Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology最新文献

Accurate assessment of GFR is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dosing of systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. Up to 32% of patients with cancer have baseline CKD, and both malignancy and treatment may cause kidney injury and subsequent CKD. To date, there has been lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population. In this two-part statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology, we present key messages for estimation of GFR in patients with cancer, including the choice of GFR estimating equation, use of race and body surface area adjustment, and anticancer drug dose-adjustment in the setting of CKD. These key messages are based on a systematic review of studies assessing GFR estimating equations using serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer, against a measured GFR comparator. The preponderance of current data involving validated GFR estimating equations involves the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, with 2508 patients in whom CKD-EPI using serum creatinine and cystatin C was assessed (eight studies) and 15,349 in whom CKD-EPI with serum creatinine was assessed (22 studies). The former may have improved performance metrics and be less susceptible to shortfalls of eGFR using serum creatinine alone. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the American Society of Onco-Nephrology Position Committee rated the certainty of evidence as low. Additional studies are needed to assess the accuracy of other validated eGFR equations in patients with cancer. Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment, we advocate for the use of validated GFR estimating equations incorporating both serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer. Measurement of GFR via exogenous filtration markers should be considered in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials.

Background: C3 glomerulopathy (C3G), which encompasses C3GN and dense deposit disease (DDD), results from dysregulation of the alternative complement pathway. Data on disease recurrence after kidney transplantation are limited, and details on histologic features of recurrent C3G are scarce. We aimed to evaluate C3G recurrence in the allograft, with a focus on histologic presentation and progression.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 18 patients with native kidney failure attributed to C3G (12 C3GN and six DDD), who received a kidney transplant from January 2016 to January 2023. Demographic, genetic, clinical, and histologic data were studied. The NanoString 770 genes PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel was used for transcriptomic analysis. Disease recurrence was the primary outcome.

Results: During a median (interquartile range) follow-up period of 37 (18–56) months, C3G recurrence occurred in 16 (89%) patients (11 with C3GN and five with DDD) at a median (interquartile range) of 33 (13–141) days after transplantation. Over a third (38%) of recurrent cases were detected in protocol biopsies, and only 31% of patients presented with >300 mg/g of proteinuria. Recurrence in index biopsies was mainly established through a combination of immunofluorescence and electron microscopy findings, while it showed only subtle histologic alterations and no characteristic transcriptomic signals. Over time, histologic chronicity indices increased, but all the allografts were functioning at the end of follow-up. Patients with recurrence of C3GN and DDD showed overlapping immunofluorescence and electron microscopy findings and had similar recurrence rate and time to recurrence.

Conclusions: Most of the patients with native kidney failure attributed to C3G developed disease recurrence very early after kidney transplantation, usually with minimal proteinuria, mild histologic alterations, and favorable short-term allograft survival. Immunofluorescence and electron microscopy played a crucial role in detecting early, subclinical recurrence of C3GN and DDD, which showed significant overlapping features.

The success of a home hemodialysis program depends largely on a patient safety framework and the risk tolerance of a home dialysis program. Dialysis treatments require operators to perform dozens of steps repeatedly and reliably in a complex procedure. For home hemodialysis, those operators are patients themselves or their care partners, so attention to safety and risk mitigation is front of mind. While newer, smaller, and more user-friendly dialysis machines designed explicitly for home use are slowly entering the marketplace, teaching patients to perform their own treatments in an unsupervised setting hundreds of times remains a foundational programmatic obligation regardless of machine. Just how safe is home hemodialysis? How does patient training affect this safety? There is a surprising lack of literature surrounding these questions. No consensus exists among home hemodialysis programs regarding optimized training schedules or methods, with each program adopting its own approach on the basis of local experience. Furthermore, there are little available data on the safety of home hemodialysis as compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis. This review will outline considerations for training patients on home hemodialysis, discuss the safety of home hemodialysis with an emphasis on the risk of serious and life-threatening adverse effects, and address the methods by which adverse events are monitored and prevented.

Kidney transplant is not only the best treatment for patients with advanced kidney disease but it also reduces health care expenditure. The management of transplant patients is complex as they require special care by transplant nephrologists who have expertise in assessing transplant candidates, understand immunology and organ rejection, have familiarity with perioperative complications, and have the ability to manage the long-term effects of chronic immunosuppression. This skill set at the intersection of multiple disciplines necessitates additional training in Transplant Nephrology. Currently, there are more than 250,000 patients with a functioning kidney allograft and over 100,000 waitlisted patients awaiting kidney transplant, with a burgeoning number added to the kidney transplant wait list every year. In 2022, more than 40,000 patients were added to the kidney wait list and more than 25,000 received a kidney transplant. The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, passed in 2019, is aiming to double the number of kidney transplants by 2030 creating a need for additional transplant nephrologists to help care for them. Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the Nephrology-as well Transplant Nephrology-workforce due to a multitude of reasons. The American Society of Transplantation Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice created a workgroup to discuss the Transplant Nephrology workforce shortage. In this article, we discuss the scope of the problem and how the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recognition of Transplant Nephrology Fellowship could at least partly mitigate the Transplant Nephrology work force crisis.