Randomized clinical trial of a novel donor-derived cfDNA test to detect rejection in CPV-simulated renal transplant patients

Perspective for Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Antibody-Mediated Rejection After Kidney Transplantation: Defining Context of Use and Clinical Implications

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is a major cause of graft failure limiting long-term graft survival after kidney transplantation. Current diagnostic strategy to detect AMR is suboptimal and requires further improvement. Previously suggested treatment regimens for AMR could not demonstrate efficacy, however novel therapeutic agents are currently under investigation. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) is a novel non-invasive biomarker for allograft injury, that has been mainly studied in the context of rejection. Its short-half-life in circulation and injury-dependent release are its key advantages that contribute to its superior diagnostic accuracy, compared to traditional biomarkers. Moreover, previous studies showed that dd-cfDNA-release is well-linked to histological and molecular features of AMR, and thus able to reflect real-time injury. Further observations suggest that dd-cfDNA can be used as a suitable screening tool for early detection of AMR in patients with donor-specific-anti-HLA-antibodies (DSA), as well as for monitoring AMR activity after anti-rejection treatment. The weight of evidence suggests that the integration of dd-cfDNA in the graft surveillance of patients with AMR, or those suspicious of AMR (e.g., due to the presence of donor-specific anti-HLA-antibodies) has an added value and might have a positive impact on outcomes in this specific cohort.

Clinical utility of a novel test for assessing cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The risk for and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often incorrect and delayed. We wished to determine if a novel test improved physicians' ability to risk stratify, diagnose, and treat patients with T2DM.

METHODS

In a 2-phase randomized controlled trial comparing the clinical workup, diagnosis, and management of online, simulated patients with T2DM in a nationwide sample of cardiologists and primary care physicians, participants were randomly assigned to control or one of two intervention groups. Intervention participants had access to standard of care diagnostic tools plus a novel diagnostic CVD risk stratification test.

RESULTS

In control, there was no change in CV risk stratification of simulated patients between baseline and round 2 (37.1 to 38.3%, p = 0.778). Pre-post analysis showed significant improvements in risk stratification in both Intervention 1 (38.7 to 65.3%) and Intervention 2 (41.9 to 65.8%) (p < 0.01) compared to controls. Both intervention groups significantly increased prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP1 receptor agonists versus control, + 18.9% for Intervention 1 (p = 0.020) and 1 + 9.4% for Intervention 2 (p = 0.014). Non-pharmacologic treatment improved significantly compared to control (+ 30.0% in Intervention 1 (p < 0.001) and + 22.8% in Intervention 2 (p = 0.001). Finally, monitoring HgbA1C, blood pressure, and follow-up visit frequency improved by + 20.3% (p = 0.004) in Intervention 1 and + 29.8% (p < 0.001) in Intervention 2 compared with control.

CONCLUSION

Use of the novel test significantly improved CV risk stratification among T2DM patients. Statistically significant increases treatments were demonstrated, specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor antagonists and recommendations of evidence-based non-pharmacologic treatments. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05237271.

Measuring the Variation in the Prevention and Treatment of CI-AKI Among Interventional Cardiologists

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) occurs in up to 10% of cardiac catheterizations and coronary interventions, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and cost. One main reason for these complications and costs is under-recognition of CI-AKI risk and under-treatment of patients with impaired renal status. 157 interventional cardiologists each cared for three simulated patients with common conditions requiring intravascular contrast media in three typical settings: pre-procedurally, during the procedure, and post-procedure. We evaluated their ability to assess the risk of developing CI-AKI, make the diagnosis, and treat CI-AKI, including proper volume expansion and withholding nephrotoxic medications. Overall, the quality-of-care scores averaged 46.0% ± 10.5, varying between 18% to 78%. The diagnostic scores for accurately assessing risk of CI-AKI were low at 57.1% ± 21.2% and the accuracy of diagnosis pre-existing chronic kidney disease was 50.2%. Poor diagnostic accuracy led to poor treatment: proper volume expansion done in only 30.7% of cases, in-hospital repeat creatinine evaluation performed in 32.1%, and avoiding nephrotoxic medications occurred in 14.2%. While volume expansion was relatively similar across the three settings (P = 0.287), the cardiologists were less likely to discontinue nephrotoxic medications in pre-procedurally (9.7%) compared to the other settings (27.0%), and to order in-hospital creatinine testing in peri-procedurally (18.8%) compared to post-procedure (57.8%) (P < 0.05 for both). The overall care of patients at risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury varied widely and showed room for improvement. Improving care for this condition will require greater awareness by cardiologists and better diagnostic tools to guide them.