Immunosuppressant drugs and quality-of-life outcomes in kidney transplant recipients: An international cohort study (EU-TRAIN)

Immunosuppressant; Quality of life; TransplantationImmunosupressor; Qualitat de vida; TrasplantamentInmunosupresor; Calidad de vida; TrasplanteIntroduction: Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) integrate a wide range of holistic dimensions that arenot captured within clinical outcomes. Particularly, from induction treatment to maintenance therapy, patient quality-of-life (QoL) of kidney transplant recipients have been sparsely investigated in international settings. Methods: In a prospective, multi-centric cohort study, including nine transplant centers in four countries, we explored the QoL during the year following transplantation using validated elicitation instruments (EQ-5D-3L index with VAS) in a population of kidney transplant patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies. Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin), IMPD inhibitor (mycophenolate mofetil), and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus) were the standard-of-care (SOC) medications, together with tapering glucocorticoid therapy. We used EQ-5D and VAS data as QoL measures alongside descriptive statistics at inclusion, per country and hospital center. We computed the proportions of patients with different immunosuppressive therapy patterns, and using bivariate and multivariate analyses, assessed the variations of EQ-5D and VAS between baseline (i.e., inclusion Month 0) and follow up visits (Month 12). Results: Among 542 kidney transplant patients included and followed from November 2018 to June 2021, 491 filled at least one QoL questionnaire at least at baseline (Month 0). The majority of patients in all countries received tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, ranging from 90.0% in Switzerland and Spain to 95.8% in Germany. At M12, a significant proportion of patients switched immunosuppressive drugs, with proportion varying from 20% in Germany to 40% in Spain and Switzerland. At visit M12, patients who kept SOC therapy had higher EQ-5D (by 8 percentage points, p < 0.05) and VAS (by 4 percentage points, p < 0.1) scores than switchers. VAS scores were generally lower than EQ-5D (mean 0.68 [0.5–0.8] vs. 0.85 [0.8–1]). Discussion: Although overall a positive trend in QoL was observed, the formal analyses did not show any significant improvements in EQ-5D scores or VAS. Only when the effect of a therapy use was separated from the effect of switching, the VAS score was significantly worse for switchers during the follow up period, irrespective of the therapy type. If adjusted for patient characteristics and medical history (e.g., gender, BMI, eGRF, history of diabetes), VAS and EQ-5D delivered sound PRO measures for QoL assessments during the year following renal transplantation.The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 754995. Open access funding by University of Lausanne

Immunosuppressant drugs and quality-of-life outcomes in kidney transplant recipients: An international cohort study (EU-TRAIN)

Introduction: Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) integrate a wide range of holistic dimensions that arenot captured within clinical outcomes. Particularly, from induction treatment to maintenance therapy, patient quality-of-life (QoL) of kidney transplant recipients have been sparsely investigated in international settings.Methods: In a prospective, multi-centric cohort study, including nine transplant centers in four countries, we explored the QoL during the year following transplantation using validated elicitation instruments (EQ-5D-3L index with VAS) in a population of kidney transplant patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies. Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin), IMPD inhibitor (mycophenolate mofetil), and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus) were the standard-of-care (SOC) medications, together with tapering glucocorticoid therapy. We used EQ-5D and VAS data as QoL measures alongside descriptive statistics at inclusion, per country and hospital center. We computed the proportions of patients with different immunosuppressive therapy patterns, and using bivariate and multivariate analyses, assessed the variations of EQ-5D and VAS between baseline (i.e., inclusion Month 0) and follow up visits (Month 12).Results: Among 542 kidney transplant patients included and followed from November 2018 to June 2021, 491 filled at least one QoL questionnaire at least at baseline (Month 0). The majority of patients in all countries received tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, ranging from 90.0% in Switzerland and Spain to 95.8% in Germany. At M12, a significant proportion of patients switched immunosuppressive drugs, with proportion varying from 20% in Germany to 40% in Spain and Switzerland. At visit M12, patients who kept SOC therapy had higher EQ-5D (by 8 percentage points, p &lt; 0.05) and VAS (by 4 percentage points, p &lt; 0.1) scores than switchers. VAS scores were generally lower than EQ-5D (mean 0.68 [0.5–0.8] vs. 0.85 [0.8–1]).Discussion: Although overall a positive trend in QoL was observed, the formal analyses did not show any significant improvements in EQ-5D scores or VAS. Only when the effect of a therapy use was separated from the effect of switching, the VAS score was significantly worse for switchers during the follow up period, irrespective of the therapy type. If adjusted for patient characteristics and medical history (e.g., gender, BMI, eGRF, history of diabetes), VAS and EQ-5D delivered sound PRO measures for QoL assessments during the year following renal transplantation

Recommended Treatment for Antibody-mediated Rejection After Kidney Transplantation : The 2019 Expert Consensus From the Transplantion Society Working Group

With the development of modern solid-phase assays to detect anti-HLA antibodies and a more precise histological classification, the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) has become more common and is a major cause of kidney graft loss. Currently, there are no approved therapies and treatment guidelines are based on low-level evidence. The number of prospective randomized trials for the treatment of AMR is small, and the lack of an accepted common standard for care has been an impediment to the development of new therapies. To help alleviate this, The Transplantation Society convened a meeting of international experts to develop a consensus as to what is appropriate treatment for active and chronic active AMR. The aim was to reach a consensus for standard of care treatment against which new therapies could be evaluated. At the meeting, the underlying biology of AMR, the criteria for diagnosis, the clinical phenotypes, and outcomes were discussed. The evidence for different treatments was reviewed, and a consensus for what is acceptable standard of care for the treatment of active and chronic active AMR was presented. While it was agreed that the aims of treatment are to preserve renal function, reduce histological injury, and reduce the titer of donor-specific antibody, there was no conclusive evidence to support any specific therapy. As a result, the treatment recommendations are largely based on expert opinion. It is acknowledged that properly conducted and powered clinical trials of biologically plausible agents are urgently needed to improve patient outcomes

Assessment of the Utility of Kidney Histology as a Basis for Discarding Organs in the United States: A Comparison of International Transplant Practices and Outcomes.

peer reviewedBACKGROUND: Many kidneys donated for transplant in the United States are discarded because of abnormal histology. Whether histology adds incremental value beyond usual donor attributes in assessing allograft quality is unknown. METHODS: This population-based study included patients who received a deceased donor kidney that had been biopsied before implantation according to a prespecified protocol in France and Belgium, where preimplantation biopsy findings are generally not used for decision making in the allocation process. We also studied kidneys that had been acquired from deceased United States donors for transplantation that were biopsied during allocation and discarded because of low organ quality. Using donor and recipient characteristics, we fit multivariable Cox models for death-censored graft failure and examined whether predictive accuracy (C index) improved after adding donor histology. We matched the discarded United States kidneys to similar kidneys transplanted in Europe and calculated predicted allograft survival. RESULTS: In the development cohort of 1629 kidney recipients at two French centers, adding donor histology to the model did not significantly improve prediction of long-term allograft failure. Analyses using an external validation cohort from two Belgian centers confirmed the lack of improved accuracy from adding histology. About 45% of 1103 United States kidneys discarded because of histologic findings could be accurately matched to very similar kidneys that had been transplanted in France; these discarded kidneys would be expected to have allograft survival of 93.1% at 1 year, 80.7% at 5 years, and 68.9% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, donor kidney histology assessment during allocation did not provide substantial incremental value in ascertaining organ quality. Many kidneys discarded on the basis of biopsy findings would likely benefit United States patients who are wait listed

Race-Free Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Equation in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Development and Validation Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of a newly developed race-free kidney recipient specific glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equation with the three current main equations for measuring GFR in kidney transplant recipients. DESIGN: Development and validation study SETTING: 17 cohorts in Europe, the United States, and Australia (14 transplant centres, three clinical trials). PARTICIPANTS: 15 489 adults (3622 in development cohort (Necker, Saint Louis, and Toulouse hospitals, France), 11 867 in multiple external validation cohorts) who received kidney transplants between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was GFR, measured according to local practice. Performance of the GFR equations was assessed using P RESULTS: The study included 15 489 participants, with 50 464 mGFR and eGFR values. The mean GFR was 53.18 mL/min/1.73m2 (SD 17.23) in the development cohort and 55.90 mL/min/1.73m2 (19.69) in the external validation cohorts. Among the current GFR equations, the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation showed the lowest performance compared with the MDRD and CKD-EPI 2009 equations. When race was included in the kidney recipient specific GFR equation, performance did not increase. The race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation showed significantly improved performance compared with the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation and performed well in the external validation cohorts (P30 ranging from 73.0% to 91.3%). The race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation performed well in several subpopulations of kidney transplant recipients stratified by race (P30 73.0-91.3%), sex (72.7-91.4%), age (70.3-92.0%), body mass index (64.5-100%), donor type (58.5-92.9%), donor age (68.3-94.3%), treatment (78.5-85.2%), creatinine level (72.8-91.3%), GFR measurement method (73.0-91.3%), and timing of GFR measurement post-transplant (72.9-95.5%). An online application was developed that estimates GFR based on recipient’s creatinine level, age, and sex (https://transplant-prediction-system.shinyapps.io/eGFR_equation_KTX/). CONCLUSION: A new race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation was developed and validated using multiple, large, international cohorts of kidney transplant recipients. The equation showed high accuracy and outperformed the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation that was developed in individuals with native kidneys

Race-free estimated glomerular filtration rate equation in kidney transplant recipients:development and validation study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of a newly developed race-free kidney recipient specific glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equation with the three current main equations for measuring GFR in kidney transplant recipients.DESIGN: Development and validation study SETTING: 17 cohorts in Europe, the United States, and Australia (14 transplant centres, three clinical trials).PARTICIPANTS: 15 489 adults (3622 in development cohort (Necker, Saint Louis, and Toulouse hospitals, France), 11 867 in multiple external validation cohorts) who received kidney transplants between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2021.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was GFR, measured according to local practice. Performance of the GFR equations was assessed using P 30 (proportion of estimated GFR (eGFR) within 30% of measured GFR (mGFR)) and correct classification (agreement between eGFR and mGFR according to GFR stages). The race-free equation, based on creatinine level, age, and sex, was developed using additive and multiplicative linear regressions, and its performance was compared with the three current main GFR equations: Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) 2009 equation, and race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation. RESULTS: The study included 15 489 participants, with 50 464 mGFR and eGFR values. The mean GFR was 53.18 mL/min/1.73m 2 (SD 17.23) in the development cohort and 55.90 mL/min/1.73m 2 (19.69) in the external validation cohorts. Among the current GFR equations, the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation showed the lowest performance compared with the MDRD and CKD-EPI 2009 equations. When race was included in the kidney recipient specific GFR equation, performance did not increase. The race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation showed significantly improved performance compared with the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation and performed well in the external validation cohorts (P 30 ranging from 73.0% to 91.3%). The race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation performed well in several subpopulations of kidney transplant recipients stratified by race (P 30 73.0-91.3%), sex (72.7-91.4%), age (70.3-92.0%), body mass index (64.5-100%), donor type (58.5-92.9%), donor age (68.3-94.3%), treatment (78.5-85.2%), creatinine level (72.8-91.3%), GFR measurement method (73.0-91.3%), and timing of GFR measurement post-transplant (72.9-95.5%). An online application was developed that estimates GFR based on recipient's creatinine level, age, and sex (https://transplant-prediction-system.shinyapps.io/eGFR_equation_KTX/). CONCLUSION: A new race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation was developed and validated using multiple, large, international cohorts of kidney transplant recipients. The equation showed high accuracy and outperformed the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation that was developed in individuals with native kidneys.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05229939.</p

The Banff 2022 Kidney Meeting Work Plan:Data-driven refinement of the Banff Classification for renal allografts

The XVIth Banff Meeting for Allograft Pathology was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, from September 19 to 23, 2022, as a joint meeting with the Canadian Society of Transplantation. In addition to a key focus on the impact of microvascular inflammation and biopsy-based transcript analysis on the Banff Classification, further sessions were devoted to other aspects of kidney transplant pathology, in particular T cell–mediated rejection, activity and chronicity indices, digital pathology, xenotransplantation, clinical trials, and surrogate endpoints. Although the output of these sessions has not led to any changes in the classification, the key role of Banff Working Groups in phrasing unanswered questions, and coordinating and disseminating results of investigations addressing these unanswered questions was emphasized. This paper summarizes the key Banff Meeting 2022 sessions not covered in the Banff Kidney Meeting 2022 Report paper and also provides an update on other Banff Working Group activities relevant to kidney allografts.</p

The Banff 2022 Kidney Meeting Work Plan:Data-driven refinement of the Banff Classification for renal allografts

The XVIth Banff Meeting for Allograft Pathology was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, from September 19 to 23, 2022, as a joint meeting with the Canadian Society of Transplantation. In addition to a key focus on the impact of microvascular inflammation and biopsy-based transcript analysis on the Banff Classification, further sessions were devoted to other aspects of kidney transplant pathology, in particular T cell–mediated rejection, activity and chronicity indices, digital pathology, xenotransplantation, clinical trials, and surrogate endpoints. Although the output of these sessions has not led to any changes in the classification, the key role of Banff Working Groups in phrasing unanswered questions, and coordinating and disseminating results of investigations addressing these unanswered questions was emphasized. This paper summarizes the key Banff Meeting 2022 sessions not covered in the Banff Kidney Meeting 2022 Report paper and also provides an update on other Banff Working Group activities relevant to kidney allografts.</p

The Banff 2019 Kidney Meeting Report (I): Updates on and clarification of criteria for T cell– and antibody-mediated rejection

The XV. Banff conference for allograft pathology was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics in Pittsburgh, PA (USA) and focused on refining recent updates to the classification, advances from the Banff working groups, and standardization of molecular diagnostics. This report on kidney transplant pathology details clarifications and refinements to the criteria for chronic active (CA) T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR), borderline, and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). The main focus of kidney sessions was on how to address biopsies meeting criteria for CA TCMR plus borderline or acute TCMR. Recent studies on the clinical impact of borderline infiltrates were also presented to clarify whether the threshold for interstitial inflammation in diagnosis of borderline should be i0 or i1. Sessions on ABMR focused on biopsies showing microvascular inflammation in the absence of C4d staining or detectable donor-specific antibodies; the potential value of molecular diagnostics in such cases and recommendations for use of the latter in the setting of solid organ transplantation are presented in the accompanying meeting report. Finally, several speakers discussed the capabilities of artificial intelligence and the potential for use of machine learning algorithms in diagnosis and personalized therapeutics in solid organ transplantation