Quality and consistency of outcome reporting in clinical trials of immunosuppression in renal transplantation

Rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) versus IL-2 receptor antagonist induction therapies in tacrolimus-based immunosuppression era: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis is to explore the effect of IL-2RA vs rATG on the rate of acute rejection, post-transplant infections, and graft as well as patient's survival in standard- and high-risk renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus-based maintenance immunotherapy.

METHODS

Random effects model was the method used for identifying risk difference. Confidence interval including the value 1 was used as evidence for statistically significant risk difference. Heterogeneity was assessed using Der Simonian analysis. Heterogeneity was evident at the level of P value < 0.1 RESULTS: The random effects model showed no significant differences in both acute rejection rates between IL-2RA and rATG induction therapies with relative risk of 1.24 graft survival with relative risk 0.90. Patient survival also did not demonstrate any significant difference with a relative risk of 1.19. Random effects for CMV infection showed a lesser tendency for CMV infection in IL-2RA group compared to ATG group the with a relative risk of 0.73.In subgroup analysis, the random effects model for acute rejection rates in high-risk transplants showed a higher risk of acute rejection in the IL-2RA group compared to rATG (relative risk equals 1.55) In standard-risk transplants, there were no significant differences between both groups with relative risk equals 1.02 CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in patient and graft survival when using IL-2RA vs rATG with the tacrolimus-based maintenance immunosuppression era. However, subgroup analysis showed less incidence of rejection in high-risk renal transplant recipient's population using rATG compared to IL-2RA.

Developing Consensus-Based Priority Outcome Domains for Trials in Kidney Transplantation: A Multinational Delphi Survey With Patients, Caregivers, and Health Professionals

BACKGROUND

Inconsistencies in outcome reporting and frequent omission of patient-centered outcomes can diminish the value of trials in treatment decision making. We identified critically important outcome domains in kidney transplantation based on the shared priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals.

METHODS

In a 3-round Delphi survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the importance of outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation on a 9-point Likert scale and provided comments. During rounds 2 and 3, participants rerated the outcomes after reviewing their own score, the distribution of the respondents' scores, and comments. We calculated the median, mean, and proportion rating 7 to 9 (critically important), and analyzed comments thematically.

RESULTS

One thousand eighteen participants (461 [45%] patients/caregivers and 557 [55%] health professionals) from 79 countries completed round 1, and 779 (77%) completed round 3. The top 8 outcomes that met the consensus criteria in round 3 (mean, ≥7.5; median, ≥8; proportion, >85%) in both groups were graft loss, graft function, chronic rejection, acute rejection, mortality, infection, cancer (excluding skin), and cardiovascular disease. Compared with health professionals, patients/caregivers gave higher priority to 6 outcomes (mean difference of 0.5 or more): skin cancer, surgical complications, cognition, blood pressure, depression, and ability to work. We identified 5 themes: capacity to control and inevitability, personal relevance, debilitating repercussions, gaining awareness of risks, and addressing knowledge gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

Graft complications and severe comorbidities were critically important for both stakeholder groups. These stakeholder-prioritized outcomes will inform the core outcome set to improve the consistency and relevance of trials in kidney transplantation.