We reviewed any study where 10 or more healthy adults donated a kidney, and proteinuria, or glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was assessed at least 1 year later. Bibliographic databases were searched until November 2005. 31 primary authors provided additional information. Forty-eight studies from 27 countries followed a total of 5048 donors. An average of 7 years after donation (range 1-25 years), the average 24 h urine protein was 154 mg/day and the average GFR was 86 ml/min. In eight studies which reported GFR in categories, 12% of donors developed a GFR between 30 and 59 ml/min (range 0-28%), and 0.2% a GFR less than 30 ml/min (range 0-2.2%). In controlled studies urinary protein was higher in donors and became more pronounced with time (three studies totaling 59 controls and 129 donors; controls 83 mg/day, donors 147 mg/day, weighted mean difference 66 mg/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24-108). An initial decrement in GFR after donation was not accompanied by accelerated losses over that anticipated with normal aging (six studies totaling 189 controls and 239 donors; controls 96 ml/min, donors 84 ml/min, weighted mean difference 10 ml/min, 95% CI 6-15; difference not associated with time after donation (P=0.2)). Kidney donation results in small increases in urinary protein. An initial decrement in GFR is not followed by accelerated losses over a subsequent 15 years. Future studies will provide better estimates, and identify those donors at least risk of long-term morbidity.

Knowledge of the psychosocial benefits and harms faced by living kidney donors is necessary for informed consent and follow-up. We reviewed any English language study where psychosocial function was assessed using questionnaires in 10 or more donors after nephrectomy. We searched MEDLINE, EM-BASE, Web of Science, Psych INFO, Sociological Abstracts and CINAHL databases and reviewed reference lists from 1969 through July 2006. Independently, two reviewers abstracted data on study, donor and control group characteristics, psychosocial measurements and their outcomes. Fifty-one studies examined 5139 donors who were assessed an average of 4 years after nephrectomy. The majority experienced no depression (77-95%) or anxiety (86-94%), with questionnaire scores similar to controls. The majority reported no change or an improved relationship with their recipient (86-100%), spouse (82-98%), family members (83-100%) and nonrecipient children (95-100%). Some experienced an increase in self-esteem. A majority (83-93%) expressed no change in their attractiveness. Although many scored high on quality of life measures, some prospective studies described a decrease after donation. A small proportion of donors had adverse psychosocial outcomes. Most kidney donors experience no change or an improvement in their psychosocial health after donation. Harms may be minimized through careful selection and follow-up.

On the basis of the limited studies conducted to date, kidney donors may have a 5-mm Hg increase in blood pressure within 5 to 10 years after donation over that anticipated with normal aging. Future controlled, prospective studies with long periods of follow-up will better delineate safety and identify donors at lowest risk for long-term morbidity.

Donors incur many types of costs attributable to kidney donation and the total costs are certainly higher than previously reported. To guide informed consent and fair reimbursement policies, further data on all relevant costs, preferably from a detailed prospective multi-centre cohort study, are required.

BackgroundHyperuricemia may contribute to renal injury. We do not know whether use of treatments that lower urate reduce the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the benefits and risks of treatments that lower urate in patients with stages 3-5 CKD.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and trial registers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without language restriction. Two authors independently screened articles, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data obtained included serum uric acid, serum creatinine or other estimates of glomerular filtration rate, incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, proteinuria, cardiovascular disease and adverse events.ResultsFrom the 5497 citations screened, 19 RCTs enrolling 992 participants met our inclusion criteria. Given significant heterogeneity in duration of follow-up and study comparators, only trials greater than 3 months comparing allopurinol and inactive control were meta-analyzed using random effects models. Pooled estimate for eGFR was in favour of allopurinol with a mean difference (MD) of 3.2 ml/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 0.16-6.2 ml/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.039 and this was consistent with results for serum creatinine. Statistically significant reductions in serum uric acid, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were found, favouring allopurinol. There were insufficient data on adverse events, incidence of ESRD and cardiovascular disease for analysis.ConclusionsAdequately powered RCTs are needed to establish whether treatments that lower urate have beneficial renal and cardiovascular effects.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-015-0047-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In organ donation, the donor, recipient, and transplant team must all accept potential health risks to the donor and any uncertainties. To gauge these risks, we surveyed general altruism and risk-taking behaviors in 112 potential donors, 111 potential recipients, and 51 transplant professionals. Next, participants indicated their risk thresholds for long-term donor hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and kidney failure that would stop them from pursuing living donation and their willingness to proceed when risks were uncertain. The three groups had similar general altruism and risk-taking behaviors. Potential donors were significantly more willing to accept greater long-term donor risks than potential recipients and transplant professionals. Moreover, these potential donors were significantly more likely to agree that living donation was acceptable when long-term donor risks were uncertain. Potential kidney donors readily accept high long-term risks, whereas potential recipients were the most averse to donor risk. Our study shows that transplant professionals facilitate the best decisions by appreciating the willingness of their patients to accept donor health risks along with their own risk tolerance.

Being an organ donor may affect one's ability to obtain life, disability and health insurance. We conducted a systematic review to determine if insurability is affected by living organ donation, and if concern about insurability affects donor decision making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCI, EconLit and Cochrane databases for articles in any language, and reviewed reference lists from 1966 until June 2006. All studies discussing the insurability of living organ donors or its impact on donor decision making were included. Data were independently abstracted by two authors, and the methodological quality appraised. Twenty-three studies, from 1972 to 2006, provided data on 2067 living organ donors, 385 potential donors and 239 responses from insurance companies. Almost all companies would provide life and health insurance to living organ donors, usually with no higher premiums. However, concern about insurability was still expressed by 2%-14% of living organ donors in follow-up studies, and 3%-11% of donors actually encountered difficulties with their insurance. In one study, donors whose insurance premiums increased were less likely to reaffirm their decision to donate. Based on available evidence, some living organ donors had difficulties with insurance despite companies reporting otherwise. If better understood, this potential barrier to donation could be corrected through fair health and underwriting policies.

No abstract