifestyle, functional, and psychosocial effects of donation. Donors also valued improvements to their family life and donor-recipient relationship. There were clear regional differences in the rankings.

Did parents have it right all along? Parents, risk, and living kidney donation: Revisiting the arguments for and against parental living donation of kidneys

Historically, living kidney donation has been justified in part by our belief that living donors face minimal risks of subsequent disease. Recent research has brought that presumption into question, particularly for younger donors including parents. In light of this finding, we re-examine many of the traditional arguments both for and against the practice of parental living kidney donation. We then propose an alternative framework in which the burden of having a child with end-stage kidney disease can be considered as an illness experienced by the potential donor parent. We believe this allows a more straightforward, as well as more accurate, assessment of the risks and benefits of donation for the potential parental donor. This assessment might then be used to best inform the decision whether or not to proceed with kidney donation using a shared decision-making model, while reflecting the appropriate ethical roles of both the potential donor and the transplantation program.

Marginal decision-making in the treatment of refractory epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Epilepsy surgery is one of the most effective treatments in modern medicine. Yet, it remains largely under-utilized, in spite of its proven efficacy. The referrals for epilepsy surgery are often delayed until it is too late to prevent the detrimental psychosocial effects of refractory seizures. The reluctance towards epilepsy surgery is influenced by the perceived risks of the procedure by practitioners and patients. This review discusses how, in general decision-making processes, one faces a natural tendency towards emphasizing the risks of the most immediate and operational decision (surgery), at times without contrasting these risks with the alternative (uncontrolled epilepsy).

METHODS

In the field of economics, this bias is well recognized and can be overcome through marginal analysis, formally defined as focusing on incremental changes as opposed to absolute levels.

RESULTS

Regarding epilepsy surgery, the risks and benefits of surgery are considered separately from the risks of uncontrolled epilepsy. For instance, even though surgery carries an ∼0.1-0.5% risk of perioperative mortality, the chance of sudden unexpected death with refractory epilepsy can be as high as 0.6-0.9% per year. It is suggested that the inadequate way of phrasing clinical questions can be a crucial contributing factor for the under-utilization of epilepsy surgery.

SIGNIFICANCE

It is proposed that examining decision-making for epilepsy surgery in the context of marginal analysis may enable providers and patients to make more accurate informed decisions.

Considering Tangible Benefit for Interdependent Donors: Extending a Risk-Benefit Framework in Donor Selection

From its infancy, live donor transplantation has operated within a framework of acceptable risk to donors. Such a framework presumes that risks of living donation are experienced by the donor while all benefits are realized by the recipient, creating an inequitable distribution that demands minimization of donor risk. We suggest that this risk-tolerance framework ignores tangible benefits to the donor. A previously proposed framework more fully considers potential benefits to the donor and argues that risks and benefits must be balanced. We expand on this approach, and posit that donors sharing a household with and/or caring for a potential transplant patient may realize tangible benefits that are absent in a more distantly related donation (e.g. cousin, nondirected). We term these donors, whose well-being is closely tied to their recipient, "interdependent donors." A flexible risk-benefit model that combines risk assessment with benefits to interdependent donors will contribute to donor evaluation and selection that more accurately reflects what is at stake for donors. In so doing, a risk-benefit framework may allow some donors to accept greater risk in donation decisions.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Opportunities for Engaging Patients in Kidney Research

Purpose:

The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the rationale for engaging patients in research as well as to review the established and envisioned advantages and strategies for patient-researcher partnerships. The authors of this article, which include a patient and 4 researchers in kidney disease, discuss the expected benefits and opportunities for patient engagement in their respective research programs. The 4 research programs span the spectrum of kidney disease and focus on enhancing bone health, increasing living donor kidney transplants, improving medication adherence, and preventing kidney transplant rejection.

Sources of Information:

The sources of information for this review include published studies on the topics of patient engagement and the 4 research programs of the new investigators.

Key Findings:

(1) Patient, health care provider, and researcher partnerships can contribute useful insights capable of enhancing research in kidney disease. (2) Regardless of the research program, there are various strategies and opportunities for engagement of patients with lived experience across the various stages of research in kidney disease. (3) Envisioned advantages of patient-researcher partnerships include: targeting patient-identified research priorities, integrating patients’ experiential knowledge, improving study design and feasibility through patient-researcher input, facilitating dissemination of research findings to other patients, effectively responding to patient concerns about studies, and inspiring researchers to conduct their research.

Limitations:

The limitations of the current review include the relative scarcity of literature on patient engagement within the field of kidney disease.

Implications:

The findings of the current review suggest that it will be important for future studies to identify optimal strategies for patient engagement in setting research priorities, study design, participant recruitment, execution of research projects, and knowledge dissemination and translation.

Living Organ Donation and Informed Consent in the United States: Strategies to Improve the Process

About 6,000 individuals participate in the U.S. transplant system as a living organ donor each year. Organ donation (most commonly a kidney or part of liver) by living individuals is a unique procedure, where healthy patients undergo a major surgical operation without any direct functional benefit to themselves. In this article, the authors explore how the ideal of informed consent guides education and evaluation for living organ donation. The authors posit that informed consent for living organ donation is a process. Though the steps in this process are partially standardized through national health policy, they can be improved through institutional structures at the local, transplant center-level. Effective structures and practices aimed at supporting and promoting comprehensive informed consent provide more opportunities for candidates to ask questions about the risks and benefits of living donation and to opt out voluntarily Additionally, these practices could enable new ways of measuring knowledge and improving the consent process.

The Long-Term Follow-up and Support for Living Organ Donors: A Center-Based Initiative Founded on Developing a Community of Living Donors

Transplant professionals recognize that the long-term follow-up of living organ donors is a priority, yet there has been no implemented solution to this problem. This critical gap is essential, because the transplant field is now emphasizing living donation as a means to address the organ shortage. We detail our living donor initiative, which sets several priorities we recognize as fundamental to persons who have donated organs at our transplant center. This intervention attempts to mitigate the donor and center factors that are known to contribute to the lack of long-term follow-up. Beyond that, our goals are aimed at providing ongoing engagement, wellness, clinical data accrual, laboratory follow-up, and social support for our living donors, in continuity. Our ultimate goal is to nurture the development of local living donor community networks by providing social engagement for current and past donors, which also serves as a platform for greater population education on the societal importance of living donation. This initiative is based on joint recognition by our transplant team and our hospital leadership that supporting the long-term welfare of living donors is essential to accomplishing the goal of expanding living donor transplantation. The transplant team and hospital missions are aligned, and both contribute resources to the initiative.

The Ethics of Promoting Living Kidney Donation Using Nonargumentative Influence: Applications, Concerns, and Future Directions

Recommendations from the 2014 Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Living Kidney Donation reflect increasing attention to overcoming barriers to donation as a means of expanding access to living donor kidney transplantation. "High priority" initiatives include empowering transplant candidates and their loved ones in their search for a living kidney donor. Transplant programs are assuming an unprecedented role as facilitators of patients' solicitation for donors, and nonprofits are promoting living kidney donation (LKD) in the community. New strategies to promote LKD incorporate "nonargumentative" forms of influence (i.e. approaches to shaping behavior that do not attempt to persuade through reason) such as appeals to emotion, messenger effects and social norms. These approaches have raised ethical concerns in other settings but have received little attention in the transplantation literature despite their increasing relevance. Previous work on using nonargumentative influence to shape patient behavior has highlighted implications for (1) the relationship between influencer and influenced and (2) patient autonomy. We argue that using nonargumentative influence to promote LKD is a promising strategy that can be compatible with ethical standards. We also outline potential concerns and solutions to be implemented in practice.

Kidney-Failure Risk Projection for the Living Kidney-Donor Candidate

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of candidates to serve as living kidney donors relies on screening for individual risk factors for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). To support an empirical approach to donor selection, we developed a tool that simultaneously incorporates multiple health characteristics to estimate a person's probable long-term risk of ESRD if that person does not donate a kidney.

METHODS

We used risk associations from a meta-analysis of seven general population cohorts, calibrated to the population-level incidence of ESRD and mortality in the United States, to project the estimated long-term incidence of ESRD among persons who do not donate a kidney, according to 10 demographic and health characteristics. We then compared 15-year projections with the observed risk among 52,998 living kidney donors in the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 4,933,314 participants from seven cohorts were followed for a median of 4 to 16 years. For a 40-year-old person with health characteristics that were similar to those of age-matched kidney donors, the 15-year projections of the risk of ESRD in the absence of donation varied according to race and sex; the risk was 0.24% among black men, 0.15% among black women, 0.06% among white men, and 0.04% among white women. Risk projections were higher in the presence of a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher albuminuria, hypertension, current or former smoking, diabetes, and obesity. In the model-based lifetime projections, the risk of ESRD was highest among persons in the youngest age group, particularly among young blacks. The 15-year observed risks after donation among kidney donors in the United States were 3.5 to 5.3 times as high as the projected risks in the absence of donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple demographic and health characteristics may be used together to estimate the projected long-term risk of ESRD among living kidney-donor candidates and to inform acceptance criteria for kidney donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others.).

Long-term, self-reported health outcomes in kidney donors

Background

The wide use of healthy persons as kidney donors calls for awareness of risks associated with donation. Live kidney donation may impair quality of life (QOL) and result in fatigue. Long-term data on these issues are generally lacking in the donor population. Thus we aimed to investigate long-term self-reported health outcomes in a nationwide donor cohort.

Methods

We assessed self-reported QOL, fatigue and psychosocial issues after donation in 217 donors representing 63 % of those who donated 8–12 years ago. QOL was measured using the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), fatigue using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) and psychosocial issues using donor specific questions. For each of the 8 domains of SF-36 and the 5 domains of MFI, we performed generalized linear regression.

Results

Donors scored high on QOL with mean scores between 63.9 and 91.4 (scale 1–100) for the 8 subscales. Recognition from family and friends was associated with higher QOL scores in four domains. There were no significant gender differences. Fatigue scores were generally low. Females generally scored higher than males on all five dimensions of fatigue, although significantly only on two. Recipient still alive was associated with lower scores on mental fatigue. Regretting donors scored higher than average on all domains of fatigue. Recipient death, worries about own health and worsened relationship with the recipient influenced willingness to donate in retrospect. Donor age did not affect long-term health outcomes.

Conclusions

Eight till 12 years after donation QOL scores were generally high and improved with recogniton from family and friends. Fatigue was independent of donor age and more pronounced in females and in those who regretted donation.