Accurate measurement of GFR is critical for the evaluation of new therapies and the care of renal transplant recipients. Although not accurate in renal transplantation, GFR is often estimated using creatinine-based equations. Cystatin C is a marker of GFR that seems to be more accurate than creatinine. Equations to predict GFR based on the serum cystatin C concentration have been developed, but their accuracy in transplantation is unknown. GFR was estimated using four equations (Filler, Le Bricon, Larsson, and Hoek) that are based on serum cystatin C and seven equations that are based on serum creatinine in 117 adult renal transplant recipients. GFR was measured using radiolabeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid ( 99m Tc-DTPA), and the bias, precision, and accuracy of each equation were determined. The mean 99m Tc-DTPA GFR was 58 ؎ 23 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . The cystatin C-based equations of Filler and Le Bricon had the lowest bias (؊1.7 and ؊3.8 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ), greatest precision (11.4 and 11.8 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ), and highest accuracy (87 and 89% within 30% of measured GFR, respectively). The cystatin C equations remained accurate even when the measured GFR was >60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . The creatinine-based equations were not as accurate, with only 53 to 80% of estimates within 30% of measured GFR. Cystatin C-based equations are more accurate at predicting GFR in renal transplant recipients than traditional creatininebased equations. Further prospective studies with repetitive measurement of cystatin C are needed to determine whether cystatin C-based estimates of GFR will be sufficiently accurate to monitor long-term allograft function.

Background/Aim: Renal transplant recipients (RTR) and patients with native chronic kidney disease (CKD) have similar complications. It is not known how the management of CKD in RTR differs from that of patients with native CKD. This study compares the management of complications related to CKD between RTR and patients with native CKD. Methods: Cross-sectional study of all RTR with stage 4 or 5 CKD (n = 72). The control group consisted of 72 native CKD patients matched by glomerular filtration rate (within 2 ml/min/1.73 m²). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to account for potential confounding variables. Results: Multivariate analysis revealed RTR to more likely have uncontrolled hypertension (adjusted odds ratio AOR 3.8; 95% confidence interval CI 1.3–10.7), less likely to be on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (AOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.04–0.32), more likely to be anemic and not be on erythropoietin (AOR 6.4; 95% CI 0.99–41.9), and more likely to have dyslipidemia and not be on statin (AOR 4.3; 95% CI 1.4–13.4). Conclusions: This study suggests that the management of non-RTR in a multidisciplinary CKD clinic differs significantly from the CKD management in a traditional transplant clinic. A disease management approach like a multidisciplinary clinic may be an appropriate model for the future.

Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) withdrawal has been used as a strategy to improve renal allograft function, however, it also carries risk of acute rejection. We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials that involved CNI withdrawal from a sirolimusbased immunosuppressive regimen. The search strategy yielded six trials (n = 1047 patients) reported in eight publications. CNI withdrawal from sirolimusbased therapy, was associated with an increased risk of acute rejection (risk difference, 6%; 95% CI 2-10%, p = 0.002) but a higher creatinine clearance (mean difference, 7.49 mL/min; 95% CI 5.08-9.89 mL/min, p < 0.00001) at 1 year compared to continued CNI and sirolimus therapy. Graft loss (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI 0.46-1.64, p = 0.66) and death (relative risk, 0.88; CI 0.40-1.96, p = 0.76) were similar in both groups at 1 year. Hypertension was significantly reduced in the CNI withdrawal group (relative risk, 0.56; 95% CI 0.40-0.78, p = 0.0006). CNI withdrawal from sirolimus-based therapy is associated with an increased risk of acute rejection in the short term with a significant improvement in renal function and a reduction in hypertension. Longer follow-up is needed to determine if these changes will result in a significant improvement in patient and graft survival.

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is an inherited monogenic renal disease characterised by the accumulation of clusters of fluid-filled cysts in the kidneys and is caused by mutations in PKD1 or PKD2 genes. ADPKD genetic diagnosis is complicated by PKD1 pseudogenes located proximal to the original gene with a high degree of homology. The next generation sequencing (NGS) technology including whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), is becoming more affordable and its use in the detection of ADPKD mutations for diagnostic and research purposes more widespread. However, how well does NGS technology compare with the Gold standard (Sanger sequencing) in the detection of ADPKD mutations? Is a question that remains to be answered. We have evaluated the efficacy of WES, WGS and targeted enrichment methodologies in detecting ADPKD mutations in the PKD1 and PKD2 genes in patients who were clinically evaluated by ultrasonography and renal function tests. Our results showed that WES detected PKD1 mutations in ADPKD patients with 50% sensitivity, as the reading depth and sequencing quality were low in the duplicated regions of PKD1 (exons 1–32) compared with those of WGS and target enrichment arrays. Our investigation highlights major limitations of WES in ADPKD genetic diagnosis. Enhancing reading depth, quality and sensitivity of WES in the PKD1 duplicated regions (exons 1–32) is crucial for its potential diagnostic or research applications.