Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

Toward Establishing Core Outcome Domains For Trials in Kidney Transplantation: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology—Kidney Transplantation Consensus Workshops

Tong, Allison PhD1,2; Gill, John MD3; Budde, Klemens MD4; Marson, Lorna MD, FRCS5; Reese, Peter P. MD, MSCE6; Rosenbloom, David7; Rostaing, Lionel MD, PhD8; Wong, Germaine MBBS, PhD1,2,9; Josephson, Michelle A. MD10; Pruett, Timothy L. MD11; Warrens, Anthony N. MD12; Craig, Jonathan C. MBChB, PhD1,2; Sautenet, Benedicte MD, PhD1,2,13,14; Evangelidis, Nicole BSocSc1,2; Ralph, Angelique F. BPsych (Hons)1,2; Hanson, Camilla S. BPsych (Hons)1,2; Shen, Jenny I. MD15; Howard, Kirsten PhD1; Meyer, Klemens MD16; Perrone, Ronald D. MD16; Weiner, Daniel E. MD16; Fung, Samuel MBBS, FRCP17; Ma, Maggie K.M. MBBS, MPH18; Rose, Caren PhD3; Ryan, Jessica MBBS, PhD19; Chen, Ling-Xin MD10; Howell, Martin PhD1,2; Larkins, Nicholas MBBS, MMed (Clin Epi)2; Kim, Siah MBBS, PhD2; Thangaraju, Sobhana MD20; Ju, Angela BSc (Hons)1,2; Chapman, Jeremy R. FRACP9on behalf of the SONG-Tx Investigators

doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001774
Original Clinical Science—General
Social Media Collection

Background Treatment decisions in kidney transplantation requires patients and clinicians to weigh the benefits and harms of a broad range of medical and surgical interventions, but the heterogeneity and lack of patient-relevant outcomes across trials in transplantation makes these trade-offs uncertain, thus, the need for a core outcome set that reflects stakeholder priorities.

Methods We convened 2 international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation stakeholder consensus workshops in Boston (17 patients/caregivers; 52 health professionals) and Hong Kong (10 patients/caregivers; 45 health professionals). In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed the development and implementation of core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation.

Results Seven themes were identified. Reinforcing the paramount importance of graft outcomes encompassed the prevailing dread of dialysis, distilling the meaning of graft function, and acknowledging the terrifying and ambiguous terminology of rejection. Reflecting critical trade-offs between graft health and medical comorbidities was fundamental. Contextualizing mortality explained discrepancies in the prioritization of death among stakeholders—inevitability of death (patients), preventing premature death (clinicians), and ensuring safety (regulators). Imperative to capture patient-reported outcomes was driven by making explicit patient priorities, fulfilling regulatory requirements, and addressing life participation. Specificity to transplant; feasibility and pragmatism (long-term impacts and responsiveness to interventions); and recognizing gradients of severity within outcome domains were raised as considerations.

Conclusions Stakeholders support the inclusion of graft health, mortality, cardiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, life participation) in a core outcomes set. Addressing ambiguous terminology and feasibility is needed in establishing these core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation.

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation (SONG-Tx) convened 2 international consensus workshops in Boston and Hong Kong with patients/caregivers and health professionals to discuss the development and implementation of core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation. Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

1 Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

2 Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia.

3 Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

4 Department of Nephrology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.

5 Transplant Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

6 Renal Division, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

7 ESRD Network 18, Los Angeles, CA.

8 Clinique Universitaire de Nephrologie, CHU Michallon, Grenoble, France.

9 Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, NSW, Westmead, Australia.

10 Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

11 Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

12 School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

13 Department of Nephrology and Clinical Immunology, University Francois Rabelais, Tours Hospital, Tours, France.

14 INSERM, U1246, Tours, Franc Tours, France.

15 Department of Nephrology, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.

16 William B. Schwartz Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.

17 Jockey Club Nephrology & Urology Centre, Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong.

18 The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong.

19 Department of Nephrology, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

20 Depatment of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.

Received 26 January 2017. Revision received 9 March 2017.

Accepted 13 March 2017.

A complete list of the SONG-Tx workshop investigators is provided in Supplementary File 1, SDC,

This project is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 1128564 and Program Grant 1092597. AT is supported by a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship 1106716.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

A.T. participated in the research design, data collection, data analysis, and drafted the article. J.G., K.B., L.M., P.P.R., D.R., L.R., G.W., M.A.J., T.L.P., A.W., J.C.C., B.S., N.E., A.F.R., C.S.H., J.I.S., K.H., K.M., R.P., S.F., M.M., C.R., J.R., L.X.C., M.H., N.L., S.K., S.T., A.J., and J.R.C. participated in the research design, data collection, data analysis, and provided intellectual input on the article and contributed to article writing.

Correspondence: Allison Tong, PhD, Centre for Kidney Research. The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW 2145, Sydney, Australia. (

Supplemental digital content (SDC) is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text, and links to the digital files are provided in the HTML text of this article on the journal’s Web site (

Kidney transplantation offers many patients with end-stage kidney disease improvements in survival and quality of life that vastly exceed being on dialysis.1,2 Globally, 80 000 kidney transplants are performed each year, with most high-income countries achieving a 1-year graft survival rate of more than 95%.3-5 Unfortunately, similar success is yet to be seen in long-term graft survival, which remains at 50% to 70% at 10 years.6-10 Also, immunosuppression after transplantation is associated with an increased risk of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and infection.11-14 Consequently, treatment decisions require patients and clinicians to weigh the risks of mortality, graft survival, medical comorbidities, symptoms, and quality of life.

The plethora of outcomes, selective reporting of positive results, and omission of patient-centered outcomes in trials conducted in kidney transplant recipients, and that are mostly short-term,15-20 make these trade-offs uncertain. A core outcome set that reflects the priorities of patients and health professionals has been demonstrated to improve the relevance and reliability of clinical trials.21-26 A core outcome set is a consensus-based standardized set of outcomes that should be reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health27 (Figure 1). Researchers can add outcomes based on other considerations such as responsiveness to the intervention, resource constraints, and regulatory compliance. In the past decade, core outcome sets have been established across many medical disciplines,25,27-32 which have improved reporting in trials.33



The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology—Kidney Transplantation (SONG-Tx) was initiated in 2015 and is focused on developing core outcome domains (ie, what to measure) for all trials in kidney transplantation.17 Having completed an international Delphi survey34 to identify critically important outcome domains by all stakeholder groups, a consensus workshop was convened for patients, caregivers and health professionals to review the potential core outcome domains. This workshop report describes stakeholder reflections and deliberations on the core outcomes domains in kidney transplantation, and recommendations for the way forward.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Context and Scope

Two SONG-Tx consensus workshops were convened: 1 in Boston during the American Transplant Congress (June 13, 2016), and 1 in Hong Kong at The Congress of The Transplantation Society (August 20, 2016). Before the workshops, we conducted an online 3-round Delphi survey to identify outcome domains that patients, caregivers and health professionals prioritized as critically important for all trials in kidney transplantation. A brief overview of the SONG-Tx Delphi survey is provided to set the context for the workshop discussion. The full study will be published separately. The Delphi survey included outcome domains reported in trials in kidney transplantation (as identified in our systematic review) and from previous studies with kidney transplant recipients.16,35-39 In total, 461 patients/caregivers and 557 health professionals from 79 countries participated. The critically important outcome domains (mean scores, 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) common to both groups were: graft loss, graft function, acute rejection, chronic rejection, death, infection, cancer (nonskin), cardiovascular disease, skin cancer, and ability to work.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Participants and Contributors

We invited patients and caregivers with current or previous experience of kidney transplantation, and health professionals (physicians [nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists], nursing and allied health professionals, researchers, regulators, and industry representatives) with expertise in kidney transplantation. To maximize potential for dissemination and implementation, we also invited key decision-makers in professional societies (eg, The Transplantation Society, American Society of Transplantation, American Society of Transplant Surgeons, Asian Society of Transplantation, British Transplant Society, European Society of Transplantation, and the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand); regulatory agencies (eg, Food and Drug and Administration [FDA], Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS]), funding organizations (eg, National Institutes for Health [NIH]), guideline organizations (eg, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes), renal registries, and editorial roles in transplantation journals.

In total, 69 (17 patients/caregivers and 52 health professionals) attended the Boston Workshop, and 55 (10 patients/caregivers and 45 health professionals) attended the Hong Kong workshop. Patients/caregivers were from the host countries, United States and Hong Kong. The 87 health professionals were from 22 countries including the United States (n = 26), Australia (n = 21), United Kingdom (n = 6), Canada (n = 4), Singapore (n = 4), China-Hong Kong (n = 3), 2 each from Belgium, France, Germany, India, Norway, Philippines, Spain, South Korea, Austria, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Switzerland (n = 1), Thailand (n = 1), The Netherlands (n = 1), and Vietnam (n = 1). Ten health professionals attended both workshops.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Workshop Program and Process

Participants received a copy of the program and materials 1 week before each workshop. During the workshop, we presented the SONG-Tx process and the preliminary results of the SONG-Tx Delphi Survey. To promote exchange of diverse perspectives and knowledge, attendees were allocated to break out groups (Boston, 6 groups; Hong Kong, 5 groups) with a mix of patients/caregivers and health professionals (from different disciplines and countries). At least 1 member of the SONG-Tx Steering Group or Executive Committee was present in each group to provide clarification as needed. The facilitators/cofacilitators received a run sheet (Supplemental File 2, SDC, at a preworkshop briefing session.

Facilitators asked attendees for initial reflections and feedback, focusing on the 10 critical outcome domains identified in the SONG-Tx Delphi Survey (listed above). Three to 5 core outcome domains are recommended for feasibility, however 4 of the critical outcomes were all graft-related. Also, among the 10 critical outcome domains, only 1 (ability to work) was patient-reported (ie, assesses how the patient feels or functions from their perspective).40-42 Therefore, we included questions about combining graft-related outcomes, and including patient-reported outcomes. Each group presented a summary of their discussion to the full group, which was facilitated by JG (Boston) and JCC (Hong Kong). All discussions were audio-taped and transcribed in full.

AT reviewed the transcripts line-by-line and used HyperResearch (ResearchWare Inc. United States. Version 3.0) software to identify and code concepts inductively from the transcripts. Similar concepts were grouped into themes reflecting the range of perspectives on identifying core outcome domains in kidney transplantation. The preliminary analysis was sent to the facilitators to ensure that the range and depth of perspectives were included. Also, we sent a copy of the draft report to all investigators to obtain additional feedback, which was integrated into the final report.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Synthesis of Workshop Discussion

The discussion was summarized into 7 major themes: reinforcing the paramount importance of graft outcomes, reflecting critical trade-offs, contextualizing mortality, imperative to capture patient-reported outcomes, specificity to transplantation, feasibility and pragmatism, and recognizing gradients of severity. For each theme, we described the diversity of opinion, which may not necessarily reflect the views of all participants. Supplementary File 3, SDC ( shows the groups that contributed to each theme. Brief references are made to the Delphi survey results as necessary. Selected quotations supporting each theme are provided in Table 1. Table 2 provides a summary of recommendations based on the workshop discussions.





Back to Top | Article Outline

Reinforcing the Paramount Importance of Graft Outcomes

As expected by participants, graft-related outcomes (graft loss, graft function, acute rejection, and chronic rejection) were the overriding priorities among stakeholders. From the patients’ perspective, graft outcomes were the same—all a threat to graft survival, and the importance placed on this was underpinned by a dread of dialysis. Health professionals drew distinctions between different pathophysiology or causes of chronic rejection.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Prevailing Dread of Dialysis

Graft loss signalled a dominating fear and aversion to dialysis. For patients, this was the top priority over death and a matter of quality of life. Some patients were “willing to risk not surviving a transplant rather than go on dialysis.” For patients, the possibility of graft failure was an ongoing concern and some questioned whether the drugs would threaten graft survival. Health professionals suggested that long waiting times for transplantation explained the high priority given to graft survival, particularly in countries with very limited access to kidney transplantation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Distilling the Meaning of Graft Function

Patients stated that graft function was equivalent to not requiring dialysis. It was important that the graft was functioning well or working normally. Health professionals noted that graft function may be a “surrogate” of outcomes that were of direct importance (eg, graft survival, hospitalization, well-being) and questioned whether function mattered on its own. They speculated that patients assumed that graft function (ie, creatinine) was an indicator of graft loss and return to dialysis and reasoned that glomerular filtration rate (GFR) did not necessarily change how the patients felt. Change/stability in kidney function was regarded by health professionals as more important than the “absolute” value as some patients may have suboptimal kidney function but remain stable. They suggested that graft function should be defined in a “patient-focused” way.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Terrifying and Ambiguous Terminology of Rejection

Health professionals believed that the term “rejection” carried catastrophic connotations and were aware that patients could misunderstand rejection invariably as graft loss. Also, the notion of rejecting their donor’s kidney implied guilt. Some patients believed that rejection could be managed with medications but if left untreated could result in death. Health professionals elaborated on different pathways and consequences of the different types of rejection such as cellular versus antibody mediated rejection which garnered attention in terms of risk for graft loss; and they speculated that patients may not be aware of these differences. Although some forms of acute rejection were readily treatable, they suggested that it was still an important outcome particularly if there was an equivalence of treatments. Chronic rejection was consistently regarded by health professionals as ill-defined and not easily measurable. However, the uncertainties in the “multifactorial causes…and flimsy biological epidemiological understanding of chronic graft rejection” and lack of effective treatment, was thought to explain the high importance.

Although there were important distinctions among graft-related outcomes, participants suggested that they could be consolidated into 1 domain—graft health, and the specific outcomes may have addressed in the subsequent phrase of developing the specific core outcome measure for graft health. Also, combining graft outcomes into 1 domain would potentially allow for other patient-reported outcomes to be included in the core outcome set.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Reflecting Critical Trade-Offs

Participants reiterated that core outcomes should encompass the trade-offs between graft health and clinical complications of immunosuppression as these were “2 sides of the same coin.” Health professionals emphasized the importance of infection, cancer, and cardiovascular disease as they were the main causes of death, and the main areas of focus for physicians. Kidney transplantation would not cure other comorbidities or complications such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. One patient said, “I have taken my immunosuppressant drugs for a long time and I have got a lot of side effects. I have got a lot more considerations whether to get my second transplant.” However, participants acknowledged that rare outcomes may be underemphasized by patients who had not experienced that particular outcome.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Contextualizing Mortality

In the Delphi survey, health professionals gave higher importance to mortality than patients/caregivers and this discrepancy suggests a more nuanced view of death.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Inevitability of Death

Patients regarded death as inevitable and an ongoing risk even if they did not want to die. Ultimately, death could not be prevented, whereas, efforts could be made to prevent graft failure. Even if a graft failed, they would survive on dialysis, to which some regarded as worse than death—“everyone has to face death, what I would like to have is a good quality of life rather than to face death.” Some felt they had already “faced” or “cheated” death so it was no longer a primary concern. One patient articulated, “I don’t think we would ever mind that doctors want to avoid death. That’s your point, of being advocates for life. We’re advocates for our own lives.”

Back to Top | Article Outline

Preventing Premature Death

Health professionals emphasized their responsibility to prevent early death, for example death caused by a cardiovascular event immediately posttransplant. They admitted having difficulty accepting death and “frightened of killing someone with immunosuppression.” Also, health professionals were conscious to protect the kidney particularly given the organ scarcity. They cautioned against conceptualizing death as a single endpoint, and advised to distinguish early/unexpected death from expected death relative to the patient’s age.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Ensuring Safety and Quality

For regulators, mortality was a safety issue in drug development though some clinicians urged that this should be “balanced against the potential for drugs to prolong graft function” as it was the top priority for patients and physicians. Also, health professionals routinely included death as a quality parameter. One physician explained, “death within a year at my institution requires a formal debriefing and conversation as to what happened. I was a little surprised that wasn’t number 1.” Some health professionals also highlighted the increased risk of mortality on dialysis.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Imperative to Capture Patient-Reported Outcomes

Making Patient Priorities Explicit

Although quality of life, in terms of both well-being and functioning, were recognized to be implicit in graft-related outcomes and medical complications, the need to explicitly include patient-reported outcomes was undisputed—“we need to elevate quality of life into the core outcome set, to give patients a voice.” This would overtly and comprehensively capture the balance between mortality and graft survival, and quality of life/burden of side effects. Some patients were more concerned about lifestyle impacts due to immunosuppression, rather than the graft function. Quality of life was also regarded as an important measure of success of a graft. Some suggested that rating scales should be designed such that it would address quality of life dimensions that patients prioritized to be most important. Using generic surveys that broadly assessed all domains of quality of life negated the need to develop an exhaustive list, however others noted that there a good parameter for specific transplant related quality of life was lacking, and that quality of life was too vague. They suggested distilling quality of life into the most important dimensions. Stakeholders emphasized the need to be cognizant of cultural sensitivities and relevance if it was to be applied globally, considering cultural differences.

Back to Top | Article Outline

External Mandates

Health professionals also remarked on the increasing focus on patient-reported outcomes among regulatory/funding agencies, and registries. They specifically referenced the US NIH investment into patient-reported outcome measures through the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), US FDA drug approval requirements to include PROMS; new requirement from the CMS Quality and Assurance and Performance Improvement for centres to assess quality of life; and plans in the European Dialysis and Transplant Registry and Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry to incorporate patient-reported outcomes. Quality adjusted life years also necessitated quality of life measures for policy decisions.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Life Participation

Ability to work was the most important patient-reported outcome domain in the Delphi survey, however, it did not apply across all age groups or life stages, and social systems. Thus, participants suggested expanding the scope to encompass the range of life activities that gave patients a sense of fulfilment, enjoyment, control, and hope. While being able to work provided a purpose and “normality” in life, and encompassed multiple psychosocial aspects, patients/caregivers agreed that this should be broadened to include life activities in view of the expectation that transplant enabled patients to live their life and to do everything they wanted to do. One caregiver noted that the ability to participate in life motivated patients and gave them a reason for overcoming the challenges in living with a transplant. Health professionals also supported widening the scope to life participation with specific suggestions including studying, hobbies, house work, caring for the family, and social activities. Assessing ability to participate in meaningful activities was amenable to a measure that allowed patients to define their goals and milestones, and to capture the impact of symptoms and complications (eg, gastrointestinal problems, pain, sleep disturbance, vision problem). Although other outcome domains such as cognition and depression were important, these were regarded as relevant to achieving life participation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Specificity to Transplantation

Health professionals were uncertain about assigning priority to outcomes that were not perceived to be directly specific or attributable to transplantation. For example, they argued that depression may not be considered as a core outcome as anyone could have depression and it was not a transplant-related outcome. For skin cancer, 1 participant questioned if people “were ranking by some combination of seriousness and attributable risk (ie, as a sequelae of transplantation), or both,” and hypothesized that higher priority for outcomes may reflect regional variations in risk in the general population eg, the “epidemic of skin cancer in Australia.”

Back to Top | Article Outline

Feasibility and Pragmatism

Achievability of Long-Term Impacts

Although long-term outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and cancer were important, health professionals believed that mandating reporting was difficult to achieve as the time required to show a difference could be extensive and important events such short-term graft loss and mortality (ie, within a year posttransplant) were rare. Trials were predominantly short-term. Also, in some countries (such as the Philippines), many kidney transplant recipients were lost to follow up in clinical settings. Health professionals suggested considering interim outcomes such as biomarkers, or diabetes or blood pressure as predictors of cardiovascular disease. However, they understood that “patients may want outcomes that might not be captured within a short period of time and satisfy the requirements set by regulatory agencies,” and advocated for outcomes relevant to patients with other outcomes selected for specific trials. The recent changes in funding structures, namely in the UK, supporting long-term trials, and requirements to link trials with national registries were also noted. Health professionals urged for more efforts to persuade industry as well as to partner with funding agencies to support longer-term trials.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Responsiveness to Interventions

Some health professionals were convinced that outcomes should be selected based on potential responsiveness to the interventions, and outcomes relevant to a trial of immunosuppressive agents, lifestyle interventions, surgical techniques or organ perfusion would differ. However, core outcome domains were emphasized to be about relevance to decision making. Although triallists may want to know whether an intervention works, end-users ie, patients and clinicians, want to whether the intervention affects the outcomes they regard as important. Primary outcomes may be selected on feasibility, and appropriateness for the intervention, but the omission of outcomes that stakeholders regard as critical could not be justified.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Recognizing Gradients of Severity

Health professionals were concerned that some outcome domains were broad and encompassed multiple outcomes with a spectrum of consequences, and this may have had implications for how participants rated its importance. For example, surgical complications could range from minor complications to those that required additional surgical intervention. Infections could range from a urinary tract infection to a more serious infection such as CMV. However, this is true for most outcome domains, and for feasibility, specific outcomes are necessarily combined. Health professionals also considered that expectations about an outcome may differ based on the quality of transplantation (eg, from a living donor and a deceased extended criteria donor), which needed to be considered in establishing a core outcome domain.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Stakeholders agreed that core outcome domains for kidney transplantation should include graft health, mortality, cardiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, life participation) based on their direct relevance for decision-making. Graft survival was unequivocally the dominant priority for patients/caregivers and health professionals, a tangible outcome that offered quality of life gains compared to dialysis. Health professionals deliberated on the importance of graft function in terms of impact on the patients’ functioning and well-being, and validity in predicting graft loss. They also raised concerns about the potential misinterpretation and obscurities around the term and meaning of rejection. The discussions from the workshop showed that patients were focused on well-being and avoiding dialysis, and viewed death as inevitable. Preventing premature death was upheld as a core responsibility among health professionals, and for regulators was a necessary safety consideration.

In the Delphi survey, no patient-reported outcome met the criteria for inclusion as a core outcome domain.34 In these consensus workshops, all stakeholder groups advocated for patient-reported outcomes driven by patient priorities and goals, and capturing symptom burden. Patients emphasized that kidney transplantation could enable them to do activities that provided them with a sense of self-value, purpose, fulfilment and enjoyment, and the narrower conceptualization of “ability to work” is not pertinent to all patients (students or retirees). The ability to participate in meaningful activities may be an appropriate patient-reported outcome domain, as it should be relevant to all ages and social systems. Health professionals noted that patient-reported outcomes were increasingly required by regulatory and funding agencies. Similarly, in a recent Outcome Measures in Rheumatology meeting, participants suggested that patients should be involved as partners during all stages in developing core outcomes measures, and highlighted the importance of validating measures across countries, cultures, and languages.43

Some health professionals challenged outcomes that may not be regarded as “transplant-specific” and raised concerns about the feasibility of including long-term outcomes and outcomes that would not be responsive to specific interventions. Indeed, few trials are beyond 1 year in duration.15 However, novel trial designs such as pragmatic trials conducted in clinical settings, and registry-based trials that capitalize on recruitment and follow up structures of registries, are gaining traction, and may overcome these concerns.44-51 Importantly, it should be acknowledged that triallists and other stakeholders may have different perspectives (eg, to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention) and considerations about what outcomes to select for trials (eg, based on feasibility, responsiveness, regulatory requirements, cost-efficiency, and ensuring quality and safety). These workshops provided further clarification about the context and implementation of core outcomes. In the context of decision making, patients and clinicians want to whether the intervention affects the outcomes they regard as important. As such, core outcomes should reflect the shared priorities of patients and health professionals and be reported in all trials (in kidney transplantation), regardless of the expected effect of an intervention.

The recommendations arising from this workshop (Table 2) will be taken forward in establishing core outcome domains to be reported in trials conducted in kidney transplant recipients. After this, we will identify the core outcome measure for each of these outcome domains. This should facilitate better understanding, acceptance and uptake of core outcome domains so clinical trials report outcomes that are important to patients and clinicians, and inform shared-decisions about treatment in kidney transplantation.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors thank The Transplantation Society for providing the venue for the SONG-Tx Hong Kong Workshop during the 26th International Congress of The Transplantation Society.

We acknowledge, with permission, all the attendees listed below who attended the consensus workshops.

SONG-Tx Boston 2016 Consensus workshop: Ajay Israni, Alan Leichtman, Allan Massie, Allison Tong, Allyson Hart, Angelique Ralph, Beatrice Oakley, Benedicte Sautenet, Bert Kasiske, Camilla Hanson, Caren Rose, Chris Watson, Christine Murphy, Christophe Legendre, Dana Basken, David Rosenbloom, David Shakespeare, Devin Peipert, Fritz Diekmann, Gabriel Danovitch, Germaine Wong, Gerry Chipman, Greg Knoll, Hallvard Holdaas, Heidi Basken, Ina Jochmans, Jamie Wells, Jayme Locke, Jennifer Trofe-Clark, Jenny Shen, Jeremy Chapman, Jessica Ryan, John Gill, John Kanellis, John Scandling, Joseph Kacoyannakis, Kjersti Lonning, Klemens Budde, Klemens Meyer, Krista Lentine, Linda Rosenbloom, Ling-Xin Chen, Lorelei Basken, Lorna Marson, Marc Cavaillé-Coll, Matthias Buchler, Michael Germain, Michael Murphy, Nicole Evangelidis, Peter Friend, Peter Reese, Phil Clayton, Phil O’Connell, Rainer Oberbauer, Randall Morris, Robert Bulger, Robert Steiner, Rosemary Kacoyannakis, Roslyn Mannon, Sabina De Geest, Sheila Jowsey-Gregoire, Siah Kim, Sobhana Thangaraju, Stephen Fader, Steve Alexander.

SONG-Tx Hong Kong 2016 Consensus workshop: Beatriz Dominguez-Gil, Benedicte Sautenet, Benita Padilla, Brian Chu Yuen Tse, Camilla Hanson, Chi Yan Yuen, Choi Fong Hau, Curie Ahn, Deneb Cheung, Dirk Kuypers, Fabian Halleck, Frank Dor, Germaine Wong, Greg Knoll, Hai An Ha Phan, Janet Hui, Jeremy Chapman, Jif Wong, Joen Hui, Jonathan Craig, John Gill, Hatem Amer, Helen Pilmore, Jayme Locke, Jongwon Ha, Kai Ming Chow, Klemens Budde, Kirsten Howard, Lalitha Raghuram, Lin Ping, Lionel Rostaing, Marina Ng, Madeleine Didsbury, Maggie Ma, Martin Howell, Mirjam Tielen, Nga Lun Mok, Nick Larkins, Paul Harden, Penny Allen, Peter Stock, Peter Nickerson, Richard Allen, Romina Danguilan, Ron Shapiro, Samuel Fung, Shigeru Satoh, Stephen McDonald, Tahir Aziz, Teck Chuan Voo, Terence Kee, Vasant Sumethkul, Vathsala Anantharaman, Vivekanand Jha, Allison Tong.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Garcia GG, Harden P, Chapman JR. The global role of kidney transplantation. Lancet. 2012;379:e36–e38.
2. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1725–1730.
3. Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. Organ donation and transplantation activities 2014. Updated April 2016. Accessed 14th December 2016.
4. Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2562–2575.
5. Lamb KE, Lodhi S, Meier-Kriesche HU. Long-term renal allograft survival in the United States: a critical reappraisal. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:450–462.
6. Stegall MD, Gaston RS, Cosio FG, et al. Through a glass darkly: seeking clarity in preventing late kidney transplant failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26:20–29.
7. Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, Humar A, et al. 2202 kidney transplant recipients with 10 years of graft function: what happens next? Am J Transplant. 2008;8:2410–2419.
8. Ojo AO, Morales JM, González-Molina M, et al. Comparison of the long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation: USA versus Spain. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28:213–220.
9. Nankivell BJ, Kuypers DR. Diagnosis and prevention of chronic kidney allograft loss. Lancet. 2011;378:1428–1437.
10. Pippias M, Stel VS, Aresté-Fosalba N, et al. Long-term kidney transplant outcomes in primary glomerulonephritis: analysis from the ERA-EDTA registry. Transplantation. 2016;100:1955–1962.
11. Lam NN, Kim SJ, Knoll GA, et al. The risk of cardiovascular disease is not increasing over time despite aging and higher comorbidity burden of kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2017;101:588–596.
12. Wong G, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Death from cancer: a sobering truth for patients with kidney transplants. Kidney Int. 2014;85:1262–1264.
13. Peraldi MN, Berrou J, Venot M, et al. Natural killer lymphocytes are dysfunctional in kidney transplant recipients on diagnosis of cancer. Transplantation. 2015;99:2422–2430.
14. Desai R, Collett D, Watson CJ, et al. Impact of cytomegalovirus on long-term mortality and cancer risk after organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2015;99:1989–1994.
15. Jones-Hughes T, Snowsill T, Haasova M, et al. Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20:1–594.
16. Howell M, Wong G, Turner RM, et al. The consistency and reporting of quality of life outcomes in trials of immunosuppressive agents in kidney transplantaiton: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;57:762–774.
17. Tong A, Budde K, Gill J, et al. Standardized outcomes in nephrology-transplantation: a global initiative to develop a core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation. Transplant Direct. 2016;2:e79.
18. Lachenbruch PA, Rosenberg AS, Bonvini E, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in renal transplantation: present status and considerations for clinical trial design. Am J Transplant. 2004;4:451–457.
19. Knight SR, Morris PJ, Schneeberger S, et al. Trial design and endpoints in clinical transplant research. Transpl Int. 2016;29:870–879.
20. Knight SR, Hussain S. Variability in the reporting of renal function endpoints in immunosuppression trials in renal transplantation: time for consensus? Clin Tranpslant. 2016;30:1584–1590.
21. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99111.
22. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–165.
23. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, et al. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007:26–38.
24. Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39.
25. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting: the COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002148.
26. Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH. Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:504–506.
27. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectivness research: an updated review and user survey. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0146444.
28. Kapadia MZ, Joachim KC, Balasingham C, et al. A core outcome set for chidlren with feeding tubes and neurologic impairment: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20153967.
29. Moza A, Benstoem C, Autschbach R, et al. A core outcome set for all types of cardiac surgery effectiveness trials: a study protocol for an international eDelphi survey to achieve consensus on what to measure and the subsequent selection of measurement instruments. Trials. 2015;16:545.
30. Duffy JM, van 't Hooft J, Gale C, et al. A protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia. Trials. 2016;6:274–278.
31. Iyengar S, Williamson PR, Schmitt J, et al. Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in rosacea: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey. Trials. 2016;17:429.
32. Kaiser U, Kopkow C, Deckert S, et al. Validation and application of a core set of patient-relevant outcome domains to assess the effectiveness of multimodal pain therapy (VAPAIN): a study protocol. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008146.
33. Kirkham JJ, Boers M, Tugwell P, et al. Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials. 2013;14:324.
34. Sautenet BTA, Manera KE, Chapman JR, et al. Developing consensus-based priority outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation: a multinational Delphi survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals. Transplantation. 2017;101:1875–1886.
35. Dobbels F, Wong S, Min Y, et al. Beneficial effect of belatacept on health-related quality of life and perceived side effects: results from the BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT trials. Transplantation. 2014;98:960–968.
36. Howell M, Tong A, Wong G, et al. Important outcomes for kidney transplant recipients: a nominal group and qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:186–196.
37. Howell M, Wong G, Rose J, et al. Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best-worst scaling survey. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e008163.
38. Jamieson NJ, Hanson CS, Josephson MA, et al. Motivations, challenges, and attitudes to self-management in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67:461–478.
39. Laupacis A, Pus N, Muirhead N, et al. Disease-specific questionnaire for patients with a renal transplant. Nephron. 1993;64:226–231.
40. Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. Br Med J. 2015;350:g7818.
41. Her M, Kavanaugh A. Patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2012;24:327–334.
42. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Published December 2009. Accessed 9th December 2016.
43. Kirwan JR, Bartlett SJ, Beaton DE, et al. Updating the OMERACT filter: implications for patient-reported outcomes. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:11011–11015.
44. Wachtell K, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. Novel trial designs: lessons learned from thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in scandinavia (TASTE) trial. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2016;18:11.
45. Fröbert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1587–1597.
46. Hilton J, Mazzarello S, Fergusson D, et al. Novel methodology for comparing standard-of-care interventions in patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12:e1016–e1024.
47. de Boer IH, Kovesdy CP, Navaneethan SD, et al. Pragmatic clinical trials in CKD: opportunities and challenges. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27:2948–2954.
48. Newman AB, Avilés-Santa ML, Anderson G, et al. Embedding clinical interventions into observational studies. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016;46:100–105.
49. James S, Rao SV, Granger CB. Registry-based randomized clinical trials—a new clinical trial paradigm. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12:312–316.
50. Olsen SF, Østerdal ML, Salvig JD, et al. Fish oil intake compared with olive oil intake in late pregnancy and asthma in the offspring: 16 y of registry-based follow-up from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88:167–175.
51. Rao SV, Hess CN, Barham B, et al. A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) trial. JACC Cadiovas Interv. 2014;7:857–867.

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.