Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
KDIGO  Kidney transplant reciepient care a summary
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

KDIGO Kidney transplant reciepient care a summary


Published on

Kidney transplant recipient care.

Kidney transplant recipient care.

Published in: Health & Medicine

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. review& 2009 International Society of NephrologyKDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care ofkidney transplant recipients: a summaryBertram L. Kasiske1, Martin G. Zeier2, Jeremy R. Chapman3, Jonathan C. Craig4, Henrik Ekberg5,Catherine A. Garvey6, Michael D. Green7, Vivekanand Jha8, Michelle A. Josephson9, Bryce A. Kiberd10,Henri A. Kreis11, Ruth A. McDonald12, John M. Newmann13, Gregorio T. Obrador14, Flavio G. Vincenti15,Michael Cheung16, Amy Earley17, Gowri Raman17, Samuel Abariga17, Martin Wagner17and Ethan M. Balk171 Hennepin County Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; 2University Hospital of Heidelberg,Department of Medicine, Heidelberg, Germany; 3Westmead Hospital, Department of Renal Medicine, Westmead, Australia;4 The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Department of Nephrology, Westmead, Australia; 5Lund University, Malmo Department of ¨,Nephrology and Transplantation, Sweden; 6University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; 7Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh,Division of Infectious Diseases, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; 8Postgraduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh, India; 9University ofChicago, Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 10Dalhousie University, Department of Medicine,Halifax, Canada; 11Universite Paris Descartes & Ho ´ ˆpital Necker, Service de Transplantation, Paris, France; 12University of Washington,Seattle Children’s Hospital, Division of Nephrology, Seattle, Washington, USA; 13Health Policy Research & Analysis, Reston, Virginia, USA;14 Universidad Panamericana School of Medicine, Mexico City, Mexico; 15University of California at San Francisco, Department ofMedicine, Division of Nephrology, San Francisco, California, USA; 16National Kidney Foundation, New York, New York, USA and17 Tufts Center for Kidney Disease Guideline Development and Implementation, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USAThe 2009 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Since the first successful kidney transplantation in 1954, thereclinical practice guideline on the monitoring, management, has been an exponential growth in publications dealing withand treatment of kidney transplant recipients is intended the care of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). In addition,to assist the practitioner caring for adults and children after the science of conducting and interpreting both clinical trialskidney transplantation. The guideline development process and observational studies has become increasingly contro-followed an evidence-based approach, and management versial and complex. Caring for KTRs requires specializedrecommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant knowledge in areas as varied as immunology, pharmacology,treatment trials. Critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence nephrology, endocrinology, and infectious disease. The lastand the strength of recommendations followed the Grades of two comprehensive clinical practice guidelines on the care ofRecommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation KTRs were published in 2000 by the American Society of(GRADE) approach. The guideline makes recommendations for Transplantation and the European Best Practices Guidelinesimmunosuppression and graft monitoring, as well as Expert Group.1,2 Both of these guidelines were basedprevention and treatment of infection, cardiovascular disease, primarily on expert opinion, not rigorous evidence review.malignancy, and other complications that are common in For these reasons, the international consortium of kidneykidney transplant recipients, including hematological and guideline developers, Kidney Disease: Improving Globalbone disorders. Limitations of the evidence, especially the lack Outcomes (KDIGO),3 concluded that a new comprehensiveof definitive clinical outcome trials, are discussed and evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the care ofsuggestions are provided for future research. This summary KTRs was necessary. This summary includes a briefincludes a brief description of methodology and the complete description of the methods used and the guideline recom-guideline recommendations but does not include the rationale mendations. Further details are included in a separateand references for each recommendation, which are publication.4published elsewhere.Kidney International advance online publication, 21 October 2009;doi:10.1038/ki.2009.377 RESULTSKEYWORDS: disease management; KDIGO; kidney transplantation; practice Here we present the guideline recommendations. Theguideline; systematic review rationale for the recommendations and discussion of other important issues are provided in the full guide-Correspondence: Michael Cheung, National Kidney Foundation, 30 E. 33rd line.4 Each recommendation is graded for strength ofStreet, New York, New York 10016, USA. E-mail: recommendation (Table 1) and overall quality of evidenceReceived 14 August 2009; accepted 25 August 2009 (Table 2).Kidney International 1
  • 2. review BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipientsTable 1 | KDIGO nomenclature and description for grading recommendations ImplicationsGradea Patients Clinicians PolicyLevel 1 Most people in your situation would want Most patients should receive the The recommendation can be adopted as a‘We recommend’ the recommended course of action and recommended course of action. policy in most situations. only a small proportion would not.Level 2 The majority of people in your situation Different choices will be appropriate for The recommendation is likely to require‘We suggest’ would want the recommended course of different patients. Each patient needs help debate and involvement of stakeholders action, but many would not. to arrive at a management decision before policy can be determined. consistent with her or his values and preferences.KDIGO, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes.a The additional category ‘Not Graded’ was used, typically, to provide guidance based on common sense or where the topic does not allow adequate application of evidence.The most common examples include recommendations regarding monitoring intervals, counseling, and referral to other clinical specialists. The ungraded recommendationsare generally written as simple declarative statements but are not meant to be interpreted as being stronger recommendations than Level 1 or 2 recommendations.Table 2 | Final grade for overall quality of evidence 2.4: We suggest that, in patients who are at low immunolo-A: High quality of evidence. We are confident that the true effect lies close gical risk and who receive induction therapy, corticos- to that of the estimate of the effect. teroids could be discontinued during the first week afterB: Moderate quality of evidence. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially transplantation. (2B) different. 2.5: We recommend that if mTORi are used, they should notC: Low quality of evidence. The true effect may be substantially different be started until graft function is established and surgical from the estimate of the effect. wounds are healed. (1B)D: Very low quality of evidence. The estimate of effect is very uncertain, and often will be far from the truth. CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; CsA, cyclosporine A; mTORi, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor(s).GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS 3: LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE MEDICATIONS1: INDUCTION THERAPY 3.1: We suggest using the lowest planned doses of maintenance1.1: We recommend starting a combination of immunosup- immunosuppressive medications by 2–4 months after pressive medications before, or at the time of, kidney transplantation, if there has been no acute rejection. (2C) transplantation. (1A) 3.2: We suggest that CNIs be continued rather than with-1.2: We recommend including induction therapy with a drawn. (2B) biologic agent as part of the initial immunosuppressive 3.3: If prednisone is being used beyond the first week after regimen in KTRs. (1A) transplantation, we suggest prednisone be continued 1.2.1: We recommend that an IL2-RA be the first-line rather than withdrawn. (2C) induction therapy. (1B) CNI, calcineurin inhibitor. 1.2.2: We suggest using a lymphocyte-depleting agent, rather than an IL2-RA, for KTRs at high 4: STRATEGIES TO REDUCE DRUG COSTS immunologic risk. (2B) 4.1: If drug costs block access to transplantation, a strategy toIL2-RA, interleukin 2 receptor antagonist; KTRs, kidney minimize drug costs is appropriate, even if use of inferiortransplant recipients. drugs is necessary to obtain the improved survival and quality of life benefits of transplantation compared with2: INITIAL MAINTENANCE IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE dialysis. (Not Graded) MEDICATIONS 4.1.1: We suggest strategies that may reduce drug costs2.1: We recommend using a combination of immunosup- include: pressive medications as maintenance therapy including a K limiting use of a biologic agent for induction to CNI and an antiproliferative agent, with or without patients who are high-risk for acute rejection (2C); corticosteroids. (1B) K using ketoconazole to minimize CNI dose (2D);2.2: We suggest that tacrolimus be the first-line CNI used. (2A) K using a nondihydropyridine CCB to minimize 2.2.1: We suggest that tacrolimus or CsA be CNI dose (2C); started before or at the time of transplantation, K using azathioprine rather than mycophenolate rather than delayed until the onset of graft (2B); function. (2D tacrolimus; 2B CsA) K using adequately tested bioequivalent generic2.3: We suggest that mycophenolate be the first-line anti- drugs (2C); proliferative agent. (2B) K using prednisone long-term. (2C)2 Kidney International
  • 3. BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients review4.2: Do not use generic compounds that have not been 6.4: We suggest treating antibody-mediated acute rejection certified by an independent regulatory agency to meet with one or more of the following alternatives, with or each of the following criteria when compared to the without corticosteroids (2C): reference compound (Not Graded): K plasma exchange; K contains the same active ingredient; K intravenous immunoglobulin; K is identical in strength, dosage form, and route of K anti-CD20 antibody; administration; K lymphocyte-depleting antibody. K has the same use indications; 6.5: For patients who have a rejection episode, we suggest K is bioequivalent in appropriate bioavailability studies; adding mycophenolate if the patient is not receiving K meets the same batch requirements for identity, mycophenolate or azathioprine, or switching azathiopr- strength, purity, and quality; ine to mycophenolate. (2D) K is manufactured under strict standards. OKT3, muromonab (anti-T-cell antibody).4.3: It is important that the patient, and the clinician responsible for the patient’s care, be made aware of any 7: TREATMENT OF CHRONIC ALLOGRAFT INJURY change in a prescribed immunosuppressive drug, 7.1: We recommend kidney allograft biopsy for all patients including a change to a generic drug. (Not Graded) with declining kidney function of unclear cause, to4.4: After switching to a generic medication that is detect potentially reversible causes. (1C) monitored using blood levels, obtain levels and adjust 7.2: For patients with CAI and histological evidence of CNI the dose as often as necessary until a stable therapeutic toxicity, we suggest reducing, withdrawing, or replacing target is achieved. (Not Graded) the CNI. (2C)CCB, calcium-channel blocker; CNI, calcineurin inhibitor. 7.2.1: For patients with CAI, eGFR 440 ml/min/1.73 m2, and urine total protein excretion o500 mg per gram creatinine (or equivalent proteinuria by5: MONITORING IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE MEDICATIONS other measures), we suggest replacing the CNI5.1: We recommend measuring CNI blood levels (1B), and with a mTORi. (2D) suggest measuring at least: CAI, chronic allograft injury; CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; CsA, K every other day during the immediate post-operative cyclosporine A; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; period until target levels are reached (2C); mTORi, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor(s). K whenever there is a change in medication or patient status that may affect blood levels (2C); 8: MONITORING KIDNEY ALLOGRAFT FUNCTION K whenever there is a decline in kidney function that 8.1: We suggest measuring urine volume (2C): may indicate nephrotoxicity or rejection. (2C) K every 1–2 h for at least 24 h after transplantation (2D); 5.1.1: We suggest monitoring CsA using 12-h trough (C0), K daily until graft function is stable. (2D) 2-h post-dose (C2), or abbreviated AUC. (2D) 8.2: We suggest measuring urine protein excretion, (2C) at 5.1.2: We suggest monitoring tacrolimus using 12-h least: trough (C0). (2C) K once in the first month to determine a baseline (2D);5.2: We suggest monitoring MMF levels. (2D) K every 3 months during the first year (2D);5.3: We suggest monitoring mTORi levels. (2C) K annually, thereafter. (2D)AUC, area under concentration-time curve; CNI, calcineurin 8.3: We recommend measuring serum creatinine, (1B) at least:inhibitor; CsA, cyclosporine A; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; K daily for 7 days or until hospital discharge, whichevermTORi, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor(s). occurs sooner (2C); K 2–3 times per week for weeks 2–4 (2C);6: TREATMENT OF ACUTE REJECTION K weekly for months 2 and 3 (2C);6.1: We recommend biopsy before treating acute rejection, K every 2 weeks for months 4–6 (2C); unless the biopsy will substantially delay treatment. (1C) K monthly for months 7–12 (2C);6.2: We suggest treating subclinical and borderline acute K every 2–3 months, thereafter. (2C) rejection. (2D) 8.3.1: We suggest estimating GFR whenever serum6.3: We recommend corticosteroids for the initial treatment creatinine is measured, (2D) using: of acute cellular rejection. (1D) K one of several formulas validated for adults 6.3.1: We suggest adding or restoring maintenance (2C); or prednisone in patients not on steroids who have K the Schwartz formula for children and adoles- a rejection episode. (2D) cents. (2C) 6.3.2: We suggest using lymphocyte-depleting antibodies 8.4: We suggest including a kidney allograft ultrasound or OKT3 for acute cellular rejections that do not examination as part of the assessment of kidney allograft respond to corticosteroids, and for recurrent acute dysfunction. (2C) cellular rejections. (2C) GFR, glomerular filtration rate.Kidney International 3
  • 4. review BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients9: KIDNEY ALLOGRAFT BIOPSY K increased oral fluid intake to enhance urinary9.1: We recommend kidney allograft biopsy when there is a dilution of oxalate (2C); persistent, unexplained increase in serum creatinine. K potassium or sodium citrate to alkalinize the (1C) urine (2C);9.2: We suggest kidney allograft biopsy when serum creati- K orthophosphate (2C); nine has not returned to baseline after treatment of acute K magnesium oxide (2C); rejection. (2D) K intensive hemodialysis to remove oxalate.9.3: We suggest kidney allograft biopsy every 7–10 days (2C) during delayed function. (2C) ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ANCA,9.4: We suggest kidney allograft biopsy if expected kidney antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody; ARB, angiotensin II function is not achieved within the first 1–2 months after receptor blocker; FSGS, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis; transplantation. (2D) GBM, glomerular basement membrane; HUS, hemolytic-9.5: We suggest kidney allograft biopsy when there is: uremic syndrome; IgA, immunoglobulin A; KTRs, kidney K new onset of proteinuria (2C); transplant recipients; MPGN, membranoproliferative glomer- K unexplained proteinuria X3.0 g per gram creatinine ulonephritis. or X3.0 g/24 h. (2C) 11: PREVENTING, DETECTING, AND TREATING NONADHERENCE10: RECURRENT KIDNEY DISEASE 11.1: Consider providing all KTRs and family members with10.1: We suggest screening KTRs with primary kidney disease education, prevention, and treatment measures to caused by FSGS for proteinuria (2C) at least: minimize nonadherence to immunosuppressive medi- K daily for 1 week (2D); cations. (Not Graded) K weekly for 4 weeks (2D); 11.2: Consider providing KTRs at increased risk for non- K every 3 months, for the first year (2D); adherence with increased levels of screening for K every year, thereafter. (2D) nonadherence. (Not Graded)10.2: We suggest screening KTRs with potentially treatable KTRs, kidney transplant recipients. recurrence of primary kidney disease from IgA nephropathy, MPGN, anti-GBM disease, or ANCA- 12: VACCINATION associated vasculitis for microhematuria, (2C) at least: 12.1: We recommend giving all KTRs approved, inactivated K once in the first month to determine a baseline (2D); vaccines, according to recommended schedules for the K every 3 months during the first year (2D); general population, except for HBV vaccination. (1D) K annually, thereafter. (2D) 12.1.1: We suggest HBV vaccination (ideally prior to10.3: During episodes of graft dysfunction in patients with transplantation) and HBsAb titers 6–12 weeks primary HUS, we suggest screening for thrombotic after completing the vaccination series. (2D) microangiopathy (e.g., with platelet count, peripheral We suggest annual HBsAb titers. (2D) smear for blood cell morphology, plasma haptoglobin, We suggest revaccination if the anti- and serum lactate dehydrogenase). (2D) body titer falls below 10 mIU/ml. (2D)10.4: When screening suggests possible treatable recurrent 12.2: We suggest avoiding live vaccines in KTRs. (2C) disease, we suggest obtaining an allograft biopsy. (2C) 12.3: We suggest avoiding vaccinations, except influenza10.5: Treatment of recurrent kidney disease: vaccination, in the first 6 months following kidney 10.5.1: We suggest plasma exchange if a biopsy shows transplantation. (2C) minimal change disease or FSGS in those with 12.3.1: We suggest resuming immunizations once primary FSGS as their primary kidney disease. patients are receiving minimal maintenance (2D) doses of immunosuppressive medications. (2C) 10.5.2: We suggest high-dose corticosteroids and cyclo- 12.3.2: We recommend giving all KTRs, who are at least phosphamide in patients with recurrent ANCA- 1 month post-transplant, influenza vaccination associated vasculitis or anti-GBM disease. (2D) prior to the onset of the annual influenza 10.5.3: We suggest using an ACE-I or an ARB for season, regardless of status of immunosuppres- patients with recurrent glomerulonephritis and sion. (1C) proteinuria. (2C) 12.4: We suggest giving the following vaccines to KTRs who, 10.5.4: For KTRs with primary hyperoxaluria, we due to age, direct exposure, residence or travel to suggest appropriate measures to prevent oxalate endemic areas, or other epidemiological risk factors are deposition until plasma and urine oxalate levels at increased risk for the specific diseases: are normal (2C), including: K rabies, (2D) K pyridoxine (2C); K tick-borne meningoencephalitis, (2D) K high calcium and low oxalate diet (2C); K Japanese B encephalitis-inactivated, (2D)4 Kidney International
  • 5. BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients review KMeningococcus, (2D) 13.2.4: We suggest reducing immunosuppressive med- KPneumococcus, (2D) ication in life-threatening CMV disease, and K Salmonella typhi-inactivated. (2D) CMV disease that persists in the face of 12.4.1: Consult an infectious disease specialist, a travel treatment, until CMV disease has resolved. (2D) clinic, or public health official for guidance on We suggest monitoring graft function whether specific cases warrant these vaccina- closely during CMV disease. (2D) tions. (Not Graded) CMV, cytomegalovirus; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients;KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; HBsAb, antibody to NAT, nucleic acid testinghepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus. 13.3: EPSTEIN-BARR VIRUS AND POST-TRANSPLANT13: VIRAL DISEASES LYMPHOPROLIFERATIVE DISEASE13.1: BK POLYOMA VIRUS 13.3.1: We suggest monitoring high-risk (donor EBV 13.1.1: We suggest screening all KTRs for BKV with seropositive/recipient seronegative) KTRs for quantitative plasma NAT (2C) at least: EBV by NAT (2C): K monthly for the first 3–6 months after K once in the first week after transplantation transplantation (2D); (2D); K then every 3 months until the end of the first K then at least monthly for the first 3–6 months post-transplant year (2D); after transplantation (2D); K whenever there is an unexplained rise in K then every 3 months until the end of the first serum creatinine (2D); and post-transplant year (2D); and K after treatment for acute rejection. (2D) K additionally after treatment for acute rejec- 13.1.2: We suggest reducing immunosuppressive med- tion. (2D) ications when BKV plasma NAT is persistently 13.3.2: We suggest that EBV-seronegative patients with greater than 10,000 copies/ml (107 copies/l). an increasing EBV load have immunosuppres- (2D) sive medication reduced. (2D)BKV, BK polyoma virus; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; 13.3.3: We recommend that patients with EBV disease,NAT, nucleic acid testing. including PTLD, have a reduction or cessation of immunosuppressive medication. (1C)13.2: CYTOMEGALOVIRUS EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; 13.2.1: CMV prophylaxis: We recommend that KTRs NAT, nucleic acid testing; PTLD, post-transplant lymphopro- (except when donor and recipient both have liferative disease. negative CMV serologies) receive chemoprophy- laxis for CMV infection with oral ganciclovir or 13.4: HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS 1, 2 AND VARICELLA valganciclovir for at least 3 months after ZOSTER VIRUS transplantation, (1B) and for 6 weeks after 13.4.1: We recommend that KTRs who develop a treatment with a T-cell-depleting antibody. (1C) superficial HSV 1, 2 infection be treated (1B) 13.2.2: In patients with CMV disease, we suggest weekly with an appropriate oral antiviral agent (e.g., monitoring of CMV by NAT or pp65 antigene- acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famciclovir) until all mia. (2D) lesions have resolved. (1D) 13.2.3: CMV treatment: 13.4.2: We recommend that KTRs with systemic HSV We recommend that all patients with 1, 2 infection be treated (1B) with intravenous serious (including most patients with acyclovir and a reduction in immunosuppres- tissue invasive) CMV disease be treated sive medication. (1D) with intravenous ganciclovir. (1D) We recommend that intravenous acy- We recommend that CMV disease in clovir continue until the patient has a adult KTRs that is not serious (e.g., clinical response, (1B) then switch to episodes that are associated with mild an appropriate oral antiviral agent clinical symptoms) be treated with (e.g., acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famci- either intravenous ganciclovir or oral clovir) to complete a total treatment valganciclovir. (1D) duration of 14–21 days. (2D) We recommend that all CMV disease 13.4.3: We suggest using a prophylactic antiviral agent in pediatric KTRs be treated with for KTRs experiencing frequent recurrences of intravenous ganciclovir. (1D) HSV 1,2 infection. (2D) We suggest continuing therapy until 13.4.4: We recommend that primary VZV infection CMV is no longer detectable by plasma (chicken pox) in KTRs be treated (1C) NAT or pp65 antigenemia. (2D) with either intravenous or oral acyclovir orKidney International 5
  • 6. review BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients valacyclovir; and a temporary reduction in For patients who develop new-onset amount of immunosuppressive medication. (2D) proteinuria (either urine protein/crea- We recommend that treatment be tinine ratio 41 or 24-h urine protein continued at least until all lesions have 41 g on two or more occasions), scabbed. (1D) perform an allograft biopsy with im- 13.4.5: We recommend that uncomplicated herpes munofluorescence and electron micro- zoster (shingles) be treated (1B) with oral scopy. (Not Graded) [Based on KDIGO acyclovir or valacyclovir (1B), at least until all Hepatitis C Recommendation 4.4.4] lesions have scabbed. (1D) 13.5.6: We suggest that patients with HCV-associated 13.4.6: We recommend that disseminated or invasive glomerulopathy not receive interferon. (2D) herpes zoster be treated (1B) with intravenous [Based on KDIGO Hepatitis C Recommenda- acyclovir and a temporary reduction in the tion 4.4.5] amount of immunosuppressive medication (1C), ALT, alanine aminotransferase; HCV, hepatitis C virus; at least until all lesions have scabbed. (1D) KDIGO, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes; KTRs, 13.4.7: We recommend that prevention of primary kidney transplant recipients. varicella zoster be instituted in varicella- susceptible patients after exposure to individuals 13.6: HEPATITIS B VIRUS with active varicella zoster infection (1D): 13.6.1: We suggest that any currently available induc- K varicella zoster immunoglobulin (or intrave- tion and maintenance immunosuppressive med- nous immunoglobulin) within 96 h of ex- ication can be used in HBV-infected KTRs. (2D) posure (1D); 13.6.2: We suggest that interferon treatment should K if immunoglobulin is not available or more generally be avoided in HBV-infected KTRs. than 96 h have passed, a 7-day course of oral (2C) acyclovir begun 7–10 days after varicella 13.6.3: We suggest that all HBsAg-positive KTRs exposure. (2D) receive prophylaxis with tenofovir, entecavir, orHSV, herpes simplex virus; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; lamivudine. (2B)VZV, varicella zoster virus. Tenofovir or entecavir are preferable to lamivudine, to minimize development13.5: HEPATITIS C VIRUS of potential drug resistance, unless 13.5.1: We suggest that HCV-infected KTRs be treated medication cost requires that lamivu- only when the benefits of treatment clearly dine be used. (Not Graded) outweigh the risk of allograft rejection due to During therapy with antivirals, mea- interferon-based therapy (e.g., fibrosing chole- sure HBV DNA and ALT levels every 3 static hepatitis, life-threatening vasculitis). (2D) months to monitor efficacy and to [Based on KDIGO Hepatitis C Recommenda- detect drug resistance. (Not Graded) tion 2.1.5] 13.6.4: We suggest treatment with adefovir or teno- 13.5.2: We suggest monotherapy with standard inter- fovir for KTRs with lamivudine resistance feron for HCV-infected KTRs in whom the (45 log10 copies/ml rebound of HBV-DNA). (2D) benefits of antiviral treatment clearly outweigh 13.6.5: Screen HBsAg-positive patients with cirrhosis the risks. (2D) [Based on KDIGO Hepatitis C for hepatocellular carcinoma every 12 months Recommendations 2.2.4 and 4.4.2] with liver ultrasound and alpha feto-protein. 13.5.3: We suggest that all conventional current induc- (Not Graded) (See Recommendation 19.3). tion and maintenance immunosuppressive regi- 13.6.6: We suggest that patients who are negative for mens can be used in HCV-infected patients. HBsAg and have HBsAb titer o10 mIU/ml (2D) [Based on KDIGO Hepatitis C Recom- receive booster vaccination to raise the titer to mendation 4.3] X100 mIU/ml. (2D) 13.5.4: Measure ALT in HCV-infected patients monthly ALT, alanine aminotransferase; HBsAb, antibody to hepatitis B for the first 6 months and every 3–6 months, surface antigen; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, thereafter. Perform imaging annually to look hepatitis B virus; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients. for cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. (Not Graded) [Based on KDIGO Hepatitis C 13.7: HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS Recommendation 4.4.1] (See Recommendation 13.7.1: If not already done, screen for HIV infection. 19.3) (Not Graded) 13.5.5: Test HCV-infected patients at least every 3–6 13.7.2: To determine antiretroviral therapy, refer HIV- months for proteinuria. (Not Graded) [Based on infected KTRs to an HIV specialist, who should KDIGO Hepatitis C Recommendation 4.4.4] pay special attention to drug-drug interactions6 Kidney International
  • 7. BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients review and appropriate dosing of medications. (Not after treatment with an antilymphocyte anti- Graded) body. (2C)HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; KTRs, kidney transplantrecipients. 15: DIABETES MELLITUS 15.1: SCREENING FOR NEW-ONSET DIABETES AFER14: OTHER INFECTIONS TRANSPLANTATION14.1: URINARY TRACT INFECTION 15.1.1: We recommend screening all nondiabetic KTRs 14.1.1: We suggest that all KTRs receive UTI prophy- with fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose laxis with daily trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole tolerance testing, and/or HbA1c (1C) at least: for at least 6 months after transplantation. (2B) K weekly for 4 weeks (2D); 14.1.2: For allograft pyelonephritis, we suggest initial K every 3 months for 1 year (2D); and hospitalization and treatment with intravenous K annually, thereafter. (2D) antibiotics. (2C) 15.1.2: We suggest screening for NODAT with fastingKTRs, kidney transplant recipients; UTI, urinary tract infection. glucose, oral glucose tolerance testing, and/or HbA1c after starting, or substantially increasing14.2: PNEUMOCYSTIS JIROVECII PNEUMONIA the dose, of CNIs, mTORi, or corticosteroids. 14.2.1: We recommend that all KTRs receive PCP (2D) prophylaxis with daily trimethoprim- CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; HbA1c , hemoglobin A1c ; KTRs, sulfamethoxazole for 3–6 months after trans- kidney transplant recipients; mTORi, mammalian target of plantation. (1B) rapamycin inhibitor(s); NODAT, new-onset diabetes after 14.2.2: We suggest that all KTRs receive PCP prophy- transplantation. laxis with daily trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for at least 6 weeks during and after treatment 15.2: MANAGING NODAT OR DIABETES PRESENT AT for acute rejection. (2C) TRANSPLANTATION 14.2.3: We recommend that KTRs with PCP diagnosed 15.2.1: If NODAT develops, consider modifying the by bronchial alveolar lavage and/or lung biopsy immunosuppressive drug regimen to reverse or be treated with high-dose intravenous trimetho- ameliorate diabetes, after weighing the risk of prim-sulfamethoxazole, corticosteroids, and a rejection and other potential adverse effects. reduction in immunosuppressive medication. (Not Graded) (1C) 15.2.2: Consider targeting HbA1c 7.0–7.5%, and 14.2.4: We recommend treatment with corticosteroids avoid targeting HbA1c p6.0%, especially if for KTRs with moderate to severe PCP (as hypoglycemic reactions are common. (Not defined by PaO2 o70 mm Hg in room air or an Graded) alveolar gradient of 435 mm Hg). (1C) 15.2.3: We suggest that, in patients with diabetes,KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; PaO2, partial pressure of aspirin (65–100 mg/d) use for the primaryoxygen in arterial blood; PCP, Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. prevention of CVD be based on patient preferences and values, balancing the risk for14.3: TUBERCULOSIS ischemic events to that of bleeding. (2D) 14.3.1: We suggest that TB prophylaxis and treatment CVD, cardiovascular disease; HbA1c , hemoglobin A1c ; NODAT, regimens be the same in KTRs as would be used new-onset diabetes after transplantation. in the local, general population who require therapy. (2D) 16: HYPERTENSION, DYSLIPIDEMIAS, TOBACCO USE, AND 14.3.2: We recommend monitoring CNI and mTORi OBESITY blood levels in patients receiving rifampin. (1C) 16.1: HYPERTENSION Consider substituting rifabutin for 16.1.1: We recommend measuring blood pressure at rifampin to minimize interactions with each clinic visit. (1C) CNIs and mTORi. (Not Graded) 16.1.2: We suggest maintaining blood pressure atCNI, calcineurin inhibitor; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; o130 mm Hg systolic and o80 mm Hg diastolicmTORi, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor(s); TB, if X18 years of age, and o90th percentile fortuberculosis. sex, age, and height if o18 years old. (2C) 16.1.3: To treat hypertension (Not Graded):14.4: CANDIDA PROPHYLAXIS K use any class of antihypertensive agent; 14.4.1: We suggest oral and esophageal Candida K monitor closely for adverse effects and drug- prophylaxis with oral clotrimazole lozenges, drug interactions; and nystatin, or fluconazole for 1–3 months K when urine protein excretion X1 g/d for X18 after transplantation, and for 1 month years old and X600 mg/m2/24 h for o18Kidney International 7
  • 8. review BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients years old, consider an ACE-I or an ARB as HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; KDOQI, Kidney first-line therapy. Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative; KTRs, kidney transplantACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angio- recipients; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.tensin II receptor blocker. 16.3: TOBACCO USE16.2: DYSLIPIDEMIAS 16.3.1: Screen and counsel all KTRs, including adoles-(These recommendations are based on KDOQI Dyslipidemia cents and children, for tobacco use, and recordGuidelines and are thus not graded). the results in the medical record. (Not Graded) 16.2.1: Measure a complete lipid profile in all adult K Screen during initial transplant hospitaliza- (X18 years old) and adolescent (puberty to 18 tion. years old) KTRs [Based on KDOQI Dyslipide- K Screen at least annually, thereafter. mia Recommendation 1]: 16.3.2: Offer treatment to all patients who use tobacco. K 2–3 months after transplantation; (Not Graded) K 2–3 months after a change in treatment or KTRs, kidney transplant recipients. other conditions known to cause dyslipidemias; K at least annually, thereafter. 16.4: OBESITY 16.2.2: Evaluate KTRs with dyslipidemias for secondary 16.4.1: Assess obesity at each visit. (Not Graded) causes [Based on KDOQI Dyslipidemia K Measure height and weight at each visit, in Recommendation 3] adults and children. For KTRs with fasting triglycerides K Calculate BMI at each visit. X500 mg/dl (X5.65 mmol/l) that can- K Measure waist circumference when weight not be corrected by removing an and physical appearance suggest obesity, but underlying cause, treat with: BMI is o35 kg/m2. K Adults: therapeutic lifestyle changes 16.4.2: Offer a weight-reduction program to all obese and a triglyceride-lowering agent. KTRs. (Not Graded) [Based on KDOQI Recommenda- BMI, body mass index; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients. tion 4.1]; K Adolescents: therapeutic lifestyle 17: CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE MANAGEMENT changes [Based on KDOQI Recom- 17.1: Consider managing CVD at least as intensively in KTRs mendation 5.1]. as in the general population, with appropriate diag- For KTRs with elevated LDL-C: nostic tests and treatments. (Not Graded) K Adults: If LDL-C X100 mg/dl (X2.59 17.2: We suggest using aspirin (65–100 mg/d) in all patients mmol/l), treat to reduce LDL-C to with atherosclerotic CVD, unless there are contra- o100 mg/dl (o2.59 mmol/l) [Based indications. (2B) on KDOQI Guideline 4.2]; CVD, cardiovascular disease; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients. K Adolescents: If LDL-C X130 mg/dl (X3.36 mmol/l), treat to reduce LDL-C 18: CANCER OF THE SKIN AND LIP to o130 mg/dl (o3.36 mmol/l) [Based 18.1: We recommend that KTRs, especially those who have on KDOQI Guideline 5.2]. fair skin, live in high sun-exposure climates, have For KTRs with normal LDL-C, ele- occupations requiring sun exposure, have had signifi- vated triglycerides and elevated non- cant sun exposure as a child, or have a history of skin HDL-C: cancer, be told that their risk of skin and lip cancer is K Adults: If LDL-C o100 mg/dl (o2.59 very high. (1C) mmol/l), fasting triglycerides X200 18.2: We recommend that KTRs minimize life-long sun mg/dl (X2.26 mmol/l), and non- exposure and use appropriate ultraviolet light-blocking HDL-C X130 mg/dl (X3.36 mmol/l), agents. (1D) treat to reduce non-HDL-C to 18.3: We suggest that adult KTRs perform skin and lip self- o130 mg/dl (o3.36 mmol/l) [Based examinations and report new lesions to a health-care on KDOQI Guideline 4.3]; provider. (2D) K Adolescents: If LDL-C o130 mg/dl 18.4: For adult KTRs, we suggest that a qualified health (o3.36 mmol/l), fasting triglycerides professional, with experience in diagnosing skin cancer, X200 mg/dl (X2.26 mmol/l), and non- perform annual skin and lip examination on KTRs, HDL-C X160 mg/dl (X4.14 mmol/l), except possibly for KTRs with dark skin pigmentation. treat to reduce non-HDL-C to (2D) o160 mg/dl (o4.14 mmol/l) [Based 18.5: We suggest that patients with a history of skin or on KDOQI Guideline 5.3]. lip cancer, or premalignant lesions, be referred to8 Kidney International
  • 9. BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients review and followed by a qualified health professional 21.2.1: Reasonable monitoring intervals would be (Not with experience in diagnosing and treating skin cancer. Graded): (2D) K In CKD stages 1–3T, for serum calcium18.6: We suggest that patients with a history of skin cancer be and phosphorus, every 6–12 months; and offered treatment with oral acitretin, if there are no for PTH, once, with subsequent intervals contraindications. (2B) depending on baseline level and CKDKTRs, kidney transplant recipients. progression. K In CKD stage 4T, for serum calcium and19: NON-SKIN MALIGNANCIES phosphorus, every 3–6 months; and for PTH,19.1: Develop an individualized screening plan for each KTR every 6–12 months. that takes into account the patient’s past medical and K In CKD stage 5T, for serum calcium and family history, tobacco use, competing risks for death, phosphorus, every 1–3 months; and for PTH, and the performance of the screening methodology. every 3–6 months. (Not Graded) K In CKD stages 3–5T, measurement of alkaline19.2: Screen for the following cancers as per local guidelines phosphatases annually, or more frequently in for the general population (Not Graded): the presence of elevated PTH. K Women: cervical, breast, and colon cancer; 21.2.2: In CKD patients receiving treatments for K Men: prostate and colon cancer. CKD–MBD, or in whom biochemical abnorm-19.3: Obtain hepatic ultrasound and alpha feto-protein every alities are identified, it is reasonable to increase 12 months in patients with compensated cirrhosis. (Not the frequency of measurements to monitor for Graded) [See Recommendations 13.5.4 (HCV) and efficacy and side-effects. (Not Graded) 13.6.5 (HBV).] 21.2.3: It is reasonable to manage these abnormalities asHBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; KTRs, kidney for patients with CKD stages 3–5. (Not Graded)transplant recipients. 21.3: In patients with CKD stages 1–5T, we suggest that 25(OH)D (calcidiol) levels might be measured,20: MANAGING CANCER WITH REDUCTION OF and repeated testing determined by baseline values and IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE MEDICATION interventions. (2C)20.1: We suggest consideration be given to reducing immuno- 21.4: In patients with CKD stages 1–5T, we suggest that suppressive medications for KTRs with cancer. (2C) vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency be corrected 20.1.1: Important factors for consideration include (Not using treatment strategies recommended for the general Graded): population. (2C) K the stage of cancer at diagnosis; 21.5: In patients with an eGFR greater than approximately K whether the cancer is likely to be exacerbated 30 ml/min/1.73 m2, we suggest measuring BMD in the by immunosuppression; first 3 months after kidney transplant if they receive K the therapies available for the cancer; corticosteroids or have risk factors for osteoporosis as K whether immunosuppressive medications in- in the general population. (2D) terfere with ability to administer the standard 21.6: In patients in the first 12 months after kidney chemotherapy. transplant with eGFR greater than approximately20.2: For patients with Kaposi sarcoma, we suggest using 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 and low BMD, we suggest that mTORi along with a reduction in overall immuno- treatment with vitamin D, calcitriol/alfacalcidiol, or suppression. (2C) bisphosphonates be considered. (2D)KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; mTORi, mammalian target 21.6.1: We suggest that treatment choices be influencedof rapamycin inhibitor(s). by the presence of CKD–MBD, as indicated by abnormal levels of calcium, phosphorus, PTH,21: TRANSPLANT BONE DISEASE alkaline phosphatases, and 25(OH)D. (2C)(See KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis, 21.6.2: It is reasonable to consider a bone biopsy toEvaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney guide treatment, specifically before the use ofDisease–Mineral and Bone Disorder [CKD–MBD].) bisphosphonates due to the high incidence of21.1: In patients in the immediate post-kidney transplant adynamic bone disease. (Not Graded) period, we recommend measuring serum calcium and 21.6.3: There are insufficient data to guide treatment phosphorus at least weekly, until stable. (1B) after the first 12 months. (Not Graded)21.2: In patients after the immediate post-kidney transplant 21.7: In patients with CKD stages 4–5T, we suggest that BMD period, it is reasonable to base the frequency of testing not be performed routinely, because BMD does monitoring serum calcium, phosphorus, and PTH on not predict fracture risk as it does in the general the presence and magnitude of abnormalities, and the population and BMD does not predict the type of rate of progression of CKD. (Not Graded) kidney transplant bone disease. (2B)Kidney International 9
  • 10. review BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients21.8: In patients with CKD stages 4–5T with a known low 24.3: We suggest minimizing or avoiding corticosteroid use BMD, we suggest management as for patients with in children who still have growth potential. (2C) CKD stages 4–5 not on dialysis. (2C) rhGH, recombinant human growth hormone.25(OH)D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D; BMD, bone mineral density;CKD, chronic kidney disease; CKD–MBD, chronic kidney 25: SEXUAL FUNCTION AND FERTILITYdisease–mineral and bone disorder; eGFR, estimated glomerular 25.1: SEXUAL FUNCTIONfiltration rate; KDIGO, Kidney Disease: Improving Global 25.1.1: Evaluate adults for sexual dysfunction afterOutcomes; PTH, parathyroid hormone. kidney transplantation. (Not Graded) 25.1.2: Include discussion of sexual activity and22: HEMATOLOGICAL COMPLICATIONS counseling about contraception and safe sex22.1: Perform a complete blood count at least (Not Graded): practices in follow-up of adult KTRs. (Not K daily for 7 days, or until hospital discharge, Graded) whichever is earlier; KTRs, kidney transplant recipients. K 2–3 times per week for weeks 2–4; K weekly for months 2–3; 25.2: FEMALE FERTILITY K monthly for months 4–12; 25.2.1: We suggest waiting for at least 1 year after K then at least annually, and after any change in transplantation before becoming pregnant, and medication that may cause neutropenia, anemia or only attempting pregnancy when kidney func- thrombocytopenia tion is stable with o1 g/d proteinuria. (2C)22.2: Assess and treat anemia by removing underlying causes 25.2.2: We recommend that MMF and EC-MPS be whenever possible and using standard measures applic- discontinued or replaced with azathioprine before able to CKD. (Not Graded) pregnancy is attempted. (1A)22.3: For treatment of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, 25.2.3: We suggest that mTORi be discontinued or include treatment of underlying causes whenever replaced before pregnancy is attempted. (2D) possible. (Not Graded) 25.2.4: Counsel female KTRs with child-bearing poten-22.4: We recommend using ACE-Is or ARBs for initial tial and their partners about fertility and treatment of erythrocytosis. (1C) pregnancy as soon as possible after transplanta-ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angio- tion. (Not Graded)tensin II receptor blocker; CKD, chronic kidney disease. 25.2.5: Counsel pregnant KTRs and their partners about the risks and benefits of breastfeeding.23: HYPERURICEMIA AND GOUT (Not Graded)23.1: We suggest treating hyperuricemia in KTRs when there 25.2.6: Refer pregnant patients to an obstetrician with are complications, such as gout, tophi, or uric acid expertise in managing high-risk pregnancies. stones. (2D) (Not Graded) 23.1.1: We suggest colchicine for treating acute EC-MPS, enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium; KTRs, kidney gout, with appropriate dose reduction for transplant recipients; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; mTORi, reduced kidney function and concomitant CNI mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor(s). use. (2D) 23.1.2: We recommend avoiding allopurinol in patients receiving azathioprine. (1B) 25.3: MALE FERTILITY 23.1.3: We suggest avoiding NSAIDs and COX-2 25.3.1: We suggest that male KTRs and their partners be inhibitors whenever possible. (2D) advised that:CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; COX-2, cyclo-oxygenase-2; KTRs, K male fertility may improve after kidneykidney transplant recipients; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflam- transplantation (2D);matory drug. K pregnancies fathered by KTRs appear to have no more complications than those in the24: GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT general population. (2D)24.1: We recommend measuring growth and development in 25.3.2: We recommend that adult male KTRs be children (1C): informed of the possible risks of infertility from K at least every 3 months if o3 years old (including mTORi. (1C) head circumference) (Not Graded); We suggest that adult male KTRs who K every 6 months in children X3 years until final adult wish to maintain fertility should con- height. (Not Graded) sider avoiding mTORi, or banking24.2: We recommend using rhGH 28 IU/m2/wk (or 0.05 mg/ sperm prior to mTORi use. (2C) kg/d) in children with persistent growth failure after KTRs, kidney transplant recipients; mTORi, mammalian target kidney transplantation. (1B) of rapamycin inhibitor(s).10 Kidney International
  • 11. BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients review26: LIFESTYLE fact that programs in some areas of the world may need to26: We recommend that patients are strongly encouraged to adopt cost-saving measures to make transplantation possible. follow a healthy lifestyle, with exercise, proper diet, and This clinical practice guideline is based on the best weight reduction as needed. (1C) [See also Obesity, information available as of March 2009. It is designed to Recommendation 16.4.1] provide information and assist decision-making. It is not intended to define a standard of care, and should not be27: MENTAL HEALTH construed as one, nor should it be interpreted as prescribing27: Include direct questioning about depression and anxiety an exclusive course of management. Variations in practice as part of routine follow-up care after kidney transplan- will inevitably and appropriately occur when clinicians take tation. (Not Graded) into account the needs of individual patients, available resources, and limitations unique to an institution or type ofDISCUSSION practice. Every health-care professional making use of theseThis guideline describes the prevention and treatment of recommendations is responsible for evaluating the appro-complications that occur after kidney transplantation. It does priateness of applying them in the setting of any particularnot include pretransplant care. Specifically, it does not clinical situation.address issues pertinent to the evaluation and managementof candidates for transplantation, or the evaluation and METHODSselection of kidney donors. Although many of the issues that Organization of evidence-based recommendationsare pertinent to KTRs are also pertinent to recipients of other The KDIGO Co-Chairs appointed the Co-Chairs of the Workorgan transplants, we intend this guideline to be for KTRs Group, who assembled the Work Group, including individuals withonly. expertise in adult and pediatric nephrology, transplant surgery and This guideline covers only those aspects of care likely to medicine, critical-care medicine, cardiology, infectious diseases,be different for KTRs than for patients in the general oncology, and epidemiology, along with a patient advocate. An Evidence Review Team (ERT) at the Tufts Center for Kidney Diseasepopulation. For example, we deal with the diagnosis Guideline Development and Implementation at Tufts Medicaland treatment of acute rejection, but not with the diagnosis Center in Boston, MA, USA was contracted to provide expertiseand treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. It also in guideline development methodology and systematic evidencemakes recommendations pertinent to the management of review.immunosuppressive medications and their complications,including infections, malignancies, and cardiovascular Literature searchesdisease. This guideline ends before the kidney fails, either For each key clinical question that the Work Group developed, theby death of the recipient with a functioning graft or on ERT coordinated a systematic review of the literature. For eachreturn to dialysis or retransplantation. It does not deal with topic, the systematic review included the development of well-the preparation of KTRs for return to dialysis or retrans- specified research questions, literature searches, data extraction ofplantation. primary studies and existing systematic reviews, tabulation of data, This guideline was written for doctors, nurses, coordina- assessment of the quality of individual studies, and assessment of thetors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals who overall quality of the literature and summary conclusions. Afterdirectly or indirectly care for KTRs. It was not developed review of the evidence with the ERT, the Work Group took thefor administrative or regulatory personnel per se. For example, primary role of writing the recommendations and rationale narrative, and retained final responsibility for the content of theno attempts were made to develop clinical performance recommendation statements and the accompanying narrative.measures. Similarly, this guideline was not written for patients The ERT, with assistance from the Cochrane Renal Group indirectly, although carefully crafted explanations of guideline Sydney Australia, performed literature searches in MEDLINE,recommendations could potentially provide useful informa- Cochrane Central Registry for trials, and Cochrane database oftion for patients. The recommendations are meant to provide systematic reviews from 1985 through February 2008. The Worka basis for joint decision making between patients and Group added additional studies through November 2008. Thephysicians or other health care providers. electronic searches were designed to maximize sensitivity for studies This guideline was written for transplant-care providers of KTRs with conditions and/or interventions of interest. Studythroughout the world. As such, it addresses issues that are eligibility was based on population, intervention, comparator,important to the care of KTRs in both developed and outcome, and study design relevant to each clinical question. Fordeveloping countries, but nowhere was the quality of care most topics, the searches focused on randomized controlled trials with at least 100 participants and 6-month duration of follow-up; orcompromised for utilitarian purposes. Nevertheless, we multivariable analyses of large cohort studies. Exceptions were maderecognize that, in many parts of the world, treatment of for topics with sparse evidence or for trials in children. Unpublishedend-stage kidney disease (chronic kidney disease stage 5) with and non-peer-reviewed articles were excluded. In addition, existingdialysis is not feasible, and transplantation can only be offered systematic reviews that used similar study eligibility criteria wereas a lifesaving therapy if it is practical and cost-effective. included. For topics in which these existed, searches for de novoTherefore, in providing a comprehensive, evidence-based studies were limited to publication dates after the end of theguideline for the care of the KTRs, we were cognizant of the searches within the systematic reviews.Kidney International 11
  • 12. review BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipientsTable 3 | Balance of benefits and harm Limitations of methodsWhen there was evidence to determine the balance of medical benefits Although the literature searches were intended to be comprehensive,and harm of an intervention to a patient, conclusions were categorized as they were not exhaustive. MEDLINE and various Cochranefollows: databases were the only databases searched. However, important K Net benefits=the intervention clearly does more good than harm. studies known to the domain experts that were missed by the K Tradeoffs=there are important tradeoffs between the benefits and electronic literature searches were added to retrieved articles and harm. K Uncertain=it is not clear whether the intervention does more good reviewed by the Work Group. Not all topics and subtopics covered than harm. by this guideline could be thoroughly and systematically reviewed. K No net benefits=the intervention clearly does not do more good Decisions to restrict the topics were made to focus the systematic than harm. reviews on those topics in which existing evidence was thought to be likely to provide support for the guideline. Although nonrando- mized studies were reviewed, the majority of the ERT and Work Group resources were devoted to review of randomized trials, asSummary of data and assessment of study quality these were deemed to be most likely to provide data to support levelFor each included study, detailed data extraction forms were 1 recommendations with very high- or high-quality (A or B)completed. For each research question with sufficient data, summary evidence.tables were created, which contain a brief description of theoutcome, baseline characteristics of the population, intervention, DISCLOSUREresults, and methodological quality. The summary tables are KDIGO makes every effort to avoid any actual or reasonablyavailable at perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside Each trial was graded for study quality using a standardized relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of asystem used for previous KDIGO guidelines that follows the member of the Work Group. All members of the Work Group areapproach recommended by the US Agency for Healthcare Research required to complete, sign, and submit a disclosure and attestationand Quality for its Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.5–7 In brief, form showing all such relationships that might be perceived or actualfeatures of study design, reporting, and other considerations are conflicts of interest. This document is updated annually andassessed to estimate the likelihood of bias from low (A, good information is adjusted accordingly. All reported information isquality) to high (C, poor quality). printed in the full version publication of the guideline and is on file at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF), Managing Agent for KDIGO. Bertram L. Kasiske, MD (Work Group Co-Chair) has served as anUse of the GRADE approach to assess the body of evidence Advisor/Consultant for Astellas, LithoLink, Novartis, and Wyeth. HeA structured approach, based on Grading of Recommendations has received Grant/Research support from Bristol–Myers Squibb,Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), was used to Genzyme, and Merck-Schering Plough. Martin G. Zeier, MD, FASNgrade the quality of the overall evidence and the strength of (Work Group Co-Chair) has received Grant/Research support fromrecommendations.8–10 The ‘quality of a body of evidence’ refers to Astellas, Novartis, and Parexel. Jeremy R. Chapman, MD, FRACP, FRCPthe extent to which our confidence in an estimate of effect is has served as an Advisor/Consultant for Astellas, Hoffmann-LaRoche,sufficient to support a particular recommendation.10 The ‘strength Novartis, and Wyeth. He has Grant/Research support from Bristol-of a recommendation’ indicates the extent to which one can be Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Wyeth. Henrik Ekberg, MD, PhD hasconfident that adherence to the recommendation will do more good served as an Advisor/Consultant for Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Life Cycle Pharma, Novartis, and Wyeth. He hasthan harm. also served as Speaker for Astellas and Hoffmann-LaRoche. Michelle In brief, each clinical outcome was ranked by the Work Group as A. Josephson, MD has served as an Advisor/Consultant for Digitasto its level of clinical importance. The quality of the overall body of Health, MKSAP and Wyeth. She has also served as Speaker forevidence was then determined based on the quality grades for all Hoffmann-LaRoche and has received Grant/Research Support fromoutcomes of interest, taking into account explicit judgments about Amgen, Astellas, and Wyeth. Bryce A. Kiberd, MD has served asthe relative importance of each outcome. There are four final Speaker for Hoffmann-LaRoche. Henri A. Kreis, MD has served as ancategories for the quality of overall evidence, ranging from A to D Advisor/Consultant for Novimmune. John M. Newmann, PhD, MPH(Table 2).8 The net health benefit was determined based has served as an Advisor/Consultant for Arbor Research Collaborativeon the anticipated balance of benefits and harm across all clinically and Renaissance Health Care. Flavio G. Vincenti, MD has receivedimportant outcomes. The assessment of net medical benefit was Grant/Research support from Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Novartis, and Wyeth.affected by the judgment of the Work Group and the ERT (Table 3). The following individuals reported no relevant financial relationships: The strength of a recommendation is graded Level 1, Level 2, or Samuel Abariga, MD, MS; Ethan M. Balk, MD MPH; Michael Cheung, MA;‘Not Graded’ (Table 1). Recommendations can be for or Jonathan Craig, MBChB, MM (Clin Epi), DCH, FRACP, PhD; Amy Earley,against doing something. The strength of a recommendation is BS; Catherine A. Garrey, RN, BA, CCTC; Michael D. Green, MD, MPH;determined not just by the quality of the evidence, but also by other, Vivekanand Jha, MD, FRCP; Ruth A. McDonald, MD; Gregorio T. Obrador,often complex, judgments regarding the size of the net medical MD, MPH; Gowri Raman, MD; and Martin Wagner, MD, MS.benefit, values and preferences, and costs. KDIGO also includesungraded statements for any recommendation that meets any of the ACKNOWLEDGMENTSfollowing criteria: it provides guidance based on common sense; it KDIGO gratefully acknowledges the following sponsors that makeprovides reminders of the obvious; it is not sufficiently specific to our initiatives possible: Abbott, Amgen, Belo Foundation, Coca-Colaallow application of evidence to the issue, and therefore is not based Company, Dole Food Company, Genzyme, Hoffmann-LaRoche,on systematic, evidence review. Common examples include JC Penney, NATCO—The Organization for Transplant Professionals,recommendations about frequency of testing, referral to specialists, National Kidney Foundation—Board of Directors, Novartis, Robertand routine medical care. and Jane Cizik Foundation, Shire, Transwestern Commercial12 Kidney International
  • 13. BL Kasiske et al.: KDIGO guideline for kidney transplant recipients reviewServices, and Wyeth. KDIGO is supported by a consortium of sponsors Hepatitis C in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2008; 73(Suppl 109):and no funding is accepted for the development of specific S1–S99. 6. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD–MBDguidelines. Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease–REFERENCES mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD). Kidney Int 2009; 76(Suppl 113): 1. Kasiske BL, Vazquez MA, Harmon WE et al. Recommendations for the S1–S130. outpatient surveillance of renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Reference Guide for 2000; 11: S1–S86. Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, version 1.0. Agency 2. European Best Practice Guidelines Expert Group on Renal for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Transplantation. Section IV: long-term management of the transplant Human Services: Rockville, MD, 2007. recipient. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17(Suppl 4): 1–67. 8. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength 3. Eckardt KU, Kasiske B. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490–1494. (KDIGO). Nat Rev Nephrol (in revision). 9. Uhlig K, Macleod A, Craig J et al. Grading evidence and recommendations 4. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int 2006; 70: recipients. Am J Transplant 2009; 9(Suppl 3): S1–S157. 2058–2065. 5. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. KDIGO clinical practice 10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. Going from evidence to guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 1049–1051.Kidney International 13