Lefaucheur, Carmen

Importance Accurate prediction of patient mortality after kidney transplant is an unmet need. Objective To develop and validate an integrative prediction model that predicts short- and long-term patient mortality for kidney recipients. Design, Setting, and Participants This international cohort study included patients who underwent transplants between 2004 and 2023 from 14 academic medical centers from Europe and the US. The derivation cohort consisted of 1566 consecutive adult kidney recipients in a deeply phenotyped cohort prospectively recruited in 1 French center between 2004 and 2014. External validation cohorts consisted of 10 951 kidney recipients from 7 centers in France, 3 centers in Europe, and 3 centers in North America who underwent kidney transplants between 2006 and 2023. Data were analyzed from January 2023 to June 2025. Main Outcome and Measures All-cause mortality was assessed, and 121 candidate prognostic factors, comprising demographics and clinical, biological, imaging, and immunological parameters, were collected. Results Among 12 517 kidney transplant recipients, including 1566 in the derivation cohort (mean [SD] age, 50.05 [14.31] years; 942 male [60.15%]) and 10 951 in validation cohorts (mean [SD] age, 53.32 [13.97] years; 6766 male [61.78%]), 2486 patients (19.9%) died after a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.08 (2.97-7.00) years. Fourteen prognostic factors (including clinical, biological, and imaging risk factors) were independently associated with patient death (eg, patient age: hazard ratio per 1-year increase in age, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.06-1.08]; P < .001) and were combined into a risk prediction model (mBox). The model exhibited accurate calibration and discrimination in the derivation cohort, with C statistics of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77-0.87) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.82) at 1 and 10 years, respectively, after the transplant. Abbreviated models were developed and validated to ensure model generalizability. Performance of abbreviated models was confirmed in external validation cohorts from France (C statistic, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.73-0.78]), Europe (C statistic, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.72-0.76]), the US (C statistic, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.70-0.78]), the Greater Paris University Hospital database (C statistic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.81]), and the University of California at San Francisco database (C statistic, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.65-0.74]). The model was also validated in a series of subpopulations (eg, women vs men: C statistic, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.77-0.84] vs 0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.82]) and clinical scenarios (eg, before COVID-19 era: C statistic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.81]) with good and stable performance. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, an accurate prediction model for mortality among kidney recipients, computable at the time of transplant, was developed and externally validated. Results suggest that this model may help stratify patient risk of death, allowing for improved medical decisions.

Significance Statement Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice. Background Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon. Methods We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators. Results A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8–35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3–59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96–629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0–6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies. Conclusions Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Abstract Background and Aims The iBox is a validated prognostication system predicting long-term kidney allograft failure. Recently, it received regulatory endorsement by EMA, for surrogate endpoint for clinical trials. As the iBox system was primarily built using a deep phenotyped cohort, there is a need for proof of validity in extended clinical scenarios, geographic distinct medico-economic cohorts and transplant allocation systems. Method 10,851 transplant recipients were included from 17 academic medical centers from France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Finland, United States, Brazil and Argentina. We applied to these cohorts the iBox algorithm that integrates eight independent prognostic factors including the time from transplantation to risk evaluation, functional parameters (eGFR, proteinuria), allograft histological lesions (IFTA, g+ptc, i+t, cg Banff scores), and circulating anti-HLA DSA. We stratified the performances of the iBox according to several real-life scenarios, including: 1) iBox + different eGFR formulas (MDRD186, MDRD175, CKD-Epi); 2) iBox + urinary dipstick; 3) iBox Functional + Structural (absence of DSA measurements); 4) iBox functional + Immunological (absence of histology); 5) iBox in response to treatment in T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR); 6) iBox for in response to treatment antibody mediated rejection (ABMR) clinical trials. The performances of the iBox system were assessed with the discrimination (C-index) and calibration. Results The derivation cohort included 4,000 recipients from France, and the international external validation cohort included 6,851 recipients from Europe (France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Finland n = 4,643), the United States (n = 1,537) and South America (Brazil, Argentina n = 671). The mean recipient age was 50.26 years (14.05) with a median follow-up after evaluations of 5.41 years [IQR: 3.26 to 7]. 1336 patients (12.31%) lost their graft during the study follow-up. The performances of the iBox were confirmed in the different real-life setting with the following C-Index: 1) iBox + different eGFR formulas (MDRD186, MDRD175, CKD-Epi) 0.81; 2) iBox + urinary dipstick 0.80; 3) iBox Functional + Structural (histology) 0.80 (derivation) and 0.84 (validation); 4) iBox functional + Immunological 0.80 (derivation) and 0.83 (validation); 5) iBox in response to treatment in T-cell mediated rejection 0.81; 6) iBox for in response to treatment antibody mediated rejection trials 0.81. The score showed an accurate calibration in every scenario. Conclusion The iBoxEXTENDED trial confirms in various medico-economic settings the performances transportability and surrogacy of the iBox system, further reinforcing its use as a surrogate end point for clinical trials including TCMR and ABMR.

Abstract Objective To compare the performance of a newly developed race-free kidney recipient specific glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equation with the three current main equations for measuring GFR in kidney transplant recipients. Design Development and validation study Setting 17 cohorts in Europe, the United States, and Australia (14 transplant centres, three clinical trials). Participants 15 489 adults (3622 in development cohort (Necker, Saint Louis, and Toulouse hospitals, France), 11 867 in multiple external validation cohorts) who received kidney transplants between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2021. Main outcome measure The main outcome measure was GFR, measured according to local practice. Performance of the GFR equations was assessed using P 30 (proportion of estimated GFR (eGFR) within 30% of measured GFR (mGFR)) and correct classification (agreement between eGFR and mGFR according to GFR stages). The race-free equation, based on creatinine level, age, and sex, was developed using additive and multiplicative linear regressions, and its performance was compared with the three current main GFR equations: Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) 2009 equation, and race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation. Results The study included 15 489 participants, with 50 464 mGFR and eGFR values. The mean GFR was 53.18 mL/min/1.73m 2 (SD 17.23) in the development cohort and 55.90 mL/min/1.73m 2 (19.69) in the external validation cohorts. Among the current GFR equations, the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation showed the lowest performance compared with the MDRD and CKD-EPI 2009 equations. When race was included in the kidney recipient specific GFR equation, performance did not increase. The race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation showed significantly improved performance compared with the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation and performed well in the external validation cohorts (P 30 ranging from 73.0% to 91.3%). The race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation performed well in several subpopulations of kidney transplant recipients stratified by race (P 30 73.0-91.3%), sex (72.7-91.4%), age (70.3-92.0%), body mass index (64.5-100%), donor type (58.5-92.9%), donor age (68.3-94.3%), treatment (78.5-85.2%), creatinine level (72.8-91.3%), GFR measurement method (73.0-91.3%), and timing of GFR measurement post-transplant (72.9-95.5%). An online application was developed that estimates GFR based on recipient’s creatinine level, age, and sex ( https://transplant-prediction-system.shinyapps.io/eGFR_equation_KTX/ ). Conclusion A new race-free kidney recipient specific GFR equation was developed and validated using multiple, large, international cohorts of kidney transplant recipients. The equation showed high accuracy and outperformed the race-free CKD-EPI 2021 equation that was developed in individuals with native kidneys. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05229939 .

Abstract The authors have requested that this preprint be removed from Research Square.

With the development of modern solid-phase assays to detect anti-HLA antibodies and a more precise histological classification, the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) has become more common and is a major cause of kidney graft loss. Currently, there are no approved therapies and treatment guidelines are based on low-level evidence. The number of prospective randomized trials for the treatment of AMR is small, and the lack of an accepted common standard for care has been an impediment to the development of new therapies. To help alleviate this, The Transplantation Society convened a meeting of international experts to develop a consensus as to what is appropriate treatment for active and chronic active AMR. The aim was to reach a consensus for standard of care treatment against which new therapies could be evaluated. At the meeting, the underlying biology of AMR, the criteria for diagnosis, the clinical phenotypes, and outcomes were discussed. The evidence for different treatments was reviewed, and a consensus for what is acceptable standard of care for the treatment of active and chronic active AMR was presented. While it was agreed that the aims of treatment are to preserve renal function, reduce histological injury, and reduce the titer of donor-specific antibody, there was no conclusive evidence to support any specific therapy. As a result, the treatment recommendations are largely based on expert opinion. It is acknowledged that properly conducted and powered clinical trials of biologically plausible agents are urgently needed to improve patient outcomes.