Proposed Definitions of T Cell-Mediated Rejection and Tubulointerstitial Inflammation as Clinical Trial Endpoints in Kidney Transplantation

The diagnosis of acute T cell-mediated rejection (aTCMR) after kidney transplantation has considerable relevance for research purposes. Its definition is primarily based on tubulointerstitial inflammation and has changed little over time; aTCMR is therefore a suitable parameter for longitudinal data comparisons. In addition, because aTCMR is managed with antirejection therapies that carry additional risks, anxieties, and costs, it is a clinically meaningful endpoint for studies. This paper reviews the history and classifications of TCMR and characterizes its potential role in clinical trials: a role that largely depends on the nature of the biopsy taken (indication vs protocol), the level of inflammation observed (e.g., borderline changes vs full TCMR), concomitant chronic lesions (chronic active TCMR), and the therapeutic intervention planned. There is ongoing variability-and ambiguity-in clinical monitoring and management of TCMR. More research, to investigate the clinical relevance of borderline changes (especially in protocol biopsies) and effective therapeutic strategies that improve graft survival rates with minimal patient morbidity, is urgently required. The present paper was developed from documentation produced by the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) as part of a Broad Scientific Advice request that ESOT submitted to the European Medicines Agency for discussion in 2020. This paper proposes to move toward refined definitions of aTCMR and borderline changes to be included as primary endpoints in clinical trials of kidney transplantation.Copyright © 2022 Seron, Rabant, Becker, Roufosse, Bellini, Böhmig, Budde, Diekmann, Glotz, Hilbrands, Loupy, Oberbauer, Pengel, Schneeberger and Naesens

Proposed Definitions of Antibody-Mediated Rejection for Use as a Clinical Trial Endpoint in Kidney Transplantation

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is caused by antibodies that recognize donor human leukocyte antigen (HLA) or other targets. As knowledge of AMR pathophysiology has increased, a combination of factors is necessary to confirm the diagnosis and phenotype. However, frequent modifications to the AMR definition have made it difficult to compare data and evaluate associations between AMR and graft outcome. The present paper was developed following a Broad Scientific Advice request from the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which explored whether updating guidelines on clinical trial endpoints would encourage innovations in kidney transplantation research. ESOT considers that an AMR diagnosis must be based on a combination of histopathological factors and presence of donor-specific HLA antibodies in the recipient. Evidence for associations between individual features of AMR and impaired graft outcome is noted for microvascular inflammation scores ≥2 and glomerular basement membrane splitting of >10% of the entire tuft in the most severely affected glomerulus. Together, these should form the basis for AMR-related endpoints in clinical trials of kidney transplantation, although modifications and restrictions to the Banff diagnostic definition of AMR are proposed for this purpose. The EMA provided recommendations based on this Broad Scientific Advice request in December 2020; further discussion, and consensus on the restricted definition of the AMR endpoint, is required.Copyright © 2022 Roufosse, Becker, Rabant, Seron, Bellini, Böhmig, Budde, Diekmann, Glotz, Hilbrands, Loupy, Oberbauer, Pengel, Schneeberger and Naesens

Alloimmune risk stratification for kidney transplant rejection

Different types of kidney transplantations are performed worldwide, including biologically diverse donor/recipient combinations, which entail distinct patient/graft outcomes. Thus, proper immunological and non-immunological risk stratification should be considered, especially for patients included in interventional randomized clinical trials. This paper was prepared by a working group within the European Society for Organ Transplantation, which submitted a Broad Scientific Advice request to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) relating to clinical trial endpoints in kidney transplantation. After collaborative interactions, the EMA sent its final response in December 2020, highlighting the following: 1) transplantations performed between human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical donors and recipients carry significantly lower immunological risk than those from HLA-mismatched donors; 2) for the same allogeneic molecular HLA mismatch load, kidney grafts from living donors carry significantly lower immunological risk because they are better preserved and therefore less immunogenic than grafts from deceased donors; 3) single-antigen bead testing is the gold standard to establish the repertoire of serological sensitization and is used to define the presence of a recipient’s circulating donor-specific antibodies (HLA-DSA); 4) molecular HLA mismatch analysis should help to further improve organ allocation compatibility and stratify immunological risk for primary alloimmune activation, but without consensus regarding which algorithm and cut-off to use it is difficult to integrate information into clinical practice/study design; 5) further clinical validation of other immune assays, such as those measuring anti-donor cellular memory (T/B cell ELISpot assays) and non–HLA-DSA, is needed; 6) routine clinical tests that reliably measure innate immune alloreactivity are lacking

Proposed definitions of antibody-mediated rejection for use as a clinical trial endpoint in kidney transplantation

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is caused by antibodies that recognize donor human leukocyte antigen (HLA) or other targets. As knowledge of AMR pathophysiology has increased, a combination of factors is necessary to confirm the diagnosis and phenotype. However, frequent modifications to the AMR definition have made it difficult to compare data and evaluate associations between AMR and graft outcome. The present paper was developed following a Broad Scientific Advice request from the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which explored whether updating guidelines on clinical trial endpoints would encourage innovations in kidney transplantation research. ESOT considers that an AMR diagnosis must be based on a combination of histopathological factors and presence of donor-specific HLA antibodies in the recipient. Evidence for associations between individual features of AMR and impaired graft outcome is noted for microvascular inflammation scores ≥2 and glomerular basement membrane splitting of >10% of the entire tuft in the most severely affected glomerulus. Together, these should form the basis for AMR-related endpoints in clinical trials of kidney transplantation, although modifications and restrictions to the Banff diagnostic definition of AMR are proposed for this purpose. The EMA provided recommendations based on this Broad Scientific Advice request in December 2020; further discussion, and consensus on the restricted definition of the AMR endpoint, is required

Proposed definitions of T cell-mediated rejection and tubulointerstitial inflammation as clinical trial endpoints in kidney transplantation

The diagnosis of acute T cell-mediated rejection (aTCMR) after kidney transplantation has considerable relevance for research purposes. Its definition is primarily based on tubulointerstitial inflammation and has changed little over time; aTCMR is therefore a suitable parameter for longitudinal data comparisons. In addition, because aTCMR is managed with antirejection therapies that carry additional risks, anxieties, and costs, it is a clinically meaningful endpoint for studies. This paper reviews the history and classifications of TCMR and characterizes its potential role in clinical trials: a role that largely depends on the nature of the biopsy taken (indication vs protocol), the level of inflammation observed (e.g., borderline changes vs full TCMR), concomitant chronic lesions (chronic active TCMR), and the therapeutic intervention planned. There is ongoing variability—and ambiguity—in clinical monitoring and management of TCMR. More research, to investigate the clinical relevance of borderline changes (especially in protocol biopsies) and effective therapeutic strategies that improve graft survival rates with minimal patient morbidity, is urgently required. The present paper was developed from documentation produced by the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) as part of a Broad Scientific Advice request that ESOT submitted to the European Medicines Agency for discussion in 2020. This paper proposes to move toward refined definitions of aTCMR and borderline changes to be included as primary endpoints in clinical trials of kidney transplantation

A Randomized Trial Comparing Imlifidase to Plasmapheresis in Kidney Transplant Recipients With Antibody-Mediated Rejection.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) poses a barrier to long-term graft survival and is one of the most challenging events after kidney transplantation. Removing donor specific antibodies (DSA) through therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) is a cornerstone of antibody depletion but has inconsistent effects. Imlifidase is a treatment currently utilized for desensitization with near-complete inactivation of DSA both in the intra- and extravascular space. METHODS: This was a 6-month, randomized, open-label, multicenter, multinational trial conducted at 14 transplant centers. Thirty patients were randomized to either imlifidase or PLEX treatment. The primary endpoint was reduction in DSA level during the 5 days following the start of treatment. RESULTS: Despite considerable heterogeneity in the trial population, DSA reduction as defined by the primary endpoint was 97% for imlifidase compared to 42% for PLEX. Additionally, imlifidase reduced DSA to noncomplement fixing levels, whereas PLEX failed to do so. After antibody rebound in the imlifidase arm (circa days 6-12), both arms had similar reductions in DSA. Five allograft losses occurred during the 6 months following the start of ABMR treatment-four within the imlifidase arm (18 patients treated) and one in the PLEX arm (10 patients treated). In terms of clinical efficacy, the Kaplan-Meier estimated graft survival was 78% for imlifidase and 89% for PLEX, with a slightly higher eGFR in the PLEX arm at the end of the trial. The observed adverse events in the trial were as expected, and there were no apparent differences between the arms. CONCLUSION: Imlifidase was safe and well-tolerated in the ABMR population. Despite meeting the primary endpoint of maximum DSA reduction compared to PLEX, the trial was unsuccessful in demonstrating a clinical benefit of imlifidase in this heterogenous ABMR population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2018-000022-66, 2020-004777-49; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03897205, NCT04711850

Crossing borders to facilitate live donor kidney transplantation: the Czech-Austrian kidney paired donation program – a retrospective study

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is a valuable tool to overcome immunological barriers in living donor transplantation. While small national registries encounter difficulties in finding compatible matches, multi-national KPD may be a useful strategy to facilitate transplantation. The Czech (Prague) and Austrian (Vienna) KPD programs, both initiated in 2011, were merged in 2015. A bi-national algorithm allowed for ABO- and low-level HLA antibody-incompatible exchanges, including the option of altruistic donor-initiated domino chains. Between 2011 and 2019, 222 recipients and their incompatible donors were registered. Of those, 95.7% (Prague) and 67.9% (Vienna) entered into KPD registries, and 81 patients received a transplant (95% 3-year graft survival). Inclusion of ABO-incompatible pairs in the Czech program contributed to higher KPD transplant rates (42.6% vs. 23.6% in Austria). After 2015 (11 bi-national match runs), the median pool size increased to 18 pairs, yielding 33 transplants (8 via cross-border exchanges). While matching rates doubled in Austria (from 9.1% to 18.8%), rates decreased in the Czech program, partly due to implementation of more stringent HLA antibody thresholds. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of merging small national KPD programs to increase pool sizes and may encourage the implementation of multi-national registries to expand the full potential of KPD