Application of TruGraf v1: A Novel Molecular Biomarker for Managing Kidney Transplant Recipients With Stable Renal Function

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.

Immune monitoring in pediatric kidney transplant

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes in pediatric kidney transplantation remain suboptimal, largely related to chronic rejection. Creatinine is a late marker of renal injury, and more sensitive, early markers of allograft injury are an active area of current research.

METHODS

This is an educational review summarizing existing strategies for monitoring for rejection in kidney transplant recipients.

RESULTS

We summarize supporting currently available clinical tests, including surveillance biopsy, donor specific antibodies, and donor-derived cell free DNA, as well as the potential limitations of these studies. In addition, we review the current avenues of active research, including transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and torque tenovirus levels.

CONCLUSION

Advancing the use of noninvasive immune monitoring will depend on well-designed multicenter trials that include patients with stable graft function, include biopsy results on all patients, and can demonstrate both association with a patient-relevant clinical endpoint such as graft survival or change in glomerular filtration rate and a potential timepoint for intervention.

Updates in Kidney Transplantation From the 2022 Banff-Canadian Society of Transplantation Joint Meeting: Conference Report

Purpose of the Conference

The 2022 Banff-Canadian Society of Transplantation Meeting in Banff, Alberta, brought together transplant professionals to review new developments across various aspects of solid organ transplantation (SOT) in Canada.

Sources of Information

Presentations included consensus recommendations from expert-led forums; experiences with new procedures and legislation; reports from public health data repositories; original clinical and laboratory research; and industry updates regarding novel technologies. Speakers referenced articles and reports published in peer-reviewed journals and online, and unpublished data and preliminary findings.

Methods

All authors attended presentations in-person or virtually. Recordings of select presentations were available for later review. Summaries emphasize concepts indicated by speakers as new and clinically relevant.

Key Findings

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), who experience worse outcomes of COVID-19 infection than the general population. Vaccinations demonstrate an attenuated immunological response in SOTRs yet provide meaningful protection. Monoclonal antibodies are effective for both passive immunization and treatment of COVID-19 in SOTRs. Infection control protocols have driven the development of virtual methods for clinical research, such as using home blood draws and virtual follow-up to evaluate vaccine efficacy in SOTRs; and patient care delivery, such as employing telerehabilitation post transplant. Access to living kidney donation is limited by various disincentives experienced by potential donors, which may be overcome by more efficient evaluations including a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic. The International Donation and Transplantation Legislative and Policy Forum provided a means of establishing consensus guidance for organ donation and transplantation (ODT) program policy to standardize delivery across jurisdictions. The implementation of a deemed consent model for organ and tissue donation in Nova Scotia may provide insight as to whether this model indeed improves access to organs. Canada's Indigenous population experiences unique barriers to transplantation, prompting efforts for more inclusive ODT policy-making. The Pan-Canadian ODT Data and Performance Reporting System Project has defined performance quality indicators, of which iTransplant and other point-of-care software solutions may facilitate collection; however, these endeavors ultimately require information technology infrastructure that exceeds the capabilities of the existing Canadian Organ Replacement Register and Canadian Transplant Registry. Pig-to-human xenotransplantation requires genetic modification of pigs and xenoantibody testing in recipients but may yet prove viable. Serum cell-free DNA, urine biomarkers, and genetic markers offer an alternative to routine biopsy for identifying subclinical rejection. Modified perfusion temperatures and perfusion solutions with hydrogen sulfide donor compounds may improve organ preservation. Molecular compatibility tools provide another means of improving SOTR outcomes, and the Genome Canada Transplant Consortium has been examining important considerations of their implementation.

Limitations

We were unable to capture all presentations and topics at the meeting due to the sizable quantity and variety. Topics ultimately excluded from this summary include those in pathology including Banff Classification updates; those unique to extra-renal SOT; as well as numerous abstract and poster presentations, allied health provider forums, and business meetings. A portion of the material was presented by speakers prior to peer-review or publication.

Implications

The various conference presentations summarized in this report identify methods by which individual clinicians and provincial ODT programs may improve access, delivery, and quality of SOT care in Canada, while additionally identifying gaps in the literature that investigators are encouraged to pursue.

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.

Multiple abnormal peripheral blood gene expression assay results are correlated with subsequent graft loss after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to correlate peripheral blood gene expression profile (GEP) results during the first post-transplant year with outcomes after kidney transplantation.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter observational study of obtaining peripheral blood at five timepoints during the first post-transplant year to perform a GEP assay. The cohort was stratified based on the pattern of the peripheral blood GEP results: Tx-all GEP results normal, 1 Not-TX had one GEP result abnormal and >1 Not-TX two or more abnormal GEP results. We correlated the GEP results with outcomes after transplantation.

RESULTS

We enrolled 240 kidney transplant recipients. The cohort was stratified into the three groups: TX n = 117 (47%), 1 Not-TX n = 59 (25%) and >1 Not-TX n = 64 (27%). Compared to the TX group, the >1 Not-TX group had lower eGFR (p < .001) and more chronic changes on 1-year surveillance biopsy (p = .007). Death censored graft survival showed inferior graft survival in the >1 Not-TX group (p < .001) but not in the 1 Not-TX group. All graft losses in the >1 Not-TX group occurred after 1-year post-transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a pattern of persistently Not-TX GEP assay correlates with inferior graft survival.

The Pseudokinase TRIB1 in Immune Cells and Associated Disorders

Simple Summary

TRIB1 is at the center of major cell signaling pathways. In this review, we describe its role in immune cells and highlight TRIB1 interacting partners which suggests cell-specific functions and that TRIB1 is involved in cellular homeostasis and also in different cancers and immune-related disorders.

Abstract

Research advances in Tribbles homolog (TRIB) genes have established the consensus that this protein family plays roles in diverse biological conditions and regulates intracellular signaling networks and several human diseases. In this review, we focus on one member of the family, TRIB1, and its role at the crossroads of immune signaling. TRIB1 directly interacts with transcription factors such as FOXP3 and C/EBPα, with several signaling molecules such as MEK1 and MALT1 and directly acts on key cell signaling pathways such as the MAPK and NF-κB pathways. Altogether, these interactions emphasize that TRIB1 is at the center of major cell signaling pathways while TRIB1 has cell-specific roles, potentially depending on the expressing cells and binding partners. In this review, we describe its roles in immune cells and highlight the interacting partners explaining these functions which suggests TRIB1 as a precise mediator of cellular homeostasis as well as in different cancers and immune-related disorders.

Biomarkers of alloimmune events in pediatric kidney transplantation

Alloimmune events such as the development of de novo donor-specific antibody (dnDSA), T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) are the primary contributors to kidney transplant failure in children. For decades, a creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been the non-invasive gold standard biomarker for detecting clinically significant alloimmune events, but it suffers from low sensitivity and specificity, especially in smaller children and older allografts. Many clinically "stable" children (based on creatinine) will have alloimmune events known as "subclinical acute rejection" (based on biopsy) that merely reflect the inadequacy of creatinine-based estimates for alloimmune injury rather than a distinct phenotype from clinical rejection with allograft dysfunction. The poor biomarker performance of creatinine leads to many unnecessary surveillance and for-cause biopsies that could be avoided by integrating non-invasive biomarkers with superior sensitivity and specificity into current clinical paradigms. In this review article, we will present and appraise the current state-of-the-art in monitoring for alloimmune events in pediatric kidney transplantation. We will first discuss the current clinical standards for assessing the presence of alloimmune injury and predicting long-term outcomes. We will review principles of biomarker medicine and the application of comprehensive metrics to assess the performance of a given biomarker against the current gold standard. We will then highlight novel blood- and urine-based biomarkers (with special emphasis on pediatric biomarker studies) that have shown superior diagnostic and prognostic performance to the current clinical standards including creatinine-based eGFR. Finally, we will review some of the barriers to translating this research and implementing emerging biomarkers into common clinical practice, and present a transformative approach to using multiple biomarker platforms at different times to optimize the detection and management of critical alloimmune events in pediatric kidney transplant recipients.

Combining Blood Gene Expression and Cellfree DNA to Diagnose Subclinical Rejection in Kidney Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Subclinical acute rejection is associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. As an alternative to surveillance biopsies, noninvasive screening has been established with a blood gene expression profile. Donor-derived cellfree DNA (cfDNA) has been used to detect rejection in patients with allograft dysfunction but not tested extensively in stable patients. We hypothesized that we could complement noninvasive diagnostic performance for subclinical rejection by combining a donor-derived cfDNA and a gene expression profile assay.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed a post hoc analysis of simultaneous blood gene expression profile and donor-derived cfDNA assays in 428 samples paired with surveillance biopsies from 208 subjects enrolled in an observational clinical trial (Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation-08). Assay results were analyzed as binary variables, and then, their continuous scores were combined using logistic regression. The performance of each assay alone and in combination was compared.

RESULTS

For diagnosing subclinical rejection, the gene expression profile demonstrated a negative predictive value of 82%, a positive predictive value of 47%, a balanced accuracy of 64%, and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75. The donor-derived cfDNA assay showed similar negative predictive value (84%), positive predictive value (56%), balanced accuracy (68%), and area under the receiver operating curve (0.72). When both assays were negative, negative predictive value increased to 88%. When both assays were positive, positive predictive value increased to 81%. Combining assays using multivariable logistic regression, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.81, significantly higher than the gene expression profile (P<0.001) or donor-derived cfDNA alone (P=0.006). Notably, when cases were separated on the basis of rejection type, the gene expression profile was significantly better at detecting cellular rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.80 versus 0.62; P=0.001), whereas the donor-derived cfDNA was significantly better at detecting antibody-mediated rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.84 versus 0.71; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of blood-based biomarkers can improve detection and provide less invasive monitoring for subclinical rejection. In this study, the gene expression profile detected more cellular rejection, whereas donor-derived cfDNA detected more antibody-mediated rejection.

Challenges of Diagnosing Antibody-Mediated Rejection: The Role of Invasive and Non-Invasive Biomarkers

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment modality for end-stage kidney disease, leading to improvement in a patient’s quality and quantity of life. With significant improvements in short-term outcomes, prolonging long-term allograft and patient survival remain ongoing challenges. The ability to monitor allograft function, immune tolerance and predict rejection accurately would enable personalization and better prognostication during post-transplant care. Though kidney biopsy remains the backbone of transplant diagnostics, emerging biomarkers can help detecting kidney allograft injury early enough to prevent permanent damage and detect injury before it is clinically apparent. In this review, we summarize the recent biomarkers that have shown promise in the prediction of acute rejection with a focus on antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplantation.

Blood transcriptomics as non-invasive marker for kidney transplant rejection

In the last decade, a plenitude of potential molecular peripheral blood biomarkers has been developed. In assessing the utility of these markers for clinical practice, it is important to evaluate their diagnostic performance in different clinical scenarios. The higher probability of diagnosing rejection in indication compared to protocol biopsies illustrates that kidney functional parameters (estimated glomerular filtration rate evolution, proteinuria) are inherently already non-invasive biomarkers for rejection, with evident clinical utility. However, by definition, graft functional assessment will miss subclinical rejection. In this paper, we review how some of the most promising peripheral blood molecular biomarkers, like blood transcriptomic markers and donor-derived cell-free DNA measurement, perform in relation to graft functional evaluation. Since the definition of graft dysfunction is relatively arbitrary, we propose using a standardized clinical model for non-invasive diagnosis of allograft rejection, as benchmark and for integration with novel molecular biomarkers.

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.

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.

Recent Advances on Biomarkers of Early and Late Kidney Graft Dysfunction

New biomarkers of early and late graft dysfunction are needed in renal transplant to improve management of complications and prolong graft survival. A wide range of potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, measured in different biological fluids (serum, plasma, urine) and in renal tissues, have been proposed for post-transplant delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD). This review investigates old and new potential biomarkers for each of these clinical domains, seeking to underline their limits and strengths. OMICs technology has allowed identifying many candidate biomarkers, providing diagnostic and prognostic information at very early stages of pathological processes, such as AR. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (ddcfDNA) and extracellular vesicles (EVs) are further promising tools. Although most of these biomarkers still need to be validated in multiple independent cohorts and standardized, they are paving the way for substantial advances, such as the possibility of accurately predicting risk of DGF before graft is implanted, of making a “molecular” diagnosis of subclinical rejection even before histological lesions develop, or of dissecting etiology of CAD. Identification of “immunoquiescent” or even tolerant patients to guide minimization of immunosuppressive therapy is another area of active research. The parallel progress in imaging techniques, bioinformatics, and artificial intelligence (AI) is helping to fully exploit the wealth of information provided by biomarkers, leading to improved disease nosology of old entities such as transplant glomerulopathy. Prospective studies are needed to assess whether introduction of these new sets of biomarkers into clinical practice could actually reduce the need for renal biopsy, integrate traditional tools, and ultimately improve graft survival compared to current management.

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.

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.