Abstract:Sirs, We read with interest the letter from Dr Kute, et al. [1], regarding our article ‘Comparison of time on the cadaveric kidney donor waitlist versus time on the kidney paired donation registry in the Australian program’ published in the October, 2012 edition of Transplant International [2]. The authors raise several important points with regard to kidney paired donation (KPD), which need to be interpreted in the context of the country or region where a KPD programme is operating, the individual centres’ experiences in managing immunological complex patients and the available resources. Since the concept of KPD was first introduced [3], improved outcomes of ABO incompatible transplantation associated with modern immunosuppression [4,5] and in many cases with standard immunosuppression [6] have removed an important source on unsensitized recipients from potential KPD pools [7,8]. Thus, in many developed countries with sufficient resources ABO incompatible transplantation has become standard of practice, and unsensitized ABO incompatible pairs tend to proceed to directed live donor transplantation, unless the high baseline anti-ABO antibody titre is not amenable by apheresis [5]. Removing unsensitized ABO-incompatible pairs from a KPD programme has the significant disadvantage of reducing the pool size and thus the chance of matching. However, Kute et al. point out that in developing countries like India, the costs of antibody removal protocols and risk of infections in ABO incompatible renal transplantation make a KPD programme more attractive [1]. As a consequence, a larger number of donors are available to be matched to recipients registered in a KPD programme. This observation is very important and useful to advice policy makers at a regional or national level. The authors also advocate wider participation of compatible live donor pairs in a KPD programme [9], also known as unbalanced KPD [10–12], which occurs when a compatible pair (say O donor with A patient) participates in KPD helping an incompatible pair also receive a kidney. Patients are most amenable to participate in unbalanced KPD if they perceive a benefit from trading away a compatible donor. One benefit would be if matching allocation can guarantee a better HLAmatched KPD donor, which will allow less immunosuppression and lower infective risk, which is particularly important in developing countries as identified by Kute et al. [1]. To achieve this goal, the metrics of the matching software are critical and an algorithm that considers HLA matching [13], rather than a virtual cross-match approach [8] is preferred. Other benefits in unbalanced KPD can be considered, for instance, the patient of the compatible pair will, in exchange, receive priority in the cadaveric list in the event that the live kidney he receives through KPD fails in the future. So by participating in exchange, the patient of the compatible pair will receive a ‘guarantee’ in the future for cadaveric list. While in developed countries the willingness to register compatible pairs may be very limited, the experience from countries like India is likely to demonstrate that inclusion of a small number of ABO and HLA compatible pairs will result in a significant increase in the number of matched pairs. By demonstrating that a pair including a highlysensitized recipient at one centre could be transplanted by including an ABO and HLA compatible pair at the same centre should encourage the transplant community to include these pairs in the KPD programme. The probability to find a suitable pair for a KPD exchange is greatly influenced by the pool size. Because recipients with broad sensitization only have a limited number of rare donor HLA genotypes they can source [7,14], any attempt to reduce the number of potential donors with rare genotypes should be avoided. This includes considering national rather than regional or single centre programmes. The concern that transporting live donor organs rather than moving the donor to the recipient’s centre may result in inferior outcomes because of prolonged cold ischaemia time (CIT) is unjustified in view of the US experience with median CIT of 7.2 h (range 2.5–14.5) [15] and our own with median CIT of

Application of graphene and its composites in water treatment

Progress of graphene-based composites for adsorption of pollutants in Wastewater

Visualization analysis of graphene and its composites for heavy metal wastewater applications

Graphene-supported Iron-Based Composites: a Review of Applications to Wastewater Treatment

Preparation of Graphene Adsorbents and Their Applications in Water Purification

Applications of Graphene-Based Materials in Water Treatment:Mass Transport and Pollutants Adsorption Properties

The Application of Graphene-Based Materials for the Removal of Heavy Metals and Radionuclides from Water and Wastewater

Advances in graphene for adsorption of heavy metals in wastewater

Preparation of Graphene Oxide-Molecular Sieve Composite Adsorbent and its Adsorption Performance for Heavy Metals in Water

Graphene-based materials for adsorptive removal of pollutants from water and underlying interaction mechanism

Recent advances on environmental application of graphene-based composites

Application of Graphene in Corrosion Protection of Metals and Its Prospect

Graphene Nanocomposite Membranes: Fabrication and Water Treatment Applications

Application of Graphene-Based Materials in Water Purification: from the Nanoscale to Specific Devices

Response to Kute: ‘Facilitators to National Kidney Paired Donation Program’

Graphene-based photocatalytic nanocomposites used to treat pharmaceutical and personal care product wastewater: A review

Application of Graphene Technology in the Removal of Heavy Metal Ions in Wastewater

Graphene-based nanocomposites as scavenger of heavy metal ions from water: a review on synthesis, characterizations and application as adsorbent

Three dimensional graphene materials doped with heteroatoms for extraction and adsorption of environmental pollutants in wastewater

The Application of Carbon Nanotube/Graphene‐Based Nanomaterials in Wastewater Treatment

Recent advancements in graphene adsorbents for wastewater treatment: Current status and challenges