Novel non-invasive biomarkers diagnostic of acute rejection in renal transplant recipients: A systematic review

Urinary CXCL-10, a prognostic biomarker for kidney graft injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The challenges of long-term graft survival and the side effects of current immunosuppressive therapies in kidney transplantation highlight the need for improved drugs with fewer adverse effects. Biomarkers play a crucial role in quickly detecting post-transplant complications, with new biomarkers showing promise for ongoing monitoring of disease and potentially reducing the need for unnecessary invasive biopsies. The chemokines such as C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10), are particularly promising protein biomarkers for acute renal rejection, with urine samples being a desirable source for biomarkers. The aim of this review is to analyze the literature on the potential role of urinary CXCL10 protein in predicting kidney graft injuries. The results of this study demonstrate that evaluating urinary CXCL10 levels is more successful in identifying post-transplant injuries compared to assessing the CXCL10/Cr ratio.

Design, cohort profile and comparison of the KTD-Innov study: a prospective multidimensional biomarker validation study in kidney allograft rejection

There is an unmet need for robust and clinically validated biomarkers of kidney allograft rejection. Here we present the KTD-Innov study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03582436), an unselected deeply phenotyped cohort of kidney transplant recipients with a holistic approach to validate the clinical utility of precision diagnostic biomarkers. In 2018-2019, we prospectively enrolled consecutive adult patients who received a kidney allograft at seven French centers and followed them for a year. We performed multimodal phenotyping at follow-up visits, by collecting clinical, biological, immunological, and histological parameters, and analyzing a panel of 147 blood, urinary and kidney tissue biomarkers. The primary outcome was allograft rejection, assessed at each visit according to the international Banff 2019 classification. We evaluated the representativeness of participants by comparing them with patients from French, European, and American transplant programs transplanted during the same period. A total of 733 kidney transplant recipients (64.1% male and 35.9% female) were included during the study. The median follow-up after transplantation was 12.3 months (interquartile range, 11.9-13.1 months). The cumulative incidence of rejection was 9.7% at one year post-transplant. We developed a distributed and secured data repository in compliance with the general data protection regulation. We established a multimodal biomarker biobank of 16,736 samples, including 9331 blood, 4425 urinary and 2980 kidney tissue samples, managed and secured in a collaborative network involving 7 clinical centers, 4 analytical platforms and 2 industrial partners. Patients' characteristics, immune profiles and treatments closely resembled those of 41,238 French, European and American kidney transplant recipients. The KTD-Innov study is a unique holistic and multidimensional biomarker validation cohort of kidney transplant recipients representative of the real-world transplant population. Future findings from this cohort are likely to be robust and generalizable.

Prognostic Biomarkers in Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon.

METHODS

We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8-35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3-59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96-629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0-6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

All That Glitters in cfDNA Analysis Is Not Gold or Its Utility Is Completely Established Due to Graft Damage: A Critical Review in the Field of Transplantation

In kidney transplantation, a biopsy is currently the gold standard for monitoring the transplanted organ. However, this is far from an ideal screening method given its invasive nature and the discomfort it can cause the patient. Large-scale studies in renal transplantation show that approximately 1% of biopsies generate major complications, with a risk of macroscopic hematuria greater than 3.5%. It would not be until 2011 that a method to detect donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) employing digital PCR was devised based on analyzing the differences in SNPs between the donor and recipient. In addition, since the initial validation studies were carried out at the specific moments in which rejection was suspected, there is still not a good understanding of how dd-cfDNA levels naturally evolve post-transplant. In addition, various factors, both in the recipient and the donor, can influence dd-cfDNA levels and cause increases in the levels of dd-cfDNA themselves without suspicion of rejection. All that glitters in this technology is not gold; therefore, in this article, we discuss the current state of clinical studies, the benefits, and disadvantages.

Noninvasive Assessment of the Alloimmune Response in Kidney Transplantation

Transplantation remains the optimal mode of kidney replacement therapy, but unfortunately long-term graft survival after 1 year remains suboptimal. The main mechanism of chronic allograft injury is alloimmune, and current clinical monitoring of kidney transplants includes measuring serum creatinine, proteinuria, and immunosuppressive drug levels. The most important biomarker routinely monitored is human leukocyte antigen (HLA) donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) with the frequency based on underlying immunologic risk. HLA-DSA should be measured if there is graft dysfunction, immunosuppression minimization, or nonadherence. Antibody strength is semiquantitatively estimated as mean fluorescence intensity, with titration studies for equivocal cases and for following response to treatment. Determination of in vitro C1q or C3d positivity or HLA-DSA IgG subclass analysis remains of uncertain significance, but we do not recommend these for routine use. Current evidence does not support routine monitoring of non-HLA antibodies except anti-angiotensin II type 1 receptor antibodies when the phenotype is appropriate. The monitoring of both donor-derived cell-free DNA in blood or gene expression profiling of serum and/or urine may detect subclinical rejection, although mainly as a supplement and not as a replacement for biopsy. The optimal frequency and cost-effectiveness of using these noninvasive assays remain to be determined. We review the available literature and make recommendations.

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.

Urinary Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prediction of Acute Kidney Allograft Rejection: A Systematic Review

Noninvasive tools for diagnosis or prediction of acute kidney allograft rejection have been extensively investigated in recent years. Biochemical and molecular analyses of blood and urine provide a liquid biopsy that could offer new possibilities for rejection prevention, monitoring, and therefore, treatment. Nevertheless, these tools are not yet available for routine use in clinical practice. In this systematic review, MEDLINE was searched for articles assessing urinary biomarkers for diagnosis or prediction of kidney allograft acute rejection published in the last five years (from 1 January 2015 to 31 May 2020). This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles providing targeted or unbiased urine sample analysis for the diagnosis or prediction of both acute cellular and antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection were included, analyzed, and graded for methodological quality with a particular focus on study design and diagnostic test accuracy measures. Urinary C-X-C motif chemokine ligands were the most promising and frequently studied biomarkers. The combination of precise diagnostic reference in training sets with accurate validation in real-life cohorts provided the most relevant results and exciting groundwork for future studies.

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.

Banff 2019 Meeting Report: Molecular diagnostics in solid organ transplantation-Consensus for the Banff Human Organ Transplant (B-HOT) gene panel and open source multicenter validation

This meeting report from the XV Banff conference describes the creation of a multiorgan transplant gene panel by the Banff Molecular Diagnostics Working Group (MDWG). This Banff Human Organ Transplant (B-HOT) panel is the culmination of previous work by the MDWG to identify a broadly useful gene panel based on whole transcriptome technology. A data-driven process distilled a gene list from peer-reviewed comprehensive microarray studies that discovered and validated their use in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant biopsies. These were supplemented by genes that define relevant cellular pathways and cell types plus 12 reference genes used for normalization. The 770 gene B-HOT panel includes the most pertinent genes related to rejection, tolerance, viral infections, and innate and adaptive immune responses. This commercially available panel uses the NanoString platform, which can quantitate transcripts from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples. The B-HOT panel will facilitate multicenter collaborative clinical research using archival samples and permit the development of an open source large database of standardized analyses, thereby expediting clinical validation studies. The MDWG believes that a pathogenesis and pathway based molecular approach will be valuable for investigators and promote therapeutic decision-making and clinical trials.

Noninvasive biomarkers in monitoring kidney allograft health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A key aspect of posttransplant management is to identify and treat graft injury before it becomes irreversible. The gold-standard for detection is histology, but biopsy is uncomfortable for the patient and carries a risk of complications. Detection of changes at a molecular level may preempt histological injury, and thereby identify injury earlier.

RECENT FINDINGS

Indicators of immune system activation, such as candidate chemokines CXCL9 and CXCL10, and by-products of neutrophil activity, have been related to acute rejection and early allograft function. Transcriptomic studies of multiple-gene panels have identified candidate combinations that have proven very promising in risk-stratification and prediction of acute rejection, as well as diagnosis of both T-cell-mediated and antibody-mediated rejection. Serum and urine cell-free DNA is also a promising area of investigation, particularly in antibody-mediated rejection.

SUMMARY

Noninvasive, rapid, and accurate tests for risk-prediction and diagnosis in renal transplant allografts are urgently required. The ideal candidate is one that can be measured in either urine or blood, is cheap, and is both sensitive and specific for the condition of interest. Numerous strategies have been proposed, with varying degrees of clinical and preclinical success. A few that meet the essential criteria have been evaluated; a few have made it as far as clinical testing.

Targeted Proteomic Analysis Detects Acute T Cell-Mediated Kidney Allograft Rejection in Belatacept-Treated Patients

BACKGROUND

There is an unmet need for reliable minimally invasive diagnostic biomarkers for immunological allograft monitoring and for the detection of acute kidney transplant rejection. Here, targeted proteomic analysis was applied to compare 92 proteins in sera of belatacept-treated patients who had biopsy-proven, acute T-cell-mediated rejection (aTCMR) with patients without aTCMR.

METHODS

Proximity extension immunoassay was used to measure 92 inflammation-related protein concentrations in the prerejection and rejection sera of 11 patients with aTCMR and 9 patients without aTCMR. This assay uses 2 matched oligonucleotide-labeled antibody probes for each protein and polymerase chain reaction to measure normalized protein expression values.

RESULTS

Five proteins (CD5, CD8A, NCR1, TNFRSF4, and TNFRSF9) were expressed significantly higher in samples with aTCMR compared with samples without aTCMR (adjusted P-value < 0.014) and had a good predictive capacity for aTCMR [area under the curve in a receiver-operator curve ranged from 0.83 to 0.91 (P < 0.014)]. These proteins are associated with CD8 cytotoxic T-cell and NK cell functions. Nonhierarchical clustering analysis showed distinct clustering of samples with aTCMR and samples without aTCMR. This clustering was not found in prerejection samples (1 month after transplantation). In prerejection samples, IFN-γ was expressed at a significantly lower level (normalized protein expression value median -0.15, interquartile range: -0.27 to 0.04) than in samples of patients without rejection (median 0.13, interquartile range: -0.07 to 0.15, adjusted P-value = 0.00367).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted proteomic analysis with proximity extension immunoassay is a promising minimally invasive technique to diagnose aTCMR in kidney transplant recipients.