Associated characteristics and impact on survival of post renal-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease: case-control study from a regional registry.

BACKGROUND: Lymphoproliferative disease (LPD) after renal transplantation (RT) is an unusual complication but one that impacts greatly on survival. We examined possible predisposing factors and their effect on survival using data from the Andalusian Transplant Co-ordination Information System (SICATA) regional computerized database of patients on renal replacement therapy due to chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: The study population comprised all RT undertaken at adult centers in Andalusia from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2009 (N = 5577). We retrospectively analyzed cases at December 31, 2011 (N = 60). A control group comprised the 2 closest RT in time done at the same center and with equal or greater graft survival at the time of diagnosis of LPD in the associated case (N = 120). The basic variables were obtained from the general register (1990-2009) and widened from the specific register (2000-2009). Case-control comparison of survival was done with Kaplan-Meier from diagnosis to death or organ loss censored for death. Cox univariate and multivariate (LPD plus available covariables of demonstrated effect) analyses were done. RESULTS: We found no significant differences between cases and controls regarding the characteristics of the recipient or of the donor/organ, initial immunosuppression by intention to treat, or post-RT course. The impact on recipient survival 5 years after diagnosis was as follows: LPD, 35%; controls, 90% (P < .000). Cox univariate analysis showed the relative risk (RR) of death for LPD was 11.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2-20.9; P < .000) and the multivariate analysis showed relative risk (RR) = 13.87 (7.45-25.3; P < .000). The impact on death-censored graft survival 5 years after diagnosis was as follows: LPD, 65%; controls, 87% (P = .007). Cox univariate analysis was as follows: RR of failure for LPD, 2.70 (95% CI, 1.3-5.7; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences between LPD cases and contemporary controls regarding the basic characteristics of the recipient, donor/organ, initial immunosuppression, or initial graft evolution. There was an enormous impact on both patient and graft survival.

Information channels and the dynamics of uptake of living kidney donors: a retrospective study in a reference area.

INTRODUCTION: Activity in renal transplantation at our center continues to grow due to the gradual increase in living donor kidney transplantations (LDKT). Our objective was to describe the generation process of living donation in our area of influence including two provinces and 18 chronic kidney disease (CKD) treatment units in particular the origin of paired donor/recipients and information channels. METHODS: We included all actual and discarded potential donors from 2005 to 2009. History and telephone interviews provided a description of the cases, sources and process information. RESULTS: Among 95 potential pairs we performed 44 LDKT during this period. The recipients were predialysis (38%), on dialysis (54%), or after prior transplantation (8%). Among the 10 dialysis centers, the referral rate ranged between 0 and 8.6 pairs per 100 patients. We contacted 78 (83%) donors for an interview, among whom 53% first learned of LDKT when the recipient already had advanced CKD at predialysis or dialysis stages. Television was the main means of this first knowledge (38%), followed by the health care staff. LDKT was not primarily a treatment option offered by the nephrologist for 65% of subjects; however, the nephrologists were the major reference sources followed by the Internet and transplant coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of donations are initiated before the recipient is on dialysis, but eventuates predialysis in only 38% of cases. The possibility of being referred seems to be influenced by the recipient's treatment center. We need a more proactive role of nephrologists to offer this therapeutic option. This study identified the importance of public information to identify targets and design strategies to disseminate quality information on LDKT.