The ultimate aim of biomedical research is to preserve health and improve patient outcomes. However, by a variety of measures, preservation of kidney health and patient outcomes in kidney disease are suboptimal. Severe acute kidney injury has been treated solely by renal replacement therapy for over 50 years and mortality still hovers at around 50%. Worldwide deaths from chronic kidney disease (CKD) increased by 80% in 20 years--one of the greatest increases among major causes of death. This dramatic data concur with huge advances in the cellular and molecular pathophysiology of kidney disease and its consequences. The gap appears to be the result of sequential roadblocks that impede an adequate flow from basic research to clinical development [translational research type 1 (T1), bench-to-bed and back] and from clinical development to clinical practice and widespread implementation (translational research T2) that supported by healthcare policy-making reaches all levels of society throughout the globe (sometimes called translational research T3). Thus, it is more than 10 years since the introduction of the last new-concept drug for CKD patients, cinacalcet; and 30 years since the introduction of reninangiotensin system (RAS) blockade, the current mainstay to prevent progression of CKD, illustrating the basic science-clinical practice disconnect. Roadblocks from clinical advances to widespread implementation, together with lag time-to-benefit may underlie the 20 years since the description of the antiproteinuric effect of RAS blockade to the observation of decreased age-adjusted incidence of endstage renal disease due to diabetic kidney disease. Only a correct understanding of the roadblocks in translational medicine and a full embracement of a translational research culture will spread the benefits of the biomedical revolution to its ultimate destinatary, the society.
Keywords: acute kidney injury; chronic kidney disease; implementation; registry-based clinical trials; review.