Safety and Efficacy Outcomes 3 Years After Switching to Belatacept From a Calcineurin Inhibitor in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Results From a Phase 2 Randomized Trial

BackgroundIn a phase 2 study, kidney transplant recipients of low immunologic risk who switched from a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) to belatacept had improved kidney function at 12 months postconversion versus those continuing CNI therapy, with a low rate of acute rejection and no transplant loss.Study Design36-month follow-up of the intention-to-treat population.Setting & ParticipantsCNI-treated adult kidney transplant recipients with stable transplant function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], 35-75mL/min/1.73m2).InterventionsAt 6 to 36 months posttransplantation, patients were randomly assigned to switch to belatacept-based immunosuppression (n=84) or continue CNI-based therapy (n=89).OutcomesSafety was the primary outcome. eGFR, acute rejection, transplant loss, and death were also assessed.MeasurementsTreatment exposure−adjusted incidence rates for safety, repeated-measures modeling for eGFR, Kaplan-Meier analyses for efficacy.ResultsSerious adverse events occurred in 33 (39%) belatacept-treated patients and 36 (40%) patients in the CNI group. Treatment exposure−adjusted incidence rates for serious infections (belatacept vs CNI, 10.21 vs 9.31 per 100 person-years) and malignancies (3.01 vs 3.41 per 100 person-years) were similar. More patients in the belatacept versus CNI group had any-grade viral infections (14.60 vs 11.00 per 100 person-years). No posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder was reported. Belatacept-treated patients had a significantly greater estimated gain in mean eGFR (1.90 vs 0.07mL/min/1.73m2 per year; P for time-by-treatment interaction effect = 0.01). The probability of acute rejection was not significantly different for belatacept (8.38% vs 3.60%; HR, 2.50 [95% CI, 0.65-9.65; P=0.2). HR for the comparison of belatacept to the CNI group for time to death or transplant loss was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.14-7.07; P=0.9).LimitationsExploratory post hoc analysis with a small sample size.ConclusionsSwitching patients from a CNI to belatacept may represent a safe approach to immunosuppression and is being further explored in an ongoing phase 3b trial

De Novo Donor-Specific HLA Antibody Development and Peripheral CD4+CD25high Cells in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Place for Interaction?

The aim of this study was to determine whether the abundance of regulatory T cells (Tregs) (CD4+CD25high) affects the de novo development of anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Methods. Unsensitized (PRA ≤ 10%, no DSA) adult primary KTRs who received a living (83%) or deceased (17%) KT in our Institution during 2004/2005 were included. DSA testing was performed monthly, and Tregs were quantified by flow cytometry every 3 months, during the 1st year after KT. All patients received triple drug immunosuppressive therapy (CNI + MMF or AZA + PDN); 83% received anti-CD25. Results. 53 KTRs were included; 32% developed DSA during the 1st year after KT. Significantly lower 7-year graft survival was observed in those who developed DSA. No difference was observed in Treg numbers up to 9 months after KT, between DSA positive and negative. However, at 12 months after KT, DSA-negative patients had significantly higher numbers of Treg. Conclusions. Early development of DSA was not associated to variations in Treg abundance. The differences in Treg numbers observed at the late time point may reflect better immune acceptance of the graft and may be associated to long-term effects. Additional inhibitory mechanisms participating earlier in DSA development after KT deserve to be sought

A urine score for noninvasive accurate diagnosis and prediction of kidney transplant rejection

Accurate and noninvasive monitoring of renal allograft posttransplant is essential for early detection of acute rejection (AR) and to affect the long-term survival of the transplant. We present the development and validation of a noninvasive, spot urine-based diagnostic assay based on measurements of six urinary DNA, protein, and metabolic biomarkers. The performance of this assay for detecting kidney injury in both native kidneys and renal allografts is presented on a cohort of 601 distinct urine samples. The urinary composite score enables diagnosis of AR, with a receiver-operator characteristic curve area under the curve of 0.99 and an accuracy of 96%. In addition, we demonstrate the clinical utility of this assay for predicting AR before a rise in the serum creatinine, enabling earlier detection of rejection than currently possible by standard of care tests. This noninvasive, sensitive, and quantitative approach is a robust and informative method for the rapid and routine monitoring of renal allografts

Use of the Tissue Common Rejection Module Score in Kidney Transplant as an Objective Measure of Allograft Inflammation.

Long-term kidney transplant (KT) allograft outcomes have not improved as expected despite a better understanding of rejection and improved immunosuppression. Previous work had validated a computed rejection score, the tissue common rejection module (tCRM), measured by amplification-based assessment of 11 genes from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsy specimens, which allows for quantitative, unbiased assessment of immune injury. We applied tCRM in a prospective trial of 124 KT recipients, and contrasted assessment by tCRM and histology reads from 2 independent pathologists on protocol and cause biopsies post-transplant. Four 10-μm shaves from FFPE biopsy specimens were used for RNA extraction and amplification by qPCR of the 11 tCRM genes, from which the tCRM score was calculated. Biopsy diagnoses of either acute rejection (AR) or borderline rejection (BL) were considered to have inflammation present, while stable biopsies had no inflammation. Of the 77 biopsies that were read by both pathologists, a total of 40 mismatches in the diagnosis were present. The median tCRM scores for AR, BL, and stable diagnoses were 4.87, 1.85, and 1.27, respectively, with an overall significant difference among all histologic groups (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.0001). There were significant differences in tCRM scores between pathologists both finding inflammation vs. disagreement (p = 0.003), and both finding inflammation vs. both finding no inflammation (p < 0.001), along with overall significance between all scores (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.001). A logistic regression model predicting graft inflammation using various clinical predictor variables and tCRM revealed the tCRM score as the only significant predictor of graft inflammation (OR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.40-2.68, p < 0.0001). Accurate, quantitative, and unbiased assessment of rejection of the clinical sample is critical. Given the discrepant diagnoses between pathologists on the same samples, individuals could utilize the tCRM score as a tiebreaker in unclear situations. We propose that the tCRM quantitative score can provide unbiased quantification of graft inflammation, and its rapid evaluation by PCR on the FFPE shave can become a critical adjunct to help drive clinical decision making and immunosuppression delivery

Use of the Tissue Common Rejection Module Score in Kidney Transplant as an Objective Measure of Allograft Inflammation.

Long-term kidney transplant (KT) allograft outcomes have not improved as expected despite a better understanding of rejection and improved immunosuppression. Previous work had validated a computed rejection score, the tissue common rejection module (tCRM), measured by amplification-based assessment of 11 genes from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsy specimens, which allows for quantitative, unbiased assessment of immune injury. We applied tCRM in a prospective trial of 124 KT recipients, and contrasted assessment by tCRM and histology reads from 2 independent pathologists on protocol and cause biopsies post-transplant. Four 10-μm shaves from FFPE biopsy specimens were used for RNA extraction and amplification by qPCR of the 11 tCRM genes, from which the tCRM score was calculated. Biopsy diagnoses of either acute rejection (AR) or borderline rejection (BL) were considered to have inflammation present, while stable biopsies had no inflammation. Of the 77 biopsies that were read by both pathologists, a total of 40 mismatches in the diagnosis were present. The median tCRM scores for AR, BL, and stable diagnoses were 4.87, 1.85, and 1.27, respectively, with an overall significant difference among all histologic groups (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.0001). There were significant differences in tCRM scores between pathologists both finding inflammation vs. disagreement (p = 0.003), and both finding inflammation vs. both finding no inflammation (p < 0.001), along with overall significance between all scores (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.001). A logistic regression model predicting graft inflammation using various clinical predictor variables and tCRM revealed the tCRM score as the only significant predictor of graft inflammation (OR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.40-2.68, p < 0.0001). Accurate, quantitative, and unbiased assessment of rejection of the clinical sample is critical. Given the discrepant diagnoses between pathologists on the same samples, individuals could utilize the tCRM score as a tiebreaker in unclear situations. We propose that the tCRM quantitative score can provide unbiased quantification of graft inflammation, and its rapid evaluation by PCR on the FFPE shave can become a critical adjunct to help drive clinical decision making and immunosuppression delivery