Allowing Altruistic Donors to be Altruistic


If you were embarking on a search to find and interview the healthiest individuals on the planet, speaking with kidney donors would be a great place to begin. People who have donated one of their kidneys share many traits in common. They have incredible compassion, mental strength, and are willing to undergo a major operation that carries a rare (but not zero percent) risk of complications to benefit a friend, a family member, or in some cases, a complete stranger. But even all these traits do not qualify a person to become a kidney donor.

As nephrologists, our duty in evaluating prospective kidney donors is to identify any potential health problems that may put the donor in harm's way. A prospective donor that is too young may not have accumulated the chance to develop certain diseases, making donation risky. A donor that is too old may carry excessive surgical risks, making the donation procedure unsafe. An intensive search for malignancy and transmissible diseases is required because of the risk to the donor and the potential recipient. Any history of kidney problems, including microalbuminuria, proteinura, a family history of kidney disease, and recurrent kidney stones, precludes kidney donation. A myriad of other considerations are also made by the transplant team, including a careful psychiatric evaluation of the donor and a number of blood tests, evaluating for ABO compatibility and HLA matching, which lead to possibilities of direct donation, paired exchange, or transplant chains outlined in this blog post.

Unfortunately, there is one risk whose occurrence is difficult to predict and whose impact is impossible to quantify: loss of health insurance. Described in this New York times article is the case of a father who donated his kidney to his daughter who had lost her renal function in the face of lupus nephritis. While he gained the chance to make an impact in his daughter's life, he lost his health and life insurance despite appeals from his nephrologist stating that his remaining kidney was healthy.

The Affordable Care Act recently upheld by the Supreme Court will protect people from being denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions beginning in 2014. However, it will not prevent insurance companies from raising premiums on patients they consider higher risk, which may include kidney donors despite numerous prospective studies with long-term follow-up attesting to the safety of undergoing a uninephrectomy.

It is not clear how we can accurately assess the risk of insurance loss or rise in premiums for prospective donors, but one thing is clear. We need to allow altruistic donors to be altruistic.


Posted by Karandeep Singh

Publish or Perish

In academic medicine we are all aware of the pressure to publish, and the metric by which many judge the quality of the papers that are published by a given author is the impact factor of the journal in which their papers appear. The impact factor of a journal is simply the average number of citations per article divided by the total number of “citable articles”. This method of assessing the quality of journals has become increasingly important over the last 20 years and has led to some changes in publication practices. For example, reviews tend to get cited more often than original research papers which is why review journals often have a relatively high impact factor (e.g Current Opinions in Nephrology and Hypertension in our field). Case reports, in contrast, rarely get cited and as a result, journals have moved away from publishing case reports and towards publishing reviews.

Ten years ago, Thomson Reuters (who generate the impact factors) realized that some journals were gaming the system to increase their citation count by publishing review articles and editorials that would preferentially cite papers published in their own journal. TR changed their algorithm to detect this kind of behavior and it is much less common as a result. Which brings me to this great website: Retraction Watch. This is a site which details on a daily basis papers which have been retracted from the literature for various reasons some sinister and some more innocent. Yesterday, they reported on the case of a series of articles retracted for citation manipulation which resulted in 3 journals losing their impact factors for this year. The articles were review papers which almost exclusively cited papers in another journal called “Cell Transplantation” and the authors were editorial board members of this journal. All in all, if these papers were excluded from the citation record, the impact factor of this journal would decrease from 6.2 to 4.1 for last year! This is a great post detailing the whole saga.

See here for a paper detailing the history of the impact factor.

Of course, we in the nephrology world would never get caught up in something like this…