No abstract

BackgroundObesity is associated with the two archetypal kidney disease risk factors: hypertension and diabetes. Concerns that the effects of diabetes and hypertension in obese kidney donors might be magnified in their remaining kidney have led to the exclusion of many obese candidates from kidney donation.MethodsWe compared mortality, diabetes, hypertension, proteinuria, reduced eGFR and its trajectory, and the development of kidney failure in 8583 kidney donors, according to body mass index (BMI). The study included 6822 individuals with a BMI of <30 kg/m2, 1338 with a BMI of 30–34.9 kg/m2, and 423 with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2. We used Cox regression models, adjusting for baseline covariates only, and models adjusting for postdonation diabetes, hypertension, and kidney failure as time-varying covariates.ResultsObese donors were more likely than nonobese donors to develop diabetes, hypertension, and proteinuria. The increase in eGFR in obese versus nonobese donors was significantly higher in the first 10 years (3.5 ml/min per 1.73m2 per year versus 2.4 ml/min per 1.73m2 per year; P<0.001), but comparable thereafter. At a mean±SD follow-up of 19.3±10.3 years after donation, 31 (0.5%) nonobese and 12 (0.7%) obese donors developed ESKD. Of the 12 patients with ESKD in obese donors, 10 occurred in 1445 White donors who were related to the recipient (0.9%). Risk of death in obese donors was not significantly increased compared with nonobese donors.ConclusionsObesity in kidney donors, as in nondonors, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes and hypertension. The absolute risk of ESKD is small and the risk of death is comparable to that of nonobese donors.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background. Many kidney donor candidates with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and all candidates with diabetes are currently excluded from kidney donation, fearing the development of an accelerated course of diabetic kidney disease in the remaining kidney. Methods. We studied mortality, proteinuria, and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in 8280 donors who donated between 1963 and 2007 according to donation fasting plasma glucose (FPG): <100 mg/dL (n = 6204), 100-125 mg/dL (n = 1826), and ≥126 mg/dL (n = 250). Results. Donors with IFG and those with FPG ≥126 mg/dL were older, less likely to be non-Hispanic White, had a higher body mass index, and were more likely to be related to their recipient. After 15.7 ± 10.5 y from donation to study close, 4.4% died, 29.4% developed hypertension, 13.8% developed proteinuria, and 41 (0.5%) developed ESKD. In both the logistic and Cox models, IFG was associated with a higher diabetes risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.30) and hypertension (aHR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.65; P = 0.003 for both), but not higher risk of proteinuria or ESKD. The multivariable risk of mortality in donors with ≥126 mg/dL was higher than the 2 other groups, but risks of proteinuria, cardiovascular disease, and reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar to those with FPG <126 mg/dL. Three cases of ESKD developed in the 250 donors with FPG ≥126 mg/dL at 18.6 ± 10.3 y after donation (aHR, 5.36; 95% CI, 1.0-27.01; P = 0.04). Conclusions. Donors with IFG and the majority of donors with ≥126 mg/dL do well and perhaps should not be routinely excluded from donation.

Objective Clinicians frequently rely on office blood pressure (BP) measurements alone to assess hypertension control, despite widespread acceptance of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as the reference standard in the initial diagnosis of hypertension. This study was designed to investigate how often the hypertensive status differed between concurrent office BP versus ABPM measurements, and whether any patient-specific characteristics predict the risk for misclassification by office BP. Participants and methods This study evaluated 42 children with primary hypertension who underwent repeated ambulatory monitoring (190 total recordings) with concurrent office blood pressure measurement as part of their participation in n-of-1 trials. Results In nearly 40% of the visits, the treatment status by office measurement was opposite to the status by ambulatory monitoring. Office blood pressure underestimated the ambulatory hypertensive status (masked uncontrolled hypertension) in 25% of visits, and overestimated ambulatory blood pressure (white coat effect) in 14% of visits. The difference between office blood pressure and ambulatory monitoring was consistent within patients across repeated visits. Patients whose office measurement under- or overestimated the ambulatory blood pressure at the first visit were more likely to show persistent discrepancy at subsequent visits. Conclusion The underuse of ambulatory monitoring in management decisions of children treated for primary hypertension may result in systematic misclassification of hypertension control.

No abstract

Roughly 25% of US transplant centers exclude donor candidates with kidney stones fearing future obstructive consequences and the possible association between stones and CKD. We compared the development of hypertension, proteinuria, and reduced eGFR in 227 kidney donors with kidney stones to 908 propensity score‐matched donor controls without kidney stones using data from The Renal and Lung Donor Evaluation (RELIVE) Study which studied intermediate and long‐term outcomes of 8922 donors who donated between 1963 and 2007. 200 donors had kidney stones prior to donation, 21 had post‐donation stones, and 6 had pre‐ and post‐donation stones. Donors with stones were older, more likely to be Caucasian, less likely to be related to the recipient and had a higher fasting glucose. After 16.5 ± 10.9 years (range 0–44 years) from donation to study close, no ESKD occurred in donors with stones. The multivariable risks of hypertension, proteinuria, and reduced GFR were similar in donors with and without kidney stones. We could not demonstrate an association between stones and adverse renal outcomes in kidney donors, and the occurrence of post‐donation stones was distinctly rare. These data may provide a rationale for possibly a wider acceptance of donor candidates with low kidney stones burden.

Background Cytokine release storm (CRS) is a potentially fatal, hyperinflammatory condition common to both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and reactive hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (rHLH). We present our experience with the use of a diagnostic score, developed for rHLH, in a kidney transplant recipient hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods We applied the H-Score to risk-stratify our patient to help predict his hospital course. This study was exempt from requiring specific Institutional Review Board approval, but met all the criteria required by our institution for this type of study and report including consent from the patient. Results The calculated H-Score for our patient fell below the diagnostic cut-off value for rHLH. Because rHLH is characterized by CRS, we expected him to have a milder hospital course with COVID-19. Correlating with his below cut-off H-score, the patient had a more benign than expected hospital course. Conclusions Because this is only a single case, we plan to retrospectively review a series of patients to validate our initial experience—that a low H-Score may correlate with a milder hospital course in kidney transplant patients with COVID-19.