Clinical Trials for Immunosuppression in Transplantation: The Case for Reform and Change in Direction.

Currently trials of immunosuppression in transplantation are in decline because their objectives remain focused on improving acute rejection rates and graft survival in the first 12 months. With 1 year renal graft survival rates of greater than 90% the best that can be hoped for is noninferiority trial outcomes compared with current standard of care. Current trial design is not leading to novel therapies improving long-term outcomes and safety, and hence important unmet clinical needs in transplantation remain unanswered. Issues that need to be addressed include but are not limited to: prevention of subclinical rejection in the first year, better 5- and 10-year graft outcomes, more effective treatment for high immunological risk and sensitized (including donor-specific antibody) patients, immunosuppressive combinations that are better tolerated by patients with fewer side effects and less morbidity and mortality. In September 2015, the Transplantation Society convened a group of transplant clinical trial experts to address these problems. The aims were to substantially realign the priorities of clinical trials for renal transplant immunosuppression with the current unmet needs and to propose new designs for clinical trials for transplant immunosuppression. Moving forward, the transplant community needs to provide trial data that will identify superior treatment options for patient subgroups and allow new agents to be evaluated for efficacy and safety and achieve timely regulatory approval. Trial designs for new transplant immunosuppression must be intelligently restructured to ensure that short- and long-term clinical outcomes continue to improve.

Chronic kidney disease and measurement of albuminuria or proteinuria: a position statement.

Optimal detection and subsequent risk stratification of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires simultaneous consideration of both kidney function (glomerular filtration rate [GFR]) and kidney damage (as indicated by albuminuria or proteinuria). Measurement of urinary albuminuria and proteinuria is hindered by a lack of standardisation regarding requesting, sample collection, reporting and interpretation of tests. A multidisciplinary working group was convened with the goal of developing and promoting recommendations that achieve consensus on these issues. The working group recommended that the preferred method for assessment of albuminuria in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients is urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) measurement in a first-void spot urine specimen. Where a first-void specimen is not possible or practical, a random spot urine specimen for UACR is acceptable. The working group recommended that adults with one or more risk factors for CKD should be assessed using UACR and estimated GFR every 1-2 years, depending on their risk-factor profile. Recommended testing algorithms and sex-specific cut-points for microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria are provided. The working group recommended that all pathology laboratories in Australia should implement the relevant recommendations as a vital component of an integrated national approach to detection of CKD.