IntroductionYoung adults fare worse than younger adolescents or older adults on a broad range of health indicators. Those with a chronic illness such as renal failure are a particularly vulnerable group, who experience poor outcomes compared with both children and older adults. Understanding how being in receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT) affects the lives of young adults might help us to better prepare and support these individuals for and on RRT, and improve outcomes. This study aimed to synthesise research describing young adults’ experiences of the psychosocial impact of kidney failure and RRT.DesignA systematic literature review identified qualitative research reporting the perspectives of people aged 16–30 years receiving RRT on the psychosocial impact of renal failure. Electronic databases (including Medline/EMBASE/PsycINFO/ASSIA) were searched to November 2017 for full-text papers. The transparency of reporting of each study was assessed using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Health Research (COREQ) framework. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. An inductive thematic synthesis was undertaken.ParticipantsSeven studies from five different countries were included, comprising 123 young adults receiving RRT.ResultsComprehensiveness of reporting was variable: studies reported 9–22 of the 32 COREQ-checklist items.Three global themes about the impact of kidney failure on young adults were identified: (1) difference desiring normality, (2) thwarted or moderated dreams and ambitions, and (3) uncertainty and liminality. These reflected five organising themes: (1) physical appearance and body image, (2) activity and participation, (3) educational disruption and underachievement, (4) career ambitions and employment difficulties, and (5) social isolation and intimate relationships.ConclusionsAcross different countries and different healthcare settings, young adults on RRT experience difference and liminality, even after transplantation. Tailored social and psychological support is required to allow young adults to experience wellness while in receipt of RRT, and not have life on hold.

Objectives: Socioeconomically deprived individuals with renal disease are less likely to receive a live-donor kidney transplant than less-deprived individuals. This qualitative study aimed to identify reasons for the observed socioeconomic disparity in live-donor kidney transplantation.

Introduction: 'Red Man Syndrome' is a recognized adverse reaction to intravenous vancomycin therapy. This case concerns an elderly woman who developed a 'Red Man Syndrome' reaction whilst on oral vancomycin therapy for Clostridium difficile (C difficile) diarrhoea. Isolated case reports exist recording this reaction in association with oral vancomycin therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel conditions or impaired renal function, of which this patient had both.

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available:

Drawing on 'gift exchange theory', this study contributes to our understanding of the experience of the intended recipient of a gift. The anonymity of the donor-recipient appears to be seen as a benefit of non-directed 'altruistic' live-donor transplants, freeing recipients from the obligations of the gift. However, those who feel unworthy of the 'gifted transplant' are concerned about the donor and by the lack of opportunity for direct reciprocity. Highlighting the 'reciprocal benefits' reported by donors may allow individuals whose preference is a live-donor transplant to accept one if offered. These insights provide the transplant community with targets for intervention, through which the concerns of potential recipients might be addressed.

Background. There is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplantation, but limited evidence as to why. We investigated possible mediators of the inequity. Methods. This questionnaire-based case-control study included 14 UK hospitals. Participants were adults transplanted between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017. Living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (cases) were compared with deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients (controls). We collected data on mediators identified in earlier qualitative work: perceived social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12), patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13), and LDKT knowledge (Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test). We performed mediation analyses to investigate what proportion of the effect of socioeconomic position (education and income) on case-control status was mediated by these variables. Results. One thousand two-hundred and forty questionnaires were returned (40% response). Receipt of an LDKT over a deceased-donor kidney transplant was associated with higher socioeconomic position [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) university degree versus no degree aOR = 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.84), P = 0.001 and aOR per +£1000 increase in monthly household income after tax 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.17), P < 0.001] higher perceived social support (aOR per +1-point Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12 score = 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08), P < 0.001), higher levels of patient activation (aOR per +1 patient activation measure level = 1.35 (95% CI, 1.24-1.48), P < 0.001), and greater LDKT knowledge (aOR per + 1-point Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test score = 1.59 (95% CI, 1.49-1.69), P < 0.001). Mediation analyses revealed that perceived social support, patient activation, and LDKT knowledge together mediate 48.5% (95% CI, 12.7-84.3, P = 0.008) of the association between university education and LDKT status, and 46.0% (95% CI, 28.7-63.4, P < 0.001) of the association between income and LDKT status. Conclusions. LDKT knowledge, perceived social support, and patient activation are associated with the socioeconomic position of people with kidney disease, and mediate approximately 50% of the association between the socioeconomic position and receipt of an LDKT. Interventions that target these factors may redress observed socioeconomic inequity.

This multicenter prospective potential living kidney donor cohort study investigated which sociodemographic and other factors predict progression to living kidney donation or donor withdrawal as little is known on this topic. Therefore, we examined data on individuals undergoing living donor assessment at seven hospitals in the United Kingdom. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the relationships between donor and recipient characteristics and likelihood of kidney donation. A total of 805 individuals presented for directed donation to 498 intended recipients, of which 112 received a transplant from a living donor. Potential donors were less likely to donate if their intended recipient was female rather than male with an odds ratio of 0.60, a friend rather than relative 0.18, or had renal failure due to a systemic disease rather than another cause 0.41. The most socioeconomically deprived quintile was less likely to donate than the least 0.49, but the trend with deprivation was consistent with chance. Higher body mass index was associated with a lower likelihood of donation (odds ratio per each kg/m increase, 0.92). Younger potential donors (odds ratio per each year increase 0.97), those of nonwhite ethnicity 2.98, and friend donors 2.43 were more likely to withdraw from work-up. This is the first study in the United Kingdom of potential living kidney donors to describe predictors of non-donation. Qualitative work with individuals who withdraw might identify possible ways of supporting those who wish to donate but experience difficulties doing so.

Differing beliefs about the acceptability of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) have been proposed as explaining age, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in their uptake. We investigated whether certain patient groups hold beliefs incompatible with LDKTs. This questionnaire-based case–control study was based at 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants were adults transplanted between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2017. LDKT recipients were compared to deceased-donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients. Beliefs were determined by the direction and strength of agreement with ten statements. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association between beliefs and LDKT versus DDKT. Sex, age, ethnicity, religion, and education were investigated as predictors of beliefs. A total of 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). DDKT and LDKT recipients responded in the same direction for 9/10 statements. A greater strength of agreement with statements concerning the ‘positive psychosocial effects’ of living kidney donation predicted having an LDKT over a DDKT. Older age, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) group ethnicity, and having a religion other than Christianity were associated with greater degree of uncertainty regarding a number of statements, but there was no evidence that individuals in these groups hold strong beliefs against living kidney donation and transplantation. Interventions should address uncertainty, to increase LDKT activity in these groups.