Effect of sirolimus on malignancy and survival after kidney transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

Objective To examine risk of malignancy and death in patients with kidney transplant who receive the immunosuppressive drug sirolimus.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.Data sources Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2013.Eligibility Randomized controlled trials comparing immunosuppressive regimens with and without sirolimus in recipients of kidney or combined pancreatic and renal transplant for which the author was willing to provide individual patient level data. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full text reports of potentially eligible trials to identify studies for inclusion. All eligible trials reported data on malignancy or survival.Results the search yielded 2365 unique citations. Patient level data were available from 5876 patients from 21 randomized trials. Sirolimus was associated with a 40% reduction in the risk of malignancy (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.93) and a 56% reduction in the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (0.44, 0.30 to 0.63) compared with controls. the most pronounced effect was seen in patients who converted to sirolimus from an established immunosuppressive regimen, resulting in a reduction in risk of malignancy (0.34, 0.28 to 0.41), non-melanoma skin cancer (0.32, 0.24 to 0.42), and other cancers (0.52, 0.38 to 0.69). Sirolimus was associated with an increased risk of death (1.43, 1.21 to 1.71) compared with controls.Conclusions Sirolimus was associated with a reduction in the risk of malignancy and non-melanoma skin cancer in transplant recipients. the benefit was most pronounced in patients who converted from an established immunosuppressive regimen to sirolimus. Given the risk of mortality, however, the use of this drug does not seem warranted for most patients with kidney transplant. Further research is needed to determine if different populations, such as those at high risk of cancer, might benefit from sirolimus.PfizerOttawa Hosp, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON K1H 7W9, CanadaUniv Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, CanadaCairo Univ, Cairo Kidney Ctr, Cairo, EgyptLimites Med Res, Vacallo, SwitzerlandUniv Manitoba, Dept Pediat & Childs Hlth, Winnipeg, MB, CanadaLund Univ, Dept Nephrol & Transplantat, Malmo, SwedenUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Hosp Rim & Hipertensao, São Paulo, BrazilAddenbrookes Hosp, Dept Renal Med, Cambridge, EnglandNorthwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USAMaastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Maastricht, NetherlandsSt Louis Hosp, Dept Nephrol, Paris, FranceHosp JW Goethe, Div Nephrol, Frankfurt, GermanyUniv Munich, Dept Surg, Munich, GermanyGoethe Univ Frankfurt, JW Goethe Clin, Clin Dermatol Venerol & Allergol, Frankfurt, GermanyInst Klin Expt Med, Dept Nephrol, Prague, Czech RepublicUniv Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hosp, Dept Surg, NIHR Cambridge Biomed Res Ctr, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, EnglandUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Hosp Rim & Hipertensao, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

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

Prediction system for risk of allograft loss in patients receiving kidney transplants: international derivation and validation study

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an integrative system to predict long term kidney allograft failure. DESIGN: International cohort study. SETTING: Three cohorts including kidney transplant recipients from 10 academic medical centres from Europe and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Derivation cohort: 4000 consecutive kidney recipients prospectively recruited in four French centres between 2005 and 2014. Validation cohorts: 2129 kidney recipients from three centres in Europe and 1428 from three centres in North America, recruited between 2002 and 2014. Additional validation in three randomised controlled trials (NCT01079143, EudraCT 2007-003213-13, and NCT01873157). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Allograft failure (return to dialysis or pre-emptive retransplantation). 32 candidate prognostic factors for kidney allograft survival were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 7557 kidney transplant recipients included, 1067 (14.1%) allografts failed after a median post-transplant follow-up time of 7.12 (interquartile range 3.51-8.77) years. In the derivation cohort, eight functional, histological, and immunological prognostic factors were independently associated with allograft failure and were then combined into a risk prediction score (iBox). This score showed accurate calibration and discrimination (C index 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.83). The performance of the iBox was also confirmed in the validation cohorts from Europe (C index 0.81, 0.78 to 0.84) and the US (0.80, 0.76 to 0.84). The iBox system showed accuracy when assessed at different times of evaluation post-transplant, was validated in different clinical scenarios including type of immunosuppressive regimen used and response to rejection therapy, and outperformed previous risk prediction scores as well as a risk score based solely on functional parameters including estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria. Finally, the accuracy of the iBox risk score in predicting long term allograft loss was confirmed in the three randomised controlled trials. CONCLUSION: An integrative, accurate, and readily implementable risk prediction score for kidney allograft failure has been developed, which shows generalisability across centres worldwide and common clinical scenarios. The iBox risk prediction score may help to guide monitoring of patients and further improve the design and development of a valid and early surrogate endpoint for clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03474003.status: publishe

Effect of sirolimus on malignancy and survival after kidney transplantation : systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

Objective: To examine risk of malignancy and death in patients with kidney transplant who receive the immunosuppressive drug sirolimus. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Data sources: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 2013. Eligibility: Randomized controlled trials comparing immunosuppressive regimens with and without sirolimus in recipients of kidney or combined pancreatic and renal transplant for which the author was willing to provide individual patient level data. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full text reports of potentially eligible trials to identify studies for inclusion. All eligible trials reported data on malignancy or survival. Results: The search yielded 2365 unique citations. Patient level data were available from 5876 patients from 21 randomized trials. Sirolimus was associated with a 40% reduction in the risk of malignancy (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.93) and a 56% reduction in the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (0.44, 0.30 to 0.63) compared with controls. The most pronounced effect was seen in patients who converted to sirolimus from an established immunosuppressive regimen, resulting in a reduction in risk of malignancy (0.34, 0.28 to 0.41), non-melanoma skin cancer (0.32, 0.24 to 0.42), and other cancers (0.52, 0.38 to 0.69). Sirolimus was associated with an increased risk of death (1.43, 1.21 to 1.71) compared with controls. Conclusions: Sirolimus was associated with a reduction in the risk of malignancy and non-melanoma skin cancer in transplant recipients. The benefit was most pronounced in patients who converted from an established immunosuppressive regimen to sirolimus. Given the risk of mortality, however, the use of this drug does not seem warranted for most patients with kidney transplant. Further research is needed to determine if different populations, such as those at high risk of cancer, might benefit from sirolimus

The Banff 2017 Kidney Meeting Report: Revised diagnostic criteria for chronic active T cell–mediated rejection, antibody‐mediated rejection, and prospects for integrative endpoints for next‐generation clinical trials

The kidney sessions of the 2017 Banff Conference focused on 2 areas: clinical implications of inflammation in areas of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (i‐IFTA) and its relationship to T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR), and the continued evolution of molecular diagnostics, particularly in the diagnosis of antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR). In confirmation of previous studies, it was independently demonstrated by 2 groups that i‐IFTA is associated with reduced graft survival. Furthermore, these groups presented that i‐IFTA, particularly when involving >25% of sclerotic cortex in association with tubulitis, is often a sequela of acute TCMR in association with underimmunosuppression. The classification was thus revised to include moderate i‐IFTA plus moderate or severe tubulitis as diagnostic of chronic active TCMR. Other studies demonstrated that certain molecular classifiers improve diagnosis of ABMR beyond what is possible with histology, C4d, and detection of donor‐specific antibodies (DSAs) and that both C4d and validated molecular assays can serve as potential alternatives and/or complements to DSAs in the diagnosis of ABMR. The Banff ABMR criteria are thus updated to include these alternatives. Finally, the present report paves the way for the Banff scheme to be part of an integrative approach for defining surrogate endpoints in next‐generation clinical trials

Trajectories of glomerular filtration rate and progression to end stage kidney disease after kidney transplantation

Although the gold standard of monitoring kidney transplant function relies on glomerular filtration rate (GFR), little is known about GFR trajectories after transplantation, their determinants, and their association with outcomes. To evaluate these parameters we examined kidney transplant recipients receiving care at 15 academic centers. Patients underwent prospective monitoring of estimated GFR (eGFR) measurements, with assessment of clinical, functional, histological and immunological parameters. Additional validation took place in seven randomized controlled trials that included a total of 14,132 patients with 403,497 eGFR measurements. After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 1,688 patients developed end-stage kidney disease. Using unsupervised latent class mixed models, we identified eight distinct eGFR trajectories. Multinomial regression models identified seven significant determinants of eGFR trajectories including donor age, eGFR, proteinuria, and several significant histological features: graft scarring, graft interstitial inflammation and tubulitis, microcirculation inflammation, and circulating anti-HLA donor specific antibodies. The eGFR trajectories were associated with progression to end stage kidney disease. These trajectories, their determinants and respective associations with end stage kidney disease were similar across cohorts, as well as in diverse clinical scenarios, therapeutic eras and in the seven randomized control trials. Thus, our results provide the basis for a trajectory-based assessment of kidney transplant patients for risk stratification and monitoring

The Banff 2015 Kidney Meeting Report: Current Challenges in Rejection Classification and Prospects for Adopting Molecular Pathology

The XIII Banff meeting, held in conjunction the Canadian Society of Transplantation in Vancouver, Canada, reviewed the clinical impact of updates of C4d‐negative antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) from the 2013 meeting, reports from active Banff Working Groups, the relationships of donor‐specific antibody tests (anti‐HLA and non‐HLA) with transplant histopathology, and questions of molecular transplant diagnostics. The use of transcriptome gene sets, their resultant diagnostic classifiers, or common key genes to supplement the diagnosis and classification of rejection requires further consensus agreement and validation in biopsies. Newly introduced concepts include the i‐IFTA score, comprising inflammation within areas of fibrosis and atrophy and acceptance of transplant arteriolopathy within the descriptions of chronic active T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) or chronic ABMR. The pattern of mixed TCMR and ABMR was increasingly recognized. This report also includes improved definitions of TCMR and ABMR in pancreas transplants with specification of vascular lesions and prospects for defining a vascularized composite allograft rejection classification. The goal of the Banff process is ongoing integration of advances in histologic, serologic, and molecular diagnostic techniques to produce a consensus‐based reporting system that offers precise composite scores, accurate routine diagnostics, and applicability to next‐generation clinical trials