Literature DB >> 35372937

Attitudes to Clinical Pig Kidney Xenotransplantation among Medical Providers and Patients.

Luz A Padilla1, Daniel Hurst2, Raymond Lopez1, Vineeta Kumar3, David K C Cooper1, Wayne Paris4.   

Abstract

Background: In addition to governmental regulation and scientific advancements, the World Health Organization requires extensive review of local opinions before initiating clinical trials of xenotransplantation (XTx). The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of health care providers and patients regarding XTx.
Methods: An anonymous Likert-scale survey regarding attitudes toward XTx was distributed to pre- and post-kidney transplant patients, nephrologists, transplant surgeons, and nurses ("providers"). Patient and provider responses were described and compared. Regression analysis using patients' responses was performed to identify factors associated with XTx acceptance.
Results: Eighty percent (32/40) of providers and 69% (113/163) of patients were agreeable to clinical XTx if the risks and results were likely to be similar to kidney allotransplantation (P<0.05). Kidney providers rated the influence of religious beliefs in medical decisions (45% versus 15%) and genetic engineering (43% versus 25%) as being more important than did patients (P<0.05). A small proportion in both groups (<15%) reported concerns about (1) potential personality changes, (2) how others would interact, (3) a perception of being "less human," or (4) morals or ethics. Logistic regression found that the odds of patients accepting XTx were greater if they had no religious concerns (OR, 25.10; 95% CI, 2.59 to 243.00), but acceptance was less likely if they were not willing to use XTx as a bridge to allotransplantation (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.70). Conclusions: (1) If outcomes were similar to allotransplantation, XTx support was strong among both providers and patients; (2) providers overestimated the influence of religious beliefs and genetic engineering on patient medical decisions, although religious beliefs are associated with XTx acceptance; (3) XTx use as a bridge to allotransplant was associated with XTx acceptance; and (4) psychosocial concerns were low for either group. Future studies among other communities are warranted to assess if similar attitudes exist.
Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attitude; genetic engineering; heterografts; heterologous; kidney; kidney transplantation; logistic models; patient; personality; provider; religion; surveys and questionnaires; transplantation; xenotransplantation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 35372937      PMCID: PMC8815558          DOI: 10.34067/KID.0002082020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kidney360        ISSN: 2641-7650


  11 in total

Review 1.  Xenotransplantation-theological-ethical considerations in an interdisciplinary symposium.

Authors:  Jochen Sautermeister; Richard Mathieu; Veronika Bogner
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.907

2.  Survey techniques for nursing studies.

Authors:  Brian Corner; Manon Lemonde
Journal:  Can Oncol Nurs J       Date:  2019-02-01

3.  Ethical rejections of xenotransplantation? The potential and challenges of using human-pig chimeras to create organs for transplantation.

Authors:  John D Loike; Alan Kadish
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Jewish ethics and xenotransplantation.

Authors:  Richard Mathieu
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.907

5.  Jewish, Christian and Muslim theological perspectives about xenotransplantation.

Authors:  Wayne Paris; Rabbi Jerry H Seidler; Kevin FitzGerald; Aasim I Padela; Emanuele Cozzi; David K C Cooper
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.907

Review 6.  Infection barriers to successful xenotransplantation focusing on porcine endogenous retroviruses.

Authors:  Joachim Denner; Ralf R Tönjes
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 7.  Xenotransplantation and risks of zoonotic infections.

Authors:  Roumiana S Boneva; Thomas M Folks
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.709

8.  Meta-analysis of public perception toward xenotransplantation.

Authors:  Chace Mitchell; Alan Lipps; Luz Padilla; Zoie Werkheiser; David K C Cooper; Wayne Paris
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2020-01-19       Impact factor: 3.907

9.  Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys.

Authors:  Ceara Tess Cunningham; Hude Quan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Tom Noseworthy; Cynthia A Beck; Elijah Dixon; Susan Samuel; William A Ghali; Lindsay L Sykes; Nathalie Jetté
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Provider bias as a function of patient genotype: polygenic score analysis among diabetics from the Health and Retirement Study.

Authors:  B M Huibregtse; J D Boardman
Journal:  Obes Sci Pract       Date:  2018-08-24
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  The 2021 IXA Keith Reemtsma Lecture: Moving xenotransplantation to the clinic.

Authors:  David K C Cooper
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 3.907

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.