Cargando…

Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of early detection and treatment of allograft rejection is well-established. Despite frequent testing called for by standard of care protocols, the five-year kidney allograft survival rate is estimated to be as low as 71%. Herein, we report on posttransplant care pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peabody, John, Billings, Paul, Valdenor, Czarlota, Demko, Zach, Moshkevich, Solomon, Paculdo, David, Tran, Mary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535838/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31214362
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/5303284
_version_ 1783421645110640640
author Peabody, John
Billings, Paul
Valdenor, Czarlota
Demko, Zach
Moshkevich, Solomon
Paculdo, David
Tran, Mary
author_facet Peabody, John
Billings, Paul
Valdenor, Czarlota
Demko, Zach
Moshkevich, Solomon
Paculdo, David
Tran, Mary
author_sort Peabody, John
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of early detection and treatment of allograft rejection is well-established. Despite frequent testing called for by standard of care protocols, the five-year kidney allograft survival rate is estimated to be as low as 71%. Herein, we report on posttransplant care provided to kidney allograft recipients by board-certified nephrologists in the United States. METHODS: We measured clinical practice in a representative sample of 175 practicing nephrologists. All providers cared for simulated patients' status after renal transplant ranging from 30-75 years in age and 3-24 months after transplant. Our sample of nephrologists cared for a total of 525 allograft cases. Provider responses to the cases were reviewed by trained clinicians, and care was compared to evidence-based care standards and accepted standard of care protocols. RESULTS: Among nephrologists, practicing in settings ranging from transplant centers to community practice, we found that the clinical workup of kidney injury in posttransplant patients is highly variable and frequently deviates from evidence-based care. In cases with pathologic evidence of rejection, only 29.1% (102/350) received an appropriate, evidence-based biopsy, whereas, in cases with no pathological evidence of rejection, 41.3% (45/109) received low-value, unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSION: Clinical care in the posttransplant setting is highly variable. Biopsies are often ordered in cases where their results do not alter treatment. Additionally, we found that misdiagnosis was common as were opportunities for earlier biopsy and detection of rejection. This evidence suggests that better diagnostic tools may be helpful to determine which transplant patients should be biopsied and which should not. This study suggests that nephrologists and transplant patients need better tests than creatinine and proteinuria and less invasive approaches than routine biopsies to determine when transplant patients should be investigated for rejection and additional treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6535838
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65358382019-06-18 Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice Peabody, John Billings, Paul Valdenor, Czarlota Demko, Zach Moshkevich, Solomon Paculdo, David Tran, Mary Int J Nephrol Research Article BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of early detection and treatment of allograft rejection is well-established. Despite frequent testing called for by standard of care protocols, the five-year kidney allograft survival rate is estimated to be as low as 71%. Herein, we report on posttransplant care provided to kidney allograft recipients by board-certified nephrologists in the United States. METHODS: We measured clinical practice in a representative sample of 175 practicing nephrologists. All providers cared for simulated patients' status after renal transplant ranging from 30-75 years in age and 3-24 months after transplant. Our sample of nephrologists cared for a total of 525 allograft cases. Provider responses to the cases were reviewed by trained clinicians, and care was compared to evidence-based care standards and accepted standard of care protocols. RESULTS: Among nephrologists, practicing in settings ranging from transplant centers to community practice, we found that the clinical workup of kidney injury in posttransplant patients is highly variable and frequently deviates from evidence-based care. In cases with pathologic evidence of rejection, only 29.1% (102/350) received an appropriate, evidence-based biopsy, whereas, in cases with no pathological evidence of rejection, 41.3% (45/109) received low-value, unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSION: Clinical care in the posttransplant setting is highly variable. Biopsies are often ordered in cases where their results do not alter treatment. Additionally, we found that misdiagnosis was common as were opportunities for earlier biopsy and detection of rejection. This evidence suggests that better diagnostic tools may be helpful to determine which transplant patients should be biopsied and which should not. This study suggests that nephrologists and transplant patients need better tests than creatinine and proteinuria and less invasive approaches than routine biopsies to determine when transplant patients should be investigated for rejection and additional treatment. Hindawi 2019-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6535838/ /pubmed/31214362 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/5303284 Text en Copyright © 2019 John Peabody et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Peabody, John
Billings, Paul
Valdenor, Czarlota
Demko, Zach
Moshkevich, Solomon
Paculdo, David
Tran, Mary
Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice
title Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice
title_full Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice
title_fullStr Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice
title_full_unstemmed Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice
title_short Variation in Assessing Renal Allograft Rejection: A National Assessment of Nephrology Practice
title_sort variation in assessing renal allograft rejection: a national assessment of nephrology practice
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535838/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31214362
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/5303284
work_keys_str_mv AT peabodyjohn variationinassessingrenalallograftrejectionanationalassessmentofnephrologypractice
AT billingspaul variationinassessingrenalallograftrejectionanationalassessmentofnephrologypractice
AT valdenorczarlota variationinassessingrenalallograftrejectionanationalassessmentofnephrologypractice
AT demkozach variationinassessingrenalallograftrejectionanationalassessmentofnephrologypractice
AT moshkevichsolomon variationinassessingrenalallograftrejectionanationalassessmentofnephrologypractice
AT paculdodavid variationinassessingrenalallograftrejectionanationalassessmentofnephrologypractice
AT tranmary variationinassessingrenalallograftrejectionanationalassessmentofnephrologypractice