Advertisement
American Journal of Kidney Diseases

Important Outcomes for Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Nominal Group and Qualitative Study

      Background

      Immunosuppression is associated with a number of adverse outcomes, but typically it is the physician, not the patient, who decides on the drug regimen. The perspective of the patient in clinical decision making is increasingly recognized in other settings, but the perspectives of kidney transplant recipients are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to elicit patient perspectives and priorities for outcomes after transplant and the reasons underpinning these priorities.

      Methods

      Outcome identification and ranking were undertaken using a focus/nominal group technique. Adult kidney transplant recipients, purposively sampled from 3 transplant centers, participated in 1 of 8 nominal groups. Each group (6-10 participants) listed and ranked outcomes relevant to immunosuppressant medications.

      Results

      57 participants identified 47 outcomes relevant to immunosuppression after transplant surgery. Transplant survival consistently was ranked more highly than any other outcome, followed by damage to other organs, survival, and cancer. Only 12% of participants ranked their own survival as more important than transplant survival. In contrast, the relative importance of side effects differed among participants. Themes underpinning priorities were concern for fatal and serious events; relevance to life circumstance; acceptance, trivialization, and tolerance; and future outlook. Participants described a willingness to tolerate side effects, dependent on personal relevance and ability to manage the side effect.

      Conclusions

      Transplant survival appears to be more important than life itself to kidney transplant recipients, suggesting that they may be willing to tolerate a higher level of immunosuppression than is assumed by clinicians and researchers.

      Index Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Kidney Diseases
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Webster A.C.
        • Craig J.C.
        • Simpson J.M.
        • Jones M.P.
        • Chapman J.R.
        Identifying high risk groups and quantifying absolute risk of cancer after kidney transplantation: a cohort study of 15,183 recipients.
        Am J Transplant. 2007; 7: 2140-2151
        • Kasiske B.L.
        • Snyder J.J.
        • Gilbertson D.
        • Matas A.J.
        Diabetes mellitus after kidney transplantation in the United States.
        Am J Transplant. 2003; 3: 178-185
        • Matas A.J.
        • Gillingham K.J.
        • Humar A.
        • et al.
        2202 Kidney transplant recipients with 10 years of graft function: what happens next?.
        Am J Transplant. 2008; 8: 2410-2419
        • Kugler C.
        • Geyer S.
        • Gottlieb J.
        • Simon A.
        • Haverich A.
        • Dracup K.
        Symptom experience after solid organ transplantation.
        J Psychosom Res. 2009; 66: 101-110
        • Prasad G.V.R.
        • Nash M.M.
        • McFarlane P.A.
        • Zaltzman J.S.
        Renal transplant recipient attitudes toward steroid use and steroid withdrawal.
        Clin Transplant. 2003; 17: 135-139
        • Pascual J.
        • Zamora J.
        • Galeano C.
        • Royuela A.
        • Quereda C.
        Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 1 (CD005632)
        • Webster A.C.
        • Lee V.W.
        • Chapman J.R.
        • Craig J.C.
        Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR-I; sirolimus and everolimus) for primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 4 (CD004290)
        • Webster A.C.
        • Ruster L.P.
        • McGee R.
        • et al.
        Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for kidney transplant recipients.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 5 (CD003897)
        • Webster A.C.
        • Taylor R.R.
        • Chapman J.R.
        • Craig J.C.
        Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 4 (CD003961)
        • Sprangers B.
        • Kuypers D.R.
        • Vanrenterghem Y.
        Immunosuppression: does one regimen fit all?.
        Transplantation. 2011; 92: 251-261
        • Murray M.A.
        • Brunier G.
        • Chung J.O.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of factors influencing decision-making in adults living with chronic kidney disease.
        Patient Educ Counsel. 2009; 76: 149-158
        • Orsino A.
        • Cameron J.I.
        • Seidl M.
        • Mendelssohn D.
        • Stewart D.E.
        Medical decision-making and information needs in end-stage renal disease patients.
        Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2003; 25: 324-331
        • Kahn K.L.M.D.
        • Schneider E.C.M.D.M.
        • Malin J.L.M.D.P.
        • Adams J.L.P.
        • Epstein A.M.M.D.M.A.
        Patient centered experiences in breast cancer: predicting long-term adherence to tamoxifen use.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: 431-439
        • Brody D.S.
        • Miller S.M.
        • Lerman C.E.
        • Smith D.G.
        • Caputo G.C.
        Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes.
        J Gen Intern Med. 1989; 4: 506-511
        • Liem Y.S.
        • Bosch J.L.
        • Arends L.R.
        • Heijenbrok-Kal M.H.
        • Hunink M.G.M.
        Quality of life assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Value Health. 2007; 10: 390-397
        • Tong A.
        • Sainsbury P.
        • Chadban S.
        • et al.
        Patients' experiences and perspectives of living with CKD.
        Am J Kidney Dis. 2009; 53: 689-700
        • Koller A.
        • Denhaerynck K.
        • Moons P.
        • Steiger J.
        • Bock A.
        • De Geest S.
        Distress associated with adverse effects of immunosuppressive medication in kidney transplant recipients.
        Prog Transplant. 2010; 20: 40-46
        • Delbecq A.L.
        • Van de Ven A.H.
        • Gustafson D.H.
        Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes.
        Scott, Foresman and Co, Glenview, IL1975
        • Corner J.
        • Wright D.
        • Hopkinson J.
        • Gunaratnam Y.
        • McDonald J.W.
        • Foster C.
        The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study.
        Br J Cancer. 2007; 96: 875-881
        • Redman S.
        • Carrick S.
        • Cockburn J.
        • Hirst S.
        Consulting about priorities for the NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre: how good is the nominal group technique.
        Aust N Z J Public Health. 1997; 21: 250-256
        • Morton R.L.
        • Tong A.
        • Webster A.C.
        • Snelling P.
        • Howard K.
        Characteristics of dialysis important to patients and family caregivers: a mixed methods approach.
        Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011; 26: 4038-4046
        • Sanderson T.
        • Morris M.
        • Calnan M.
        • Richards P.
        • Hewlett S.
        Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: the rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes.
        Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010; 62: 647-656
        • Marcén R.
        Immunosuppressive drugs in kidney transplantation: impact on patient survival, and incidence of cardiovascular disease, malignancy and infection.
        Drugs. 2009; 69: 2227-2243
        • Opelz G.
        • Dohler B.
        Influence of immunosuppressive regimens on graft survival and secondary outcomes after kidney transplantation.
        Transplantation. 2009; 87: 795-802
        • Wong G.
        • Chapman J.R.
        Cancers after renal transplantation.
        Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2008; 22: 141-149
        • Aspinal F.
        • Hughes R.
        • Dunckley M.
        • Addington-Hall J.
        What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life?.
        Int J Nurs Stud. 2006; 43: 393-403
        • Corbin F.
        • Strauss A.
        Basic of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.
        3rd ed. Sage Publications Inc, Los Angeles, CA2008
        • Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products
        ICH: E 2 A: Clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting—step 5.
        (CPMP/ICH/377/95) (Accessed November 30, 2011)
        • ANZDATA
        2010 Annual Report.
        Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, Adelaide, South Australia2010
        • Rosenberger J.
        • Geckova A.M.
        • van Dijk J.P.
        • Roland R.
        • van den Heuvel W.J.A.
        • Groothoff J.W.
        Factors modifying stress from adverse effects of immunosuppressive medication in kidney transplant recipients.
        Clin Transplant. 2005; 19: 70-76
        • Moons P.
        • Vanrenterghem Y.
        • Hooff J.P.
        • et al.
        Health-related quality of life and symptom experience in tacrolimus-based regimens after renal transplantation: a multicentre study.
        Transpl Int. 2003; 16: 653-664
        • Teixeira de Barros C.
        • Cabrita J.
        Self-report of symptom frequency and symptom distress in kidney transplant recipients.
        Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1999; 8: 395-403
        • Habwe V.Q.
        Posttransplantation quality of life: more than graft function.
        Am J Kidney Dis. 2006; 47(4): S98-S110
        • Orr A.
        • Willis S.
        • Holmes M.
        • Britton P.
        • Orr D.
        Living with a kidney transplant: a qualitative investigation of quality of life.
        J Health Psychol. 2007; 12: 653-662
        • Fallon M.
        • Gould D.
        • Wainwright S.P.
        Stress and quality of life in the renal transplant patient: a preliminary investigation.
        J Adv Nurs. 1997; 25: 562-570
        • Nilsson M.
        • Forsberg A.
        • Backman L.
        • Lennerling A.
        • Persson L.-O.
        The perceived threat of the risk for graft rejection and health-related quality of life among organ transplant recipients.
        J Clin Nurs. 2011; 20: 274-282
        • Lindqvist R.
        • Carlsson M.
        • Sjoden P.O.
        Coping strategies of people with kidney transplants.
        J Adv Nurs. 2004; 45: 47-52
        • White C.
        • Gallagher P.
        Effect of patient coping preferences on quality of life following renal transplantation.
        J Adv Nurs. 2010; 66: 2550-2559
        • Peters T.G.
        • Spinola K.N.
        • West J.C.
        • et al.
        Differences in patient and transplant professional perceptions of immunosuppression-induced cosmetic side effects.
        Transplantation. 2004; 78: 537-543
        • Ekberg H.
        • Kyllonen L.
        • Madsen S.
        • Grave G.
        • Solbu D.
        • Holdaas H.
        Clinicians underestimate gastrointestinal symptoms and overestimate quality of life in renal transplant recipients: a multinational survey of nephrologists.
        Transplantation. 2007; 84: 1052-1054
        • van Dijk M.
        • Niesing J.
        • van der Heide J.J.H.
        • et al.
        Gastrointestinal symptoms in kidney transplant recipients: what about silent sufferers?.
        Prog Transplant. 2010; 20: 75-80
        • Ashing-Giwa K.T.
        The contextual model of HRQoL: a paradigm for expanding the HRQoL framework.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 297-307