Investigator Assessment of the Utility of the TruGraf Molecular Diagnostic Test in Clinical Practice

Blood Gene Expression Profiling and Donor-derived Cell-free DNA to Noninvasively Diagnose Clinical and Subclinical Kidney Transplant Rejection: A Real-life Appraisal Study

BACKGROUND

Peripheral blood biomarkers aim to noninvasively diagnose kidney allograft rejection, but most lack robust independent validation. TruGraf is intended to exclude subclinical cellular rejection (TCMR), whereas donor-derived cell-free DNA Viracor-TRAC has proven value in excluding antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). We aim to validate both biomarkers for accurate rejection diagnosis in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

We prospectively included 230 unselected, consecutive kidney transplants from 6 centers undergoing for-cause and protocol biopsies with paired blood samples from December 2021 to 2022. TruGraf and Viracor-TRAC were blindly run by a central laboratory.

RESULTS

The incidence of rejection was 22.6% (17.3% surveillance; 27% for-cause biopsies). Inflammation was associated with higher TRAC levels, with AMR/mixed and microvascular inflammation (MVI) showing the highest levels ( P  < 0.05). TruGraf did not associate with any specific allograft injury. No biomarkers, individually or combined, accurately diagnosed any rejection (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] < 0.65). However, high TRAC levels, when combined with DSA in for-cause biopsies, predicted AMR/mixed rejection or MVI (AUROC = 0.817; P  < 0.001), outperforming serum creatinine and DSA (AUROC < 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, prospective, observational real-life study, we were unable to validate TruGraf and TRAC to diagnose rejection but found a useful context of use for TRAC to noninvasively diagnose AMR/mixed or MVI in conjunction with DSA in dysfunctioning graft.

Blood Gene Signature as a Biomarker for Subclinical Kidney Allograft Rejection: Where Are We?

The observation decades ago that inflammatory injuries because of an alloimmune response might be present even in the absence of concomitant clinical impairment in allograft function conduced to the later definition of subclinical rejection. Many studies have investigated the different subclinical rejections defined according to the Banff classification (subclinical T cell-mediated rejection and antibody-mediated rejection), overall concluding that these episodes worsened long-term allograft function and survival. These observations led several transplant teams to perform systematic protocolar biopsies to anticipate treatment of rejection episodes and possibly prevent allograft loss. Paradoxically, the invasive characteristics and associated logistics of such procedures paved the way to investigate noninvasive biomarkers (urine and blood) of subclinical rejection. Among them, several research teams proposed a blood gene signature developed from cohort studies, most of which achieved excellent predictive values for the occurrence of subclinical rejection, mainly antibody-mediated rejection. Interestingly, although all identified genes relate to immune subsets and pathways involved in rejection pathophysiology, very few transcripts are shared among these sets of genes, highlighting the heterogenicity of such episodes and the difficult but mandatory need for external validation of such tools. Beyond this, their application and value in clinical practice remain to be definitively demonstrated in both biopsy avoidance and prevention of clinical rejection episodes. Their combination with other biomarkers, either epidemiological or biological, could contribute to a more accurate picture of a patient's risk of rejection and guide clinicians in the follow-up of kidney transplant recipients.

Biomarkers in Kidney Transplantation

Currently in the United States, there are more than 250,000 patients with a functioning kidney allograft and over 100,000 waitlisted patients awaiting kidney transplant, with a burgeoning number added to the kidney transplant wait list every year. Although early post-transplant care is delivered at the transplant center, the increasing number of kidney transplant recipients requires general nephrologists to actively participate in the long-term care of these patients. Serum creatinine and proteinuria are imperfect traditional biomarkers of allograft dysfunction and lag behind subclinical allograft injury. This manuscript reviews the various clinically available biomarkers in the field of kidney transplantation for a general nephrologist with a focus on the utility of donor-derived cell-free DNA, as a marker of early allograft injury. Blood gene expression profiling, initially studied in the context of early identification of subclinical rejection, awaits validation in larger multicentric trials. Urinary cellular messenger ribonucleic acid and chemokine CXCL10 hold promising potential for early diagnosis of both subclinical and acute rejection. Torque tenovirus, a ubiquitous DNA virus is emerging as a biomarker of immunosuppression exposure as peripheral blood torque tenovirus copy numbers might mirror the intensity of host immunosuppression. Although high-quality evidence is still being generated, evidence and recommendations are provided to aid the general nephrologist in implementation of novel biomarkers in their clinical practice.

Immune monitoring of allograft status in kidney transplant recipients

Kidney transplant patients require careful management of immunosuppression to avoid rejection while minimizing the risk of infection and malignancy for the best long-term outcome. The gold standard for monitoring allograft status and immunosuppression adequacy is a kidney biopsy, but this is invasive and costly. Conventional methods of allograft monitoring, such as serum creatinine level, are non-specific. Although they alert physicians to the need to evaluate graft dysfunction, by the time there is a clinical abnormality, allograft damage may have already occurred. The development of novel and non-invasive methods of evaluating allograft status are important to improving graft outcomes. This review summarizes the available conventional and novel methods for monitoring allograft status after kidney transplant. Novel and less invasive methods include gene expression, cell-free DNA, urinary biomarkers, and the use of artificial intelligence. The optimal method to manage patients after kidney transplant is still being investigated. The development of less invasive methods to assess allograft function has the potential to improve patient outcomes and allow for a more personalized approach to immunosuppression management.

Molecular immune monitoring in kidney transplant rejection: a state-of-the-art review

Although current regimens of immunosuppressive drugs are effective in renal transplant recipients, long-term renal allograft outcomes remain suboptimal. For many years, the diagnosis of renal allograft rejection and of several causes of renal allograft dysfunction, such as chronic subclinical inflammation and infection, was mostly based on renal allograft biopsy, which is not only invasive but also possibly performed too late for proper management. In addition, certain allograft dysfunctions are difficult to differentiate from renal histology due to their similar pathogenesis and immune responses. As such, non-invasive assays and biomarkers may be more beneficial than conventional renal biopsy for enhancing graft survival and optimizing immunosuppressive drug regimens during long-term care. This paper discusses recent biomarker candidates, including donor-derived cell-free DNA, transcriptomics, microRNAs, exosomes (or other extracellular vesicles), urine chemokines, and nucleosomes, that show high potential for clinical use in determining the prognosis of long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation, along with their limitations.

Liquid biopsy for non-invasive monitoring of patients with kidney transplants

The current tools for diagnosing and monitoring native kidney diseases as well as allograft rejection in transplant patients are suboptimal. Creatinine and proteinuria are non-specific and poorly sensitive markers of injury. Tissue biopsies are invasive and carry potential complications. In this article, we overview the different techniques of liquid biopsy and discuss their potential to improve patients' kidney health. Several diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers have been identified with the ability to detect and monitor the activity of native kidney diseases as well as early and chronic allograft rejection, such as donor-derived cell-free DNA, exosomes, messenger RNA/microsomal RNA, proteomics, and so on. While the results are encouraging, additional research is still needed as no biomarker appears to be perfect for a routine application in clinical practice. Despite promising advancements in biomarkers, the most important issue is the lack of standardized pre-analytical criteria. Large validation studies and uniformed standard operating procedures are required to move the findings from bench to bedside. Establishing consortia such as the Liquid Biopsy Consortium for Kidney Diseases can help expedite the research process, allow large studies to establish standardized procedures, and improve the management and outcomes of kidney diseases and of kidney transplant recipients.

Advances in personalized medicine and noninvasive diagnostics in solid organ transplantation

Personalized medicine has been a mainstay and in practice in transplant pharmacotherapy since the advent of the field. Decisions pertaining to the diagnosis, selection, and monitoring of transplant pharmacotherapy are aimed toward the individual, the allograft, and the overall immunologic needs of the patient. Recent advances in pharmacogenomics, noninvasive biomarkers, and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have the promise of transforming the way we individualize treatment and monitor allograft function. Pharmacogenomic testing can provide clinicians with additional data that can minimize toxicity and maximize therapeutic dosing in high-risk patients, leading to more informed decisions that may decrease the risk of rejection and adverse outcomes related to immunosuppressive therapies. Development of noninvasive strategies to monitor allograft function may offer safer and more convenient methods to detect allograft injury. Cell free DNA and gene expression profiling offer the potential to serve as "liquid biopsies" minimizing the risk to patients and providing clinicians with useful molecular data that may help individualize immunosuppression and rejection treatment. Use of big data in transplant and novel AI platforms, such as the iBox, hold tremendous promise in providing clinicians a "glimpse into the future" thereby allowing for a more individualized approach to immunosuppressive therapy that may minimize future adverse outcomes. Advances in diagnostics, laboratory science, and AI have made the application of personalized medicine even more tailored for solid organ transplant recipients. In this perspective, we summarize the current and emerging tools available, literature supporting use, and the horizon for future personalization of transplantation.

Avoiding surveillance biopsy: Use of a noninvasive biomarker assay in a real-life scenario

PURPOSE

TruGraf™ blood test measures a specific gene expression signature in peripheral blood mononuclear cells for noninvasive assessment of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with stable renal function, excluding subclinical acute rejection (subAR) with high degree of confidence. Study objective was to correlate TruGraf™ test with 6-month surveillance biopsy (SBx).

METHODS

Prospective, single-center study of 116 consecutive KTRs with SBx performed at 6 months post-transplant..TruGraf™ done at time of SBx; results compared with histology (Banff 2017) for concordance.

RESULTS

Of 116 enrollees, 26 excluded, absent biopsy (n = 17), test quality control issues (n = 9), leaving 90 KTRs-66% deceased donor kidneys, 58% African American, and 59% male. TruGraf™ result negative in 67 subjects; 54 had normal biopsy, indicating SBx could have been avoided. Eight subjects had true positive result where biopsy justified. Unnecessary biopsy would have been performed in 15 subjects with false-positive TruGraf™, and subAR missed in 13 subjects with false-negative test. In overall population of 90 patients, SBx would have been avoided in 54 (60%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of TruGraf™ testing in a "real-world" cohort at the time of SBx identified a significant proportion of KTRs that could have avoided SBx.

A Practical Guide to the Clinical Implementation of Biomarkers for Subclinical Rejection Following Kidney Transplantation

Noninvasive biomarkers are needed to monitor stable patients following kidney transplantation (KT), as subclinical rejection, currently detectable only with invasive surveillance biopsies, can lead to chronic rejection and graft loss. Several biomarkers have recently been developed to detect rejection in KT recipients, using different technologies as well as varying clinical monitoring strategies defined as "context of use (COU)." The various metrics utilized to evaluate the performance of each biomarker can also vary, depending on their intended COU. As the use of molecular biomarkers in transplantation represents a new era in patient management, it is important for clinicians to better understand the process by which the incremental value of each biomarkers is evaluated to determine its potential role in clinical practice. This process includes but is not limited to an assessment of clinical validity and utility, but to define these, the clinician must first appreciate the trajectory of a biomarker from bench to bedside as well as the regulatory and other requirements needed to navigate this course successfully. This overview summarizes this process, providing a framework that can be used by clinicians as a practical guide in general, and more specifically in the context of subclinical rejection following KT. In addition, we have reviewed available as well as promising biomarkers for this purpose in terms of the clinical need, COU, assessment of biomarker performance relevant to both the need and COU, assessment of biomarker benefits and risks relevant to the COU, and the evidentiary criteria of the biomarker relevant to the COU compared with the current standard of care. We also provide an insight into the path required to make biomarkers commercially available once they have been developed and validated so that they used by clinicians outside the research context in every day clinical practice.

Role of novel biomarkers in kidney transplantation

Clinical application of biomarkers is an integral component of transplant care. Clinicians and scientists alike are in search of better biomarkers than the current serologic (serum creatinine, donor-specific antibodies), urine-derived (urinalysis, urine protein), and histologic ones we now use. The science behind recent biomarker discovery spans across multiple molecular biologic disciplines, including transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. Innovative methodology and integration of basic and clinical approaches have allowed researchers to unearth molecular phenomena preceding clinical disease. Biomarkers can be classified in several ways. In this review, we have classified them via their origin and outcome: Primarily immunologic, i.e., representative of immune regulation and dysfunction and non-immunologic, pertaining to delayed graft function, cardiovascular events/mortality, infection, malignancy, post-transplant diabetes, graft, and patient survival. Novel biomarker uses to guide the diagnosis and management of transplant-related outcomes is a promising area of research. However, the use of biomarkers to predict outcomes after kidney transplantation is not well studied. In this review, we summarize the recent studies illustrating biomarker use and transplant outcomes.

Maintenance Immunosuppression in Solid Organ Transplantation: Integrating Novel Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers to Inform Calcineurin Inhibitor Dose Selection

Calcineurin inhibitors, the primary immunosuppressive therapy used to prevent alloreactivity of transplanted organs, have a narrow therapeutic index. Currently, treatment is individualized based on clinical assessment of the risk of rejection or toxicity guided by trough concentration monitoring. Advances in immune monitoring have identified potential markers that may have value in understanding calcineurin inhibitor pharmacodynamics. Integration of these markers has the potential to complement therapeutic drug monitoring. Existing pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) data is largely limited to correlation between the biomarker and trough concentrations at single time points. Immune related gene expression currently has the most evidence supporting PK-PD integration. Novel biomarker-based approaches to pharmacodynamic monitoring including development of enhanced PK-PD models are proposed to realize the full clinical benefit.

Kidney Graft Surveillance Biopsy Utilization and Trends: Results From a Survey of High-Volume Transplant Centers

An e-mail-based market research survey focused on high-volume US adult transplant centers was developed and implemented to assess surveillance based on United Network for Organ Sharing/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data: 51 to 100 transplants, 101 to 200 transplants, and more than 200 transplants. Eighty-three centers responded to the survey. Respondent centers represented 13,837/21,167 (65%) of the total kidney transplants in 2018. In total, 38/83 (46%) centers reported the use of surveillance biopsies-20 centers in all patients and 18 in select patients. Surveillance biopsies were performed in 37% (7/19) of centers performing 51 to 100 transplants annually, in 44% (15/34) doing 101 to 200 transplants, and in 53% (16/30) of centers doing more than 200 transplants. Of the 20 centers doing surveillance biopsies in all patients, 17/20 (85%) perform more than 100 annual transplants, and 3/20 (15%) perform less than 100 annual transplants. Of the 45 centers not currently doing surveillance biopsies, 13 (29%) used surveillance biopsies in the past; discontinuation was primarily due to patient inconvenience, adverse events, and cost. Using survey percentages, it is estimated that surveillance biopsies are performed in approximately 34% of kidney transplant recipients and that 74% of all surveillance biopsies occur in centers performing more than 100 kidney transplants per year.

The Use of Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA for Assessment of Allograft Rejection and Injury Status

Patient monitoring after kidney transplantation (KT) for early detection of allograft rejection remains key in preventing allograft loss. Serum creatinine has poor predictive value to detect ongoing active rejection as its increase is not sensitive, nor specific for acute renal allograft rejection. Diagnosis of acute rejection requires allograft biopsy and histological assessment, which can be logistically challenging in some cases and carries inherent risk for complications related to procedure. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA), DNA of donor origin in the blood of KT recipient arising from cells undergoing injury and death, has been examined as a potential surrogate marker for allograft rejection. A rise in dd-cfDNA levels precedes changes in serum creatinine allows early detections and use as a screening tool for allograft rejection. In addition, when used in conjunction with donor-specific antibodies (DSA), it increases the pre-biopsy probability of antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) aiding the decision-making process. Advancements in noninvasive biomarker assays such as dd-cfDNA may offer the opportunity to improve and expand the spectrum of available diagnostic tools to monitor and detect risk for rejection and positively impact outcomes for KT recipients. In this this article, we discussed the evolution of dd-cfDNA assays and recent evidence of assessment of allograft rejection and injury status of KT by the use of dd-cfDNA.

Serial Peripheral Blood Gene Expression Profiling to Assess Immune Quiescence in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Stable Renal Function

Background

TruGraf is a blood-based biomarker test that measures differential expression of a collection of genes that have been shown to correlate with surveillance biopsy results. However, in the majority of U.S. transplant centers, surveillance biopsies are not performed. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical validity of TruGraf in stable kidney transplant recipients and to demonstrate the potential clinical utility of serial TruGraf testing in a center not utilizing surveillance biopsies.

Material/Methods

Serum creatinine levels, TruGraf testing at multiple time points, and subsequent clinical follow-up were obtained for 28 patients.

Results

Overall concordance of TruGraf results, when compared with independent clinical assessment of testing, was 77% (54/70) for all tests; 79% (22/28) for test 1, 75% (21/28) for test 2, and 79% (11/14) for test 3. The negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.0%. Analysis of clinical utility indicated that 77% of TruGraf results would have been useful in patient management.

Conclusions

Our results indicate the value of serial TruGraf testing in those transplant centers that do not perform surveillance biopsies as part of their standard of care. The high negative predictive value indicates the ability of TruGraf to confirm immune quiescence with a high degree of probability in patients with a Transplant eXcellence (TX) result, without the need to perform a surveillance biopsy.