Rationale for Surrogate Endpoints and Conditional Marketing Authorization of New Therapies for Kidney Transplantation

The Banff 2022 Kidney Meeting Work Plan: Data-driven refinement of the Banff Classification for renal allografts

The XVIth Banff Meeting for Allograft Pathology was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, from September 19 to 23, 2022, as a joint meeting with the Canadian Society of Transplantation. In addition to a key focus on the impact of microvascular inflammation and biopsy-based transcript analysis on the Banff Classification, further sessions were devoted to other aspects of kidney transplant pathology, in particular T cell-mediated rejection, activity and chronicity indices, digital pathology, xenotransplantation, clinical trials, and surrogate endpoints. Although the output of these sessions has not led to any changes in the classification, the key role of Banff Working Groups in phrasing unanswered questions, and coordinating and disseminating results of investigations addressing these unanswered questions was emphasized. This paper summarizes the key Banff Meeting 2022 sessions not covered in the Banff Kidney Meeting 2022 Report paper and also provides an update on other Banff Working Group activities relevant to kidney allografts.

Tacrolimus After rATG and Infliximab Induction Immunosuppression-RIMINI Trial

BACKGROUND

Infliximab selectively targets recently activated effector cells and, as an induction agent, might enable the safe elimination of mycophenolate from maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation.

METHODS

This is a phase II international multicenter open-label single-arm confidence interval (CI)-based clinical trial of the BIO-DrIM EU consortium aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of rabbit antithymocyte globulin and infliximab induction in kidney transplantation. Sixty-seven primary kidney transplant recipients at low risk (panel-reactive antibodies <20%, no donor-specific antibodies [DSA]) received rabbit antithymocyte globulin (2 × 1.5 mg/kg, postoperative days 0 and 1) and infliximab (5 mg/kg, postoperative day 2), followed by mycophenolate-free tacrolimus-based immunosuppression for 12 mo. The primary endpoint was efficacy failure, defined as a composite of acute rejection, graft loss, or poor graft function (estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min) at 12 mo and was based on the endpoint of the comparator study. Additionally, a historical propensity-matched control cohort was established.

RESULTS

Primary endpoint occurred in 22 of 67 patients (32.84%), with upper bound of an exact 1-sided 95% CI of 43.47%, which met the predefined criteria (efficacy failure of <40% and upper-bound 95% CI of <50%) and was similar in the historical matched cohort. By 12 mo, 79.1% of patients remained on the study protocol. Lower rates of BK replication (6% versus 22.4%; P  = 0.013) but higher rates of de novo DSAs (11.9% versus 1.5%; P  = 0.039) were observed in the study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

A similar efficacy of the study immunosuppression regimen to the comparator study and the historical matched cohort was found. However, a higher de novo DSA emergence points to an increased risk of antibody-mediated rejection (NCT04114188).

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.

Qualifying a novel clinical trial endpoint (iBOX) predictive of long-term kidney transplant outcomes

New immunosuppressive therapies that improve long-term graft survival are needed in kidney transplant. Critical Path Institute's Transplant Therapeutics Consortium received a qualification opinion for the iBOX Scoring System as a novel secondary efficacy endpoint for kidney transplant clinical trials through European Medicines Agency's qualification of novel methodologies for drug development. This is the first qualified endpoint for any transplant indication and is now available for use in kidney transplant clinical trials. Although the current efficacy failure endpoint has typically shown the noninferiority of therapeutic regimens, the iBOX Scoring System can be used to demonstrate the superiority of a new immunosuppressive therapy compared to the standard of care from 6 months to 24 months posttransplant in pivotal or exploratory drug therapeutic studies.

Qualifying a Novel Clinical Trial Endpoint (iBOX) Predictive of Long-Term Kidney Transplant Outcomes

New immunosuppressive therapies that improve long-term graft survival are needed in kidney transplant. Critical Path Institute's Transplant Therapeutics Consortium received a qualification opinion for the iBOX Scoring System as a novel secondary efficacy endpoint for kidney transplant clinical trials through European Medicines Agency's qualification of novel methodologies for drug development. This is the first qualified endpoint for any transplant indication and is now available for use in kidney transplant clinical trials. Although the current efficacy failure endpoint has typically shown the noninferiority of therapeutic regimens, the iBOX Scoring System can be used to demonstrate the superiority of a new immunosuppressive therapy compared to the standard of care from 6 months to 24 months posttransplant in pivotal or exploratory drug therapeutic studies.

Emerging drugs for antibody-mediated rejection after kidney transplantation: a focus on phase II & III trials

INTRODUCTION

Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is a leading cause of kidney allograft failure. Its therapy continues to be challenge, and no treatment has been approved for the market thus far.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we discuss the pathophysiology and phenotypic presentation of ABMR, the current level of evidence to support the use of available therapeutic strategies, and the emergence of tailored drugs now being evaluated in systematic clinical trials. We searched PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov and Citeline's Pharmaprojects for pertinent information on emerging anti-rejection strategies, laying a focus on phase II and III trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Currently, we rely on the use of apheresis for alloantibody depletion and intravenous immunoglobulin (referred to as standard of care), preferentially in early active ABMR. Recent systematic trials have questioned the benefits of using the CD20 antibody rituximab or the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. However, there are now several promising treatment approaches in the pipeline, which are being trialed in phase II and III studies. These include interleukin-6 antagonism, CD38-targeting antibodies, and selective inhibitors of complement. On the basis of the information that has emerged so far, it seems that innovative treatment strategies for clinical use in ABMR may be available within the next 5-10 years.

Surrogate Endpoints for Late Kidney Transplantation Failure

In kidney transplant recipients, late graft failure is often multifactorial. In addition, primary endpoints in kidney transplantation studies seek to demonstrate the short-term efficacy and safety of clinical interventions. Although such endpoints might demonstrate short-term improvement in specific aspects of graft function or incidence of rejection, such findings do not automatically translate into meaningful long-term graft survival benefits. Combining many factors into a well-validated model is therefore more likely to predict long-term outcome and better reflect the complexity of late graft failure than using single endpoints. If conditional marketing authorization could be considered for therapies that aim to improve long-term outcomes following kidney transplantation, then the surrogate endpoint for graft failure in clinical trial settings needs clearer definition. This Consensus Report considers the potential benefits and drawbacks of several candidate surrogate endpoints (including estimated glomerular filtration rate, proteinuria, histological lesions, and donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies) and composite scoring systems. The content was created from information prepared by a working group within the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT). The group submitted a Broad Scientific Advice request to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), June 2020: the request focused on clinical trial design and endpoints in kidney transplantation. Following discussion and refinement, the EMA made final recommendations to ESOT in December 2020 regarding the potential to use surrogate endpoints in clinical studies that aim to improving late graft failure.