A simple score can identify kidney transplant recipients at high risk of severe infection over the following 2 years

Immune monitoring of prevalent kidney transplant recipients using Torque Teno Virus: Protocol for a single-centre prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) suffer from immunosuppression-related adverse events (iRAEs), such as infections and malignancy from chronic immunosuppression, but are also at risk of graft loss from rejection with underimmunosuppression. Biomarkers that predict both iRAEs and rejection while allowing individualisation of immunosuppression exposure are lacking. Although plasma viral DNA levels of torque teno virus (TTV), a widely prevalent, non-pathogenic virus, have been shown to predict both iRAE and rejection in newly transplanted KTRs within the first year after transplant, its role for prevalent KTRs on stable immunosuppression is less clear.This study aims to determine the prognostic value of TTV levels for severe infections (defined as infections requiring hospitalisation) in prevalent KTRs on stable immunosuppression for at least 3 months and compare it against that of other commonly available biomarkers. The study also aims to explore the relationship between TTV levels and factors affecting the 'net state of immunosuppression' as well as other clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre, prospective, observational cohort study of 172 KTRs on stable immunosuppression for more than 3 months. TTV levels will be measured using the TTV R-GENE kit upon recruitment when study subjects are admitted and when kidney allograft biopsies are performed. Subjects will be monitored for iRAEs and rejection for at least 12 months. The relationship between TTV load and clinical outcomes such as severe infections will be analysed and compared against that from other common biomarkers and previously published predictive scores.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (2023/2170). The results will be presented at conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05836636.

Eudaimonia: An Aristotelian approach to transplantation

Despite extraordinary achievements in over the past 20 years, the field of transplantation remains hindered by relatively narrow metrics for success. Eudaimonia is an Aristotelian concept that refers to flourishing, or achieving the best conditions possible, in every sense. The vast amounts of patient data that are collected throughout the transplant care continuum, ranging from social determinants of health to genomic profiles and patient-reported outcomes, afford us unprecedented opportunity to enhance our definition of success for our transplant patients. We must engage the technologies available for data integration and analysis and apply them in an insightful way, such that our clinical practice evolves beyond patient and graft survival and toward a more comprehensive state of wellness.

A New Clinical and Immunovirological Score for Predicting the Risk of Late Severe Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: The CLIV Score

BACKGROUND

We aimed at constructing a composite score based on Epstein-Barr virus DNAemia (EBVd) and simple clinical and immunological parameters to predict late severe infection (LI) beyond month 6 in solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients.

METHODS

Kidney and liver transplant recipients between May 2014 and August 2016 at 4 participating centers were included. Serum immunoglobulins and complement factors, peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations, and whole blood EBVd were determined at months 1, 3, and 6. Cox regression analyses were performed to generate a weighted score for the prediction of LI.

RESULTS

Overall, 309 SOT recipients were followed-up for a median of 1000 days from transplant (interquartile range, 822-1124). Late severe infection occurred in 104 patients (33.6%). The CLIV Score consisted of the following variables at month 6: high-level EBVd (>1500 IU/mL) and recurrent infection during the previous months (6 points); recipient age ≥70 years and chronic graft dysfunction (5 points); cytomegalovirus mismatch (4 points); and CD8+ T-cell count <400 cells/μL (2 points). The area under receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84). The risk of LI at day 1000 was as follows: score 0, 12.6%; score 2-5, 25.5%; score 6-9, 52.7%; score ≥10, 73.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

While waiting for further external validation, the CLIV Score based on clinical and immune-virological parameters is potentially useful to stratify the risk of LI after SOT.

Derivation and external validation of the SIMPLICITY score as a simple immune-based risk score to predict infection in kidney transplant recipients

Existing approaches for infection risk stratification in kidney transplant recipients are suboptimal. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a weighted score integrating non-pathogen-specific immune parameters and clinical variables to predict the occurrence of post-transplant infectious complications. To this end, we retrospectively analyzed a single-center derivation cohort of 410 patients undergoing kidney transplantation in 2008-2013 in Madrid. Peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations, serum immunoglobulin and complement levels were measured at one-month post-transplant. The primary and secondary outcomes were overall and bacterial infection through month six. A point score was derived from a logistic regression model and prospectively applied on a validation cohort of 522 patients undergoing kidney transplantation at 16 centers throughout Spain in 2014-2015. The SIMPLICITY score consisted of the following variables measured at month one after transplantation: C3 level, CD4⁺ T-cell count, CD8⁺ T-cell count, IgG level, glomerular filtration rate, recipient age, and infection within the first month. The discrimination capacity in the derivation and validation cohorts was good for overall (areas under the receiver operating curve of 0.774 and 0.730) and bacterial infection (0.767 and 0.734, respectively). The cumulative incidence of overall infection significantly increased across risk categories in the derivation (low-risk 13.7%; intermediate-risk, 35.9%; high-risk 77.6%) and validation datasets (10.2%, 28.9% and 50.4%, respectively). Thus, the SIMPLICITY score, based on easily available immune parameters, allows for stratification of kidney transplant recipients at month one according to their expected risk of subsequent infection.

Predictive tools to determine risk of infection in kidney transplant recipients

Introduction: Infection represents a major complication after kidney transplantation (KT). Therapeutic drug monitoring is essentially the only approach for the adjustment of immunosuppression in current practice, with suboptimal results. The implementation of immune monitoring strategies may contribute to minimizing the risk of adverse events attributable to over-immunosuppression without compromising graft outcomes.Areas covered: The present review (based on PubMed/MEDLINE searches from database inception to November 2019) is focused on immune biomarkers with no antigen specificity (non-pathogen-specific), including serum levels of immunoglobulins and complement factors, peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations, soluble CD30, intracellular ATP production by stimulated CD4⁺ T-cells, and other cell-based immune assays. We also summarized recent advances in the use of replication kinetics of latent viruses to assess the functionality of T-cell immunity, with focus on the nonpathogenic anelloviruses. Finally, the composite risk scores reported in the literature are critically discussed.Expert opinion: Notable efforts have been made to develop an enlarging repertoire of immune biomarkers and prediction models, although most of them still lack technical standardization and external validation. Preventive interventions based on these tools (prolongation of prophylaxis, tapering of immunosuppression, or immunoglobulin replacement therapy in hypogammaglobulinemic patients) remain to be defined, ideally in the context of controlled trials.