Background Transplant failure is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and poor quality of life. There is limited evidence to inform treatment decision-making when and after kidney transplants fail: randomised controlled trials are needed. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of clinical trials into the management of kidney transplant failure, and explored research facilitators and barriers. Methods We undertook in-depth interviews with adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who had failing kidney transplants or had experienced kidney transplant failure, their relatives/friends, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were recruited from three UK NHS hospitals. Iterative purposive sampling of patient participants was undertaken, aiming for diversity with respect to personal characteristics, the type of transplant received (living/deceased-donor), whether the transplant was failing or had failed, and current kidney disease treatment. Purposive sampling of HCPs ensured diversity in sex, age, ethnicity, and role. Family and friends were recruited via posters and snowball sampling. Interviews investigated perspectives on clinical trials at the time of transplant failure. Sample size was determined by reaching theoretical saturation. We undertook inductive analysis according to constructivist grounded theory. Results Forty-one participants (17 HCPs/15 patients/9 relatives or friends) were interviewed. We identified the following categories: Facilitators to clinical trials: analytical thinking <OrderedList><ListItem><ItemNumber>i.</ItemNumber><ItemContent>Recognition of the lack of evidence—individual and community equipoise</ItemContent></ListItem><ListItem><ItemNumber>ii.</ItemNumber><ItemContent>Motivation to advance stratified and personalised medicine</ItemContent></ListItem></OrderedList> Challenges to clinical trials: cognitive biases and heuristics <OrderedList><ListItem><ItemNumber>iii.</ItemNumber><ItemContent>Status quo bias—preference for existing treatment regimens</ItemContent></ListItem><ListItem><ItemNumber>iv.</ItemNumber><ItemContent>Loss and risk aversion—fear of harm from research</ItemContent></ListItem><ListItem><ItemNumber>v.</ItemNumber><ItemContent>Experiential learning and the availability heuristic—decisions based on recent or memorable cases</ItemContent></ListItem></OrderedList> These 5 categories were considered within the core category of ‘Personal reasoning and clinical gatekeeping’. There was strong support for immunosuppression reduction trials, with stratification of people according to clinical and immunological subtypes. HCPs and patients supported trials after transplant failure but were reticent to engage in trials as a transplant was failing. Conclusions Acknowledged individual and community equipoise appear to support trial delivery and recruitment. Umbrella trials may be needed to evaluate therapies in multiple patient subgroups.

Patient and clinician perspectives on clinical trials in transplant failure: a qualitative interview study

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年5月11日

查看全文

Bonnie Venter,
Jane Noyes,
Lucy E. Selman,
Catherine Exley,
Siân Griffin,
Alan Hancock,
Leah McLaughlin,
Barnaby Hole,
Pippa K. Bailey

摘要

Background

Transplant failure is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and poor quality of life. There is limited evidence to inform treatment decision-making when and after kidney transplants fail: randomised controlled trials are needed. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of clinical trials into the management of kidney transplant failure, and explored research facilitators and barriers.

Methods

We undertook in-depth interviews with adults (aged ≥ 18 years) who had failing kidney transplants or had experienced kidney transplant failure, their relatives/friends, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were recruited from three UK NHS hospitals. Iterative purposive sampling of patient participants was undertaken, aiming for diversity with respect to personal characteristics, the type of transplant received (living/deceased-donor), whether the transplant was failing or had failed, and current kidney disease treatment. Purposive sampling of HCPs ensured diversity in sex, age, ethnicity, and role. Family and friends were recruited via posters and snowball sampling. Interviews investigated perspectives on clinical trials at the time of transplant failure. Sample size was determined by reaching theoretical saturation. We undertook inductive analysis according to constructivist grounded theory.

Results

Forty-one participants (17 HCPs/15 patients/9 relatives or friends) were interviewed. We identified the following categories:

Facilitators to clinical trials: analytical thinking

Recognition of the lack of evidence—individual and community equipoise

ii.

Motivation to advance stratified and personalised medicine

Challenges to clinical trials: cognitive biases and heuristics

iii.

Status quo bias—preference for existing treatment regimens

iv.

Loss and risk aversion—fear of harm from research

Experiential learning and the availability heuristic—decisions based on recent or memorable cases

These 5 categories were considered within the core category of ‘Personal reasoning and clinical gatekeeping’.

There was strong support for immunosuppression reduction trials, with stratification of people according to clinical and immunological subtypes. HCPs and patients supported trials after transplant failure but were reticent to engage in trials as a transplant was failing.

Conclusions

Acknowledged individual and community equipoise appear to support trial delivery and recruitment. Umbrella trials may be needed to evaluate therapies in multiple patient subgroups.