Clinical Validation of an Immune Quiescence Gene Expression Signature in Kidney Transplantation

Immune monitoring in pediatric kidney transplant

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes in pediatric kidney transplantation remain suboptimal, largely related to chronic rejection. Creatinine is a late marker of renal injury, and more sensitive, early markers of allograft injury are an active area of current research.

METHODS

This is an educational review summarizing existing strategies for monitoring for rejection in kidney transplant recipients.

RESULTS

We summarize supporting currently available clinical tests, including surveillance biopsy, donor specific antibodies, and donor-derived cell free DNA, as well as the potential limitations of these studies. In addition, we review the current avenues of active research, including transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and torque tenovirus levels.

CONCLUSION

Advancing the use of noninvasive immune monitoring will depend on well-designed multicenter trials that include patients with stable graft function, include biopsy results on all patients, and can demonstrate both association with a patient-relevant clinical endpoint such as graft survival or change in glomerular filtration rate and a potential timepoint for intervention.

Role of Interleukin 1 Receptor 2 in Kidney Disease

The interleukin 1 (IL-1) family plays a significant role in the innate immune response. IL-1 receptor 2 (IL-1R2) is the decoy receptor of IL-1. It is a negative regulator that can be subdivided into membrane-bound and soluble types. IL-1R2 plays a role in the IL-1 family mainly through the following mechanisms: formation of inactive signaling complexes upon binding to the receptor auxiliary protein and inhibition of ligand IL-1 maturation. This review covers the roles of IL-1R2 in kidney disorders. Chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, lupus nephritis, IgA nephropathy, renal clear cell carcinoma, rhabdoid tumor of kidney, kidney transplantation, and kidney infection were all shown to have abnormal IL-1R2 expression. IL-1R2 may be a potential marker and a promising therapeutic target for kidney disease.

European Society of Organ Transplantation Consensus Statement on Testing for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Kidney Allograft Rejection

To address the need for improved biomarkers for kidney transplant rejection, European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) convened a dedicated working group comprised of experts in kidney transplant biomarkers to review literature pertaining to clinical and subclinical acute rejection to develop guidelines in the screening and diagnosis of acute rejection that were subsequently discussed and voted on during the Consensus Conference that took place in person in Prague. The findings and recommendations of the Working Group on Molecular Biomarkers of Kidney Transplant Rejection are presented in this article.

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.

Performance and Advancement of the Kidney Solid Organ Response Test

BACKGROUND

The kidney solid organ response test (kSORT) has been investigated for the prediction of acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients with conflicting results. We aimed to investigate if the kSORT assay score is associated with rejection or immune quiescence.

METHODS

The blinded association between rejection and kSORT > 9 were investigated. Optimization of kSORT prediction was evaluated after unblinding to determine the optimal prediction cutoff value of kSORT score. Additionally, the predictive capability of the kSORT gene set was assessed using blinded normalized gene expression data from microarray (Affymetrix) and qPCR assays.

RESULTS

Of the 95 blood samples analyzed, 18 patients had blood samples before transplant, 77 patients after transplant and 71 had clinically indicated biopsies of which 15 biopsies showed acute rejection and 16 showed chronic active antibody-mediated rejection. When 31 patients with rejection were compared to the remaining 64 patients, positive predictive value (PPV) was 54.29% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 75% when stratified using a kSORT score > 9, and PPV was 57.89% and NPV was 78.95% when stratified using a kSORT score > 5. Using the kSORT assay for detection of rejection showed an area under the curve value of 0.71. Microarray data improved prediction accuracy with PPV of 53% and NPV of 84% compared to qPCR results (PPV and NPV were 36% and 66%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The kSORT assay has the potential to be used as a predictive tool for active rejection and/or immune quiescence, but additional studies will be useful in improving and refining the kSORT assay, in particular the prediction algorithm.

Molecular immune monitoring in kidney transplant rejection: a state-of-the-art review

Although current regimens of immunosuppressive drugs are effective in renal transplant recipients, long-term renal allograft outcomes remain suboptimal. For many years, the diagnosis of renal allograft rejection and of several causes of renal allograft dysfunction, such as chronic subclinical inflammation and infection, was mostly based on renal allograft biopsy, which is not only invasive but also possibly performed too late for proper management. In addition, certain allograft dysfunctions are difficult to differentiate from renal histology due to their similar pathogenesis and immune responses. As such, non-invasive assays and biomarkers may be more beneficial than conventional renal biopsy for enhancing graft survival and optimizing immunosuppressive drug regimens during long-term care. This paper discusses recent biomarker candidates, including donor-derived cell-free DNA, transcriptomics, microRNAs, exosomes (or other extracellular vesicles), urine chemokines, and nucleosomes, that show high potential for clinical use in determining the prognosis of long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation, along with their limitations.

Diagnostic Potential of Minimally Invasive Biomarkers: A Biopsy-centered Viewpoint From the Banff Minimally Invasive Diagnostics Working Group

With recent advances and commercial implementation of minimally invasive biomarkers in kidney transplantation, new strategies for the surveillance of allograft health are emerging. Blood and urine-based biomarkers can be used to detect the presence of rejection, but their applicability as diagnostic tests has not been studied. A Banff working group was recently formed to consider the potential of minimally invasive biomarkers for integration into the Banff classification for kidney allograft pathology. We review the existing data on donor-derived cell-free DNA, blood and urine transcriptomics, urinary protein chemokines, and next-generation diagnostics and conclude that the available data do not support their use as stand-alone diagnostic tests at this point. Future studies assessing their ability to distinguish complex phenotypes, differentiate T cell-mediated rejection from antibody-mediated rejection, and function as an adjunct to histology are needed to elevate these minimally invasive biomarkers from surveillance tests to diagnostic tests.

Chronic Active Antibody-mediated Rejection in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Treatment Response Rates and Value of Early Surveillance Biopsies

There is limited information on the value of short-term invasive and noninvasive monitoring in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) undergoing therapy for chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR).

Methods

We describe response rates in patients with cAMR receiving pulse steroids/IVIG ± rituximab 3-mo after index biopsy.

Results

The study included 82 consecutive KTR. Mean time from transplant to cAMR was 10 y. Mean peritubular capillaritis (ptc), glomerulitis (g), microvascular inflammation (MVI), C4d, and cg Banff scores were 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 0.2, and 2, respectively. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine protein creatinine (UPC) ratio were 38 mL/min and 1.6 g/g, respectively. Thirty (37%) patients lost their allograft during the mean follow-up of 2.4 y. In patients treated with pulse steroids/IVIG (n = 41), response rates for eGFR, UPC, donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), and MVI were 27%, 49%, 7%, and 19%, respectively. In the pulse steroids/IVIG/rituximab group, response rates were 66%, 61%, 20%, and 69%, respectively. Univariate analysis identified response in eGFR (HR = 0.03; P = 0.001; 95% CI, 0.004-0.26), UPC (HR = 0.38; P = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.18-0.82), and DSA (HR = 0.11; P = 0.004; 95% CI, 0.02-0.49) as predictors of graft survival. Multivariate analysis only retained eGFR response (HR = 0.12; P = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.02-0.64).

Conclusions

In cAMR, short-term response to treatment for kidney function and DSA was associated with graft survival, but the role of early surveillance biopsies needs further evaluation.

Validation of a gene expression signature to measure immune quiescence in kidney transplant recipients in the CLIA setting

Aim: Allograft rejection remains a major cause of graft failure in kidney transplantation. Here the authors report the validation of a non-invasive molecular diagnostic assay, AlloMap Kidney, using peripheral blood. Methods: The AlloMap Kidney test is a gene expression profile utilizing the RNA-seq platform to measure immune quiescence in kidney transplant patients. Results/Conclusions: Analytical validation showed robust performance characteristics with an accuracy correlation coefficient of 0.997 and a precision coefficient of variation of 0.049 across testing. Clinical validation from the prospective, multi-center studies of 235 samples (66 rejection and 169 quiescence specimens) demonstrated the sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 66% for allograft rejection, while the negative predictive value was 95% to discriminate rejection from quiescence at 10% prevalence of rejection.

Non-Invasive Monitoring for Rejection in Kidney Transplant Recipients After SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination

Introduction

Studies have shown reduced antiviral responses in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, but data on post-vaccination alloimmune responses and antiviral responses against the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant are limited.

Materials and methods

To address this issue, we conducted a prospective, multi-center study of 58 adult KTRs receiving mRNA-BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines. We used multiple complementary non-invasive biomarkers for rejection monitoring including serum creatinine, proteinuria, donor-derived cell-free DNA, peripheral blood gene expression profile (PBGEP), urinary CXCL9 mRNA and de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Secondary outcomes included development of anti-viral immune responses against the wild-type and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2.

Results

At a median of 85 days, no KTRs developed de novo DSAs and only one patient developed acute rejection following recent conversion to belatacept, which was associated with increased creatinine and urinary CXCL9 levels. During follow-up, there were no significant changes in proteinuria, donor-derived cell-free DNA levels or PBGEP. 36% of KTRs in our cohort developed anti-wild-type spike antibodies, 75% and 55% of whom had neutralizing responses against wild-type and Delta variants respectively. A cellular response against wild-type S1, measured by interferon-γ-ELISpot assay, developed in 38% of KTRs. Cellular responses did not differ in KTRs with or without antibody responses.

Conclusions

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in KTRs did not elicit a significant alloimmune response. About half of KTRs who develop anti-wild-type spike antibodies after two mRNA vaccine doses have neutralizing responses against the Delta variant. There was no association between anti-viral humoral and cellular responses.