Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionSolid organ transplant patients are counselled regarding increased risk of cancer (principally due to their need for lifelong immunosuppression) and it ranks as one of their biggest self-reported worries. Post-transplantation cancer is common, associated with increased healthcare costs and emerging as a leading cause of post-transplant mortality. However, epidemiology of cancer post-transplantation remains poorly understood, with limitations including translating data from different countries and national data being siloed across different registries and/or data warehouses.Methods and analysisStudy methodology for Epidemiology of Cancer after Solid Organ Transplantation involves record linkage between the UK Transplant Registry (from NHS Blood and Transplant), Hospital Episode Statistics (for secondary care episodes from NHS Digital), National Cancer Registry (from cancer registration data hosted by Public Health England) and the National Death Registry (from NHS Digital). Deterministic record linkage will be conducted by NHS Digital, with a fully anonymised linked dataset available for analysis by the research team. The study cohort will consist of up to 85 410 solid organ transplant recipients,who underwent a solid organ transplant in England between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 2015, with up-to-date outcome data.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Confidentiality Advisory Group (reference: 16/CAG/0121), Research Ethics Committee (reference: 15/YH/0320) and Institutional Review Board (reference: RRK5471). The results of this study will be presented at national and international conferences, and manuscripts with results will be submitted for publication in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. The information produced will also be used to develop national evidence-based clinical guidelines to inform risk stratification to enable risk-based clinical follow-up.Trial registration numberNCT02991105.

Background Incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) is known to peak in winter months. This is likely influenced by seasonality of commonly associated acute illnesses. We set out to assess seasonal mortality trends for patients who develop AKI across the English National Health Service (NHS) and to better understand associations with patient ‘case-mix’. Methods The study cohort included all hospitalised adult patients in England who triggered a biochemical AKI alert in 2017. We modelled the impact of season on 30-day mortality using multivariable logistic regression; adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), primary diagnosis, comorbidity (RCCI), elective/emergency admission, peak AKI stage and community/hospital acquired AKI. Seasonal odds ratios for AKI mortality were then calculated and compared across individual NHS hospital trusts. Results The crude 30-day mortality for hospitalised AKI patients was 33% higher in winter compared to summer. Case-mix adjustment for a wide range of clinical and demographic factors did not fully explain excess winter mortality. The adjusted odds ratio of patients dying in winter vs. summer was 1.25 (1.22–1.29), this was higher than for Autumn and Spring vs. Summer, 1.09 (1.06–1.12) and 1.07 (1.04–1.11) respectively and varied across different NHS trusts (9 out of 90 centres outliers). Conclusion We have demonstrated an excess winter mortality risk for hospitalised patients with AKI across the English NHS, which could not be fully explained by seasonal variation in patient case-mix. Whilst the explanation for worse winter outcomes is not clear, unaccounted differences including ‘winter-pressures’ merit further investigation.

Background Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is a common and serious clinical syndrome. There is increasing recognition of heterogeneity in observed AKI across different clinical settings. In this analysis we have utilised a large national dataset to outline, for the first time, differences in burden of hospital acquired AKI (H-AKI) and mortality risk across different treatment specialities in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted using a large national dataset of patients who triggered a biochemical AKI alert in England during 2019. This dataset was enriched through linkage with NHS hospitals administrative and mortality data. Episodes of H-AKI were identified and attributed to the speciality of the supervising consultant during the hospitalisation episode in which the H-AKI alert was generated. Associations between speciality and death in hospital or within 30 days of discharge (30-day mortality) was modelled using logistic regression, adjusting for patient age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, AKI severity, season and method of admission. Results In total, 93,196 episodes of H-AKI were studied. The largest number of patients with H-AKI were observed under general medicine (21.9%), care of the elderly (18.9%) and general surgery (11.2%). Despite adjusting for differences in patient case-mix, 30-day mortality risk was consistently lower for patients in surgical specialities compared to general medicine, including general surgery (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.7) and trauma and orthopaedics (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.56). Mortality risk was highest in critical care (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.03) and oncology (OR 1.74, CI 1.54 to 1.96). Conclusions Significant differences were identified in the burden of H-AKI and associated mortality risk for patients across different specialities in the English NHS. This work can help inform future service delivery and quality improvement activity for patients with AKI across the NHS.

To investigate the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis for waitlisted kidney failure patients with a priori stratification. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Online databases MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collection, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched between database inception and 1 March 2021. All comparative studies that assessed all cause mortality for transplantation versus dialysis in patients with kidney failure waitlisted for transplant surgery were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was done using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, with heterogeneity investigated by subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression. The search identified 48 observational studies with no randomised controlled trials (n=1 245 850 patients). In total, 92% (n=44/48) of studies reported a long term (at least one year) survival benefit associated with transplantation compared with dialysis. However, 11 of those studies identified stratums in which transplantation offered no statistically significant benefit over remaining on dialysis. In 18 studies suitable for meta-analysis, kidney transplantation showed a survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.54; P<0.001), with significant heterogeneity even after subgroup/sensitivity analyses or meta-regression analysis. Kidney transplantation remains the superior treatment modality for most patients with kidney failure to reduce all cause mortality, but some subgroups may lack a survival benefit. Given the continued scarcity of donor organs, further evidence is needed to better inform decision making for patients with kidney failure. PROSPERO CRD42021247247.