1
|
Ventura-Aguiar P, Ramirez-Bajo MJ, Rovira J, Bañón-Maneus E, Hierro N, Lazo M, Cuatrecasas M, Garcia-Criado M, Liang N, Swenerton RK, Cofan F, Cucchiari D, Esforzado N, Montagud-Marrahi E, Oppenheimer F, Piñeiro G, Revuelta I, Torregrosa V, Ahmed E, Soboleva K, Kaur N, Zimmermann BG, Al Haj Baddar N, Demko ZP, Escrig C, Tabriziani H, Gauthier P, Billings PR, Amor AJ, Ferrer J, Campistol JM, Diekmann F. Donor-derived Cell-free DNA Shows High Sensitivity for the Diagnosis of Pancreas Graft Rejection in Simultaneous Pancreas-kidney Transplantation. Transplantation 2022; 106:1690-1697. [PMID: 35289777 PMCID: PMC9311279 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000004088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2021] [Revised: 12/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreas graft status in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPKTx) is currently assessed by nonspecific biochemical markers, typically amylase or lipase. Identifying a noninvasive biomarker with good sensitivity in detecting early pancreas graft rejection could improve SPKTx management. METHODS Here, we developed a pilot study to explore donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) performance in predicting biopsy-proven acute rejection (P-BPAR) of the pancreas graft in a cohort of 36 SPKTx recipients with biopsy-matched plasma samples. dd-cfDNA was measured using the Prospera test (Natera, Inc.) and reported both as a fraction of the total cfDNA (fraction; %) and as concentration in the recipient's plasma (quantity; copies/mL). RESULTS In the absence of P-BPAR, dd-cfDNA was significantly higher in samples collected within the first 45 d after SPKTx compared with those measured afterward (median, 1.00% versus 0.30%; median, 128.2 versus 35.3 cp/mL, respectively with both; P = 0.001). In samples obtained beyond day 45, P-BPAR samples presented a significantly higher dd-cfDNA fraction (0.83 versus 0.30%; P = 0.006) and quantity (81.3 versus 35.3 cp/mL; P = 0.001) than stable samples. Incorporating dd-cfDNA quantity along with dd-cfDNA fraction outperformed dd-cfDNA fraction alone to detect active rejection. Notably, when using a quantity cutoff of 70 cp/mL, dd-cfDNA detected P-BPAR with a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 93.7%, which was more accurate than current biomarkers (area under curve of 0.89 for dd-cfDNA (cp/ml) compared with 0.74 of lipase and 0.46 for amylase). CONCLUSIONS dd-cfDNA measurement through a simple noninvasive blood test could be incorporated into clinical practice to help inform graft management in SPKTx patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro Ventura-Aguiar
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Maria Jose Ramirez-Bajo
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Jordi Rovira
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Elisenda Bañón-Maneus
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Natalia Hierro
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Marta Lazo
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Miriam Cuatrecasas
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - M.A. Garcia-Criado
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | - Federic Cofan
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - David Cucchiari
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Nuria Esforzado
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Enrique Montagud-Marrahi
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Federic Oppenheimer
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Gaston Piñeiro
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ignacio Revuelta
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Vicens Torregrosa
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ebad Ahmed
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Karina Soboleva
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Navchetan Kaur
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Bernhard G. Zimmermann
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Nour Al Haj Baddar
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Zachary P. Demko
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Cesar Escrig
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Hossein Tabriziani
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Philippe Gauthier
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Paul R. Billings
- Pathology Department, Center for Biomedical Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Antonio J. Amor
- Radiology Department, Center for Imaging Diagnosis, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Joana Ferrer
- Endocrinology Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Josep M. Campistol
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| | - Fritz Diekmann
- Renal Transplant Unit, Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
- Laboratori Experimental de Nefrologia i Trasplantament, Fundacio Clinic - IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
- Red de Investigación Renal (REDINREN), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Herbrecht R, Kuessner D, Pooley N, Posthumus J, Escrig C. Systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical outcomes associated with isavuconazole versus relevant comparators for patients with invasive aspergillosis. Curr Med Res Opin 2018; 34:2187-2195. [PMID: 30022696 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1502659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Voriconazole, amphotericin B (AmB) formulations, and isavuconazole are all included in guideline recommendations for treatment of patients with invasive aspergillosis (IA) but the relative efficacy of isavuconazole versus AmB formulations has not been directly compared. We aimed to estimate the relative efficacy of isavuconazole compared with AmB deoxycholate (AmB-D), liposomal AmB (L-AmB), and voriconazole for the treatment of patients with proven/probable IA. METHODS Nine literature databases were screened for randomized controlled trials comparing treatments with any of voriconazole, AmB-D, L-AmB and isavuconazole for treatment of proven/probable IA. Articles meeting the criteria were included in a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of AmB-D, L-AmB and voriconazole relative to isavuconazole based on all-cause mortality (ACM) and overall response using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS Four articles were identified that compared L-AmB with AmB-D (Study 1), standard-dose L-AmB (3-5 mg/kg/day) with high-dose L-AmB (10 mg/kg/day; Study 2), voriconazole with AmB-D (Study 3), and isavuconazole with voriconazole (Study 4). In the network meta-analysis, isavuconazole was statistically superior to AmB-D on both ACM (odds ratio [95% credible intervals] shown as natural log, 1.00 [0.26, 1.74]) and overall response (-1.39 [-2.21, -0.63]). Differences between isavuconazole, and standard-dose L-AmB, high-dose L-AmB and voriconazole were not statistically significant for either ACM (0.18 [-1.17, 1.53], 0.50 [-1.11, 2.13] and 0.32 [-0.19, 0.84], respectively) or overall response (-0.99 [-2.21, 0.29], -0.89 [-2.41, 0.65] and 0.06 [-0.43, 0.57], respectively). CONCLUSIONS This data suggests that the efficacy of isavuconazole for treatment of IA is superior to AmB-D and comparable with both L-AmB and voriconazole.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raoul Herbrecht
- a Département d'Oncologie et d'Hématologie , Hôpital de Hautepierre, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, University of Strasbourg , Inserm, UMR-S1113/IRFAC, Strasbourg , France
| | - Daniel Kuessner
- b Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd , Basel , Switzerland
| | | | - Jan Posthumus
- b Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd , Basel , Switzerland
| | - Cesar Escrig
- b Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd , Basel , Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bagshaw E, Kuessner D, Posthumus J, Escrig C, Blackney M, Heimann SM, Cornely OA. The cost of treating mucormycosis with isavuconazole compared with standard therapy in the UK. Future Microbiol 2017; 12:515-525. [PMID: 28191796 DOI: 10.2217/fmb-2016-0231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM Mucormycosis is a fungal infection associated with high mortality. Until recently, the only licensed treatments were amphotericin B (AMB) formulations. Isavuconazole (ISAV) is a new mucormycosis treatment. A UK-based economic model explored treatment costs with ISAV versus liposomal AMB followed by posaconazole. MATERIALS & METHODS As a matched case-control analysis showed similar efficacy for ISAV and AMB, a cost-minimization approach was taken. Direct costs - drug acquisition, monitoring and administration, and hospitalization costs - were estimated from the National Health Service perspective. RESULTS Per-patient costs for ISAV and liposomal AMB + posaconazole were UK£26,810 and UK£41,855, respectively, with savings primarily driven by drug acquisition and hospitalization costs. CONCLUSION ISAV may reduce costs compared with standard mucormycosis therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Daniel Kuessner
- Global Market Access and Health Economics, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Jan Posthumus
- Global Market Access and Health Economics, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Cesar Escrig
- Global Medical Affairs, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Oliver Andreas Cornely
- Department I of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.,Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases (CECAD), Clinical Trials Centre Cologne (ZKS Köln), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
De Simone P, Saliba F, Dong G, Escrig C, Fischer L. Do patient characteristics influence efficacy and renal outcomes in liver transplant patients receiving everolimus? Clin Transplant 2016; 30:279-88. [PMID: 26717035 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/24/2015] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
Data from the 24-month randomized, multicenter, open-label H2304 study in 719 de novo liver transplant recipients were analyzed to evaluate the influence of variables potentially affecting immunological or renal response: recipient age, gender, end-stage disease, hepatitis C virus (HCV) status, and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at randomization (day 30). Treated BPAR was similar between everolimus with reduced tacrolimus (EVR + Reduced TAC) vs. conventional tacrolimus-based therapy (TAC Control) in all subpopulations, with a trend to lower risk under everolimus with reduced tacrolimus (EVR + Reduced TAC) in patients < 60 yrs and HCV-negative recipients. Risk of graft loss or death was similar in both treatment groups for all subpopulations. The change in eGFR to month 24 showed a benefit for EVR + Reduced TAC vs. TAC Control in all subpopulations other than those with the lowest baseline eGFR (30 to < 55 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), with a significant difference in favor of EVR + Reduced TAC for younger recipients (< 60 yr), female patients, HCV-negative patients and those with baseline eGFR of 55 to < 70 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Everolimus with reduced tacrolimus maintains efficacy to at least two yr after liver transplantation even in patients with risk factors for rejection, with particular renal benefits in specific patient subpopulations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paolo De Simone
- Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Faouzi Saliba
- Hepatobiliary Center, AP-HP Hôpital Paul Brousse, Université Paris-Sud, Villejuif, France
| | | | | | - Lutz Fischer
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Transplantation, University Medical Center Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|