The need for novel trial designs, master protocols, and research consortia in transplantation

Challenges and opportunities for designing clinical trials for antibody mediated rejection

Significant progress has been made in kidney transplantation, with 1-year graft survival nearing 95%. However, long-term allograft survival remains suboptimal, with a 10-year overall graft survival rate of only 53.6% for deceased donor transplant recipients. Chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is a leading cause of death-censored graft loss, yet no therapy has demonstrated efficacy in large, randomized trials, despite substantial investment from pharmaceutical companies. Several clinical trials aimed to treat chronic ABMR in the past decade have yielded disappointing results or were prematurely terminated, attributed to factors including incomplete understanding of disease mechanisms, heterogeneous patient populations with comorbidities, slow disease progression, and limited patient numbers. This review aims to discuss opportunities for improving retrospective and prospective studies of ABMR, focusing on addressing heterogeneity, outcome measurement, and strategies to enhance patient enrollment to inform study design, data collection, and reporting.

Investigational drugs for the treatment of kidney transplant rejection

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplant rejection remains an important clinical problem despite the development of effective immunosuppressive drug combination therapy. Two major types of rejection are recognized, namely T-cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), which have a different pathophysiology and are treated differently. Unfortunately, long-term outcomes of both TCMR and ABMR remain unsatisfactory despite current therapy. Hence, alternative therapeutic drugs are urgently needed.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers novel and investigational drugs for the pharmacological treatment of kidney transplant rejection. Potential therapeutic strategies and future directions are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The development of alternative pharmacologic treatment of rejection has focused mostly on ABMR, since this is the leading cause of kidney allograft loss and currently lacks an effective, evidence-based therapy. At present, there is insufficient high-quality evidence for any of the covered investigational drugs to support their use in ABMR. However, with the emergence of targeted therapies, this potential arises for individualized treatment strategies. In order to generate more high-quality evidence for such strategies and overcome the obstacles of classic, randomized, controlled trials, we advocate the implementation of adaptive trial designs and surrogate clinical endpoints. We believe such adaptive trial designs could help to understand the risks and benefits of promising drugs such as tocilizumab, clazakizumab, belimumab, and imlifidase.

Current Approaches to Desensitization in Solid Organ Transplantation

Major advancements in the development of HLA antibody detection techniques and our understanding of the outcomes of solid organ transplant in the context of HLA antibody have occurred since the relevance of sensitization was first recognized nearly 50 years ago. Additionally, kidney paired donation programs (KPD) have become widespread, deceased donor allocation policies have changed, and several new therapeutic options have become available with promise to reduce HLA antibody. In this overview we aim to provide thoughtful guidance about when desensitization in kidney transplantation should be considered taking into account the outcomes of HLA incompatible transplantation. Novel therapeutics, desensitization endpoints, and strategies for future study will also be discussed. While most of our understanding about desensitization comes from studying kidney transplant candidates and recipients, many of the concepts discussed can be easily applied to desensitization in all of solid organ transplantation.

Design, Analysis, and Pitfalls of Clinical Trials Using Ex Situ Liver Machine Perfusion: The International Liver Transplantation Society Consensus Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Recent trials in liver machine perfusion (MP) have revealed unique challenges beyond those seen in most clinical studies. Correct trial design and interpretation of data are essential to avoid drawing conclusions that may compromise patient safety and increase costs.

METHODS

The International Liver Transplantation Society, through the Special Interest Group "DCD, Preservation and Machine Perfusion," established a working group to write consensus statements and guidelines on how future clinical trials in liver perfusion should be designed, with particular focus on relevant clinical endpoints and how different techniques of liver perfusion should be compared. Protocols, abstracts, and full published papers of clinical trials using liver MP were reviewed. The use of a simplified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group (GRADE) system was attempted to assess the level of evidence. The working group presented its conclusions at the International Liver Transplantation Society consensus conference "DCD, Liver Preservation, and Machine Perfusion" held in Venice, Italy, on January 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Twelve recommendations were proposed with the main conclusions that clinical trials investigating the effect of MP in liver transplantation should (1) make the protocol publicly available before the start of the trial, (2) be adequately powered, and (3) carefully consider timing of randomization in function of the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

There are issues with using accepted primary outcomes of liver transplantation trials in the context of MP trials, and no ideal endpoint could be defined by the working group. The setup of an international registry was considered vital by the working group.

A noninferiority design for a delayed calcineurin inhibitor substitution trial in kidney transplantation

Improving long-term kidney transplant outcomes requires novel treatment strategies, including delayed calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) substitution, tested using informative trial designs. An alternative approach to the usual superiority-based trial is a noninferiority trial design that tests whether an investigational agent is not unacceptably worse than standard of care. An informative noninferiority design, with biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) as the endpoint, requires determination of a prespecified, evidence-based noninferiority margin for BPAR. No such information is available for delayed CNI substitution in kidney transplantation. Herein we analyzed data from recent kidney transplant trials of CNI withdrawal and "real world" CNI- based standard of care, containing subjects with well-documented evidence of immune quiescence at 6 months posttransplant-ideal candidates for delayed CNI substitution. Our analysis indicates an evidence-based noninferiority margin of 13.8% for the United States Food and Drug Administration's composite definition of BPAR between 6 and 24 months posttransplant. Sample size estimation determined that ~225 randomized subjects would be required to evaluate noninferiority for this primary clinical efficacy endpoint, and superiority for a renal function safety endpoint. Our findings provide the basis for future delayed CNI substitution noninferiority trials, thereby increasing the likelihood they will provide clinically implementable results and achieve regulatory approval.

Estimating alloantibody levels in highly sensitized renal allograft candidates: Using serial dilutions to demonstrate a treatment effect in clinical trials

Small reductions in calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) are associated with increased kidney transplantation in 100% cPRA patients. However, the high level of antibody in these patients is such that desensitization may reduce antibody but not cPRA, thus the cPRA change on undiluted serum with desensitization is an insensitive measure of effectiveness. We evaluated cPRA reduction, calculated per antibody titer, as a desensitization trial endpoint. To accomplish this, two serum samples from 20 kidney transplant candidates with cPRA ≥99.9% (100%) were obtained and serially diluted in triplicate to determine the titer of individual human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody specificities. CPRA was computed per dilution to identify the titer at which cPRA drops below 98%. Inter- and intra-assay variability and changes overtime were determined. The dilution needed to reach a cPRA <98% was within 1 titer for replicates from the same sample, with 90% (36/40) concordance. This indicates that only changes >2 titers can be deemed clinically meaningful. The median (IQR) titer difference was 0 (0-1) from baseline to follow-up within 12 months. The cPRA per titer also risk-stratified candidates for trial inclusion. In conclusion, determining the cPRA per titer is a reliable approach to simplify complex antibody data and an ideal endpoint for desensitization trials.

COVID-19 coronavirus research has overall low methodological quality thus far: case in point for chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Prior epidemics of high-mortality human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-1) in 2003, have driven the characterization of compounds that could be possibly active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Presently, no approved treatment or prophylaxis is available for COVID-19. We comment on the existing COVID-19 research methodologies in general and the published reporting. Given the media attention and claims of effectiveness, we chose chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin, as an area of COVID-19 research to examine.

METHODS/STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2019 to present (April 3rd, 2020) using a mix of keywords such as COVID-19 and chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. We also searched the largest clinical medicine preprint repository, medRxiv.org.

RESULTS

We found 6 studies, 3 randomized control trials and 3 observational studies, focusing on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with azithromycin). We critically appraised the evidence.

CONCLUSION

We found that the COVID-19 research methodology is very poor in the area of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine research. In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19.